Case: State of Maharashtra Vs. Pandurang K. Pangare

as opposite party no. 3. Notice was issued to Shri Shah in reply to which he has filed detailed affidavit.6. A filed an application for taking proceedings in perjury against Pangare as he was deliberately misleading the Court by suppressing facts and making untrue allegations. In reply Pangare filed an affidavit denying the allegations and reiterating what was said by him in his earlier affidavits. 7. We shall take up the contempt application first. The order prohibiting any construction to be, raised over the land in dispute was passed on 17th September 1993. The question is whether this order was violated by any person and if so its effect From the facts stated above it is clear the Pangare had sold his interest and clear that Pangare had sold his interest and it was ultimately VIPL in whose favour the property was transferred sometime between January and March 1993. It further appears that this company started construction in June and July 1993. But the con- tempt application was filed against Pangare, Gupta and four other persons alleged to be Chief Promoters of the VIPL. It has been mentioned earlier that in view of the affidavits filed by them the notices issued against them were discharged. Shri Shah, the Direc tor of VIPL was impleaded in October 1994 only. Since the day he was impleaded and received the notice which was served on his counsel on the same day in the Court no construction has been carried on in the land in dispute. Therefore, even though the construction had been started by VIPL in June and July 1993 and it was continued by it even after the order was passed by this Court as stands established by the affidavits filed by the officials of A and the report of Additional District Judge, yet Shri Shah being not a party and the notice for contempt having not been served either on Shri Shah or on VIPL before November 1994, no proceedings for contempt can be taken against him. There is thus no option but to reject the contempt application against Shri Shah. 8. As regards the application for per-jury we must confess that we had been baffled by the conduct of Pang= as even though he had sold the property in favour of Shaikh who in its turn sold it in favour of Gupta and it ultimately came to VIPL yet it was Pangare who was not only appearing in this Court but was assuring through his counsel and contesting that no construction was going on the plot in dispute. The explanation of the learned counsel appearing for VIPL that Pangare filed his affidavit because a portion was still in his possession, is not convincing. In fact on 17th September 1993 and 24th September 1993 it was Pangares counsel who vehemently challenged the statement made on behalf of MHADA that any construction was going on. He has in his affidavit filed in reply to perjury, attempted to whittle down the report of the Additional District Judge by saying that it does riot indicate that construction was going on. Since Pangare had sold the property and he was not making any construction on the portion which was in his occupation there was no occasion for him to make such statement which was apt to mislead the Court. Technically speaking he may be right that he was not making any construction. But factually he was wrong as construction activity was going on in the plot. He may not be guilty of contempt or perjury but he was certainly unfair to the Court. It is not necessary to say anything further. We do not propose to take any action against him for perjury but we arc of opinion thathe should be directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10, 000/- which shall be deposited by him within one month with the Legal Aid Committee of this Court.9. This disposes of the two applications filed by MHADA. We may also express our displeasure with the casualness with which MHADA has dealt with the matter. In the affidavit filed by Pangare a.-id Shah it is stated that when Gupta purchased the land he not only notified it but even sent intimation to the MHADA. That was in 1988. Even the VIPL when it entered into an agreement of sale with Gupta is stated to have intimated the A in 19 92. But they slept over the matter. No reply has been filed in this Court about the intimation and service of notice to MHADA. Similarly we are also at pains to observe that the Municipal Council despite intimation from MHADA in 1992 that the dispute in respect of the plot no.18 was pending in the Supreme Court chose to sanction the plan of VIPL. Since sufficient material is not before us we are directing the Chairman of both MHADA and the Municipal Council to make an enquiry into the authenticity of these allegations and if it is true that MHADA was served in 1988 then why no officer appeared on its behalf and did not bring it to the notice of the Mutation Authority that dispute was pending in this Court. Similarly we also direct the Chairman, Municipal Council to look into the matter and to find out whether it was correct as stated by MHADA in its affidavit. that despite intimation by it the Municipal Council sanctioned the plan of VIPL. If it is found to b e true then both the Authorities are directed to take action against the, officials concerned and report compliance of it to this Court within six months. 10.The learned counsel for VIPL vehemently prayed that they may be permitted to complete the constructions. The prayer is rejected. We make it clear that VIPL shall not either itself or through any other person or assignee, raise any further construction nor it shall carry on any building activity in the building till the disposal of the writ petition by the High Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. As regards the application forwe must confess that we had been baffled by the conduct of Pang= as even though he had sold the property in favour of Shaikh who in its turn sold it in favour of Gupta and it ultimately came to VIPL yet it was Pangare who was not only appearing in this Court but was assuring through his counsel and contesting that no construction was going on the plot in dispute. The explanation of the learned counsel appearing for VIPL that Pangare filed his affidavit because a portion was still in his possession, is not convincing. In fact on 17th September 1993 and 24th September 1993 it was Pangares counsel who vehemently challenged the statement made on behalf of MHADA that any construction was going on. He has in his affidavit filed in reply to perjury, attempted to whittle down the report of the Additional District Judge by saying that it does riot indicate that construction was going on. Since Pangare had sold the property and he was not making any construction on the portion which was in his occupation there was no occasion for him to make such statement which was apt to mislead the Court. Technically speaking he may be right that he was not making any construction. But factually he was wrong as construction activity was going on in the plot. He may not be guilty of contempt or perjury but he was certainly unfair to the Court. It is not necessary to say anything further. We do not propose to take any action against him for perjury but we arc of opinion thathe should be directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10, 000/which