IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.597 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 01.02.2011 Parmod Kumar and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.1534 of 2011 Application allowed, affidavit is taken on record. CWP No.597 of 2011 This writ petition has been filed to impugne notifications, issued on 2.6.2009 and 31.5.2010, respectively under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act). Vide those notifications, a vast tract of land measuring more than 1000 acres, falling in five villages, including village Badshapur, was proposed to be acquired. The petitioners are the owners of land measuring 2 kanal 10 marla. In this writ petition, it is their case that in the land, mentioned above, they had raised structures, in which, they are living and using the same as a residential house. Paragraph No.5 of the writ petition reads thus:- Civil Writ Petition No.597 of 2011(O&M) “5. That ever since the petitioners purchased the land in question prior to the instant acquisition proceedings, details of which shall be given hereinafter, the business of Oil Mill has been marginally reduced. The petitioners have started using the said premises of the Oil Mills for their residential purposes ever since 2001-02. True copies of the Khasra Girdwaris in this regard are annexed herewith as Annexure P-5. The petitioners have also been issued a Ration Card on the aforesaid address, a true copy of which is also annexed herewith as Annexure P6. The petitioners have also obtained an electricity connection from the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam vide consumer No.SD-1619, original of which is annexed herewith as Annexure P7.” It is specific case of the petitioners that they are using an abandoned oil mill for their residential purpose since from the year 2001- 2002. To strengthen the above said fact, reliance was placed upon entries in the khasra girdawaris and also in a ration card issued in their favour. It was further stated that the petitioners had got installed an electricity connection in that house. To support above fact, reliance was placed upon on document (P7) i.e. copies of the electricity bills, issued in the month of October 2010 onwards. When the matter was heard on 13.1.2011, after taking note of the photographs at page 76-A and 76-B (P4), we were not satisfied that the petitioners are using the structure in question as their residential house. Orally, we asked the counsel to clarify the position. In response thereto, by moving C.M. No.694 of 2011, fresh photographs were put on record. Comparison of those photographs with the earlier one, made us suspicious. 2 Civil Writ Petition No.597 of 2011(O&M) With that application, an affidavit of Parmod Kumar petitioner No.1 was also put on record, in which, it was specifically stated that petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 have no other residential house in the entire country except building in dispute. It was further stated that recent photographs of the building were annexed with the application, to which, we have referred in earlier part of this order. We were tentatively of the opinion that an attempt has been made to create false evidence during pendency of this writ petition. In view of above, on 17.1.2011, following order was passed by this Court:- “After looking at the photographs, which were attached with the writ petition at the time of its filing and now placed on record vide aforesaid application, it gives an impression that an attempt has been made to mislead the Court. By putting some articles in the unoccupied building, an attempt has been made to show that the building is a residential house of the petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4. To adjudge authenticity of the averments made by the petitioners in their photographs, we direct them to put on record evidence of electricity consumption for the last six months with a specific affidavit as to whether any bill was paid during this period and how much. In the affidavit, it be also stated whether electric connection is operative or not.” In response to that order, another affidavit of Parmod Kumar dated 20.1.2011 was put on record. Paragraph No.2 of that affidavit reads thus:- “That in pursuance of the order dated 17.1.2011 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the petitioners crave the indulgence of this 3 Civil Writ Petition No.597 of 2011(O&M) Hon’ble Court to bring on record five electricity bills of the past eight months in respect of the domestic electricity meters installed in the premises in question, as Annexure P-20.” In our order dated 17.1.2011, we specifically asked the petitioners to supply information as to whether any payment has been made against electricity bills for the last six months and how much. No answer to that query was made available in the affidavit, mentioned above. Matter was again adjourned to today. By moving C.M. No.1534 of 2011, an additional affidavit of Parmod Kumar petitioner No.1 has been put on record. Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the affidavit read thus:- “2. That in pursuance of the order dated 17.1.2011 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the petitioners have already produced on record five electricity bills of the past eight months in respect of the domestic electricity consumed by the petitioners. The said bills were obtained by the petitioners from the Record Room of the DHBVN Office at Badshapur inasmuch as the said bills were never delivered to them and as such the same were not paid. However, the petitioners have now paid the entire arrears arising out of the said bills. 3. That the petitioners had not paid the arrears of the electricity consumption since 2008 inasmuch as no electricity bills were delivered to them. The electricity meter installed in the premises of the petitioners is operating. The reading shown in the bills is not based on the minimum charges but it is based on actual consumption of the electricity. No disconnection of the electricity supply has taken place ever 4 Civil Writ Petition No.597 of 2011(O&M) since its installation in the year 2002. The meter is running and showing consumption ever since then.” In this affidavit, it is stated that electricity bills for the earlier period were not delivered to the petitioners. The petitioners got copies of the bills from the department and payment has now been made against those electricity bills. On asking, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the payment, in fact, was made on 20.1.2011. There are four petitioners, they are supposed to have a huge family, a perusal of the copy of the electricity bills put on record indicates that consumption of electricity is to the minimum, which further strengthen our belief that the building, in question was not used by the petitioners as their residential house. The facts mentioned above clearly indicate that averment of the petitioners to the extent that they are residing in the building in question and using it as their residential house, is false. At the time of arguments, it was also admitted by the petitioners that they own a residential house within the abadi of village Badshapur. It appears that a false averment was made in the writ petition stating that building, in question is the only residential house of the petitioners with a view to get benefit of the Policy dated 26.10.2007 (P14), on which reliance has been placed. Condition No.2, to exempt land from acquisition, reads thus:- “2. Any request or application where structures have been constructed will only be considered for the release under Section 48(1) provided the structure exists prior to Section 4 and is inhabited.” A false plea was taken very casually without realizing that the Court may probe the facts on record. When the questions were asked to the 5 Civil Writ Petition No.597 of 2011(O&M) petitioners, then they started creating evidence by putting on record fresh photographs, in which an attempt was made to show the house as a residential house by removing wild grass and putting some articles of daily use in the building. Contention of the petitioners that electricity bills were not delivered to them is also not believable. If the petitioners are using this building as their residential house, it cannot be presumed that electricity department would not deliver electricity bills to them at the given address. Furthermore, to show that building in question is a residential house of the petitioners, reliance was placed upon a copy of the ration card (P6). Perusal of the document indicates that the said ration card was issued in the name of Hoshiar Singh who is not a party in this writ petition and furthermore, it relates to House No.1287, Bara Bazar, Badshapur. This clearly indicates that the said ration card was issued regarding another residential house of the petitioners, existence of which has now been admitted at the time of arguments however, it was not so mentioned in the writ petition. Not only as above, at the time of arguments, inadvertently, a copy of the ration card, issued in the name of Navin - petitioner No.4 was handed over to us, which clearly indicates that he is residing in House No.2425, Bara Bazar, Badshapur. This clearly shows that false plea was taken regarding existence of only one house in abadi of village Badshahpur. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an equitable jurisdiction. If a litigant puts any false plea and creates an evidence to get relief from the Court, he is to be dealt with sternly. What treatment should be given to such like litigants, an answer was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114, in which, it was held as under:- 6 Civil Writ Petition No.597 of 2011(O&M) “A party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case. A person who invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.” In the case of Dalip Singh (Supra), a reference was made to the observations made by the Supreme Court in , Prestige Lights Ltd. V. SBI, (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 449, in which, it was observed that:- “In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the 7 Civil Writ Petition No.597 of 2011(O&M) matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.” In view of false plea taken by the petitioners, it is not necessary for us to look into grievance of the petitioners on merits. As per facts mentioned above, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of ` 20,000/-. The petitioners are directed to deposit the amount of costs with the Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Sector 9, Chandigarh, within 15 days from today, failing which the Secretary shall initiate the necessary recovery proceedings. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 01.02.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 8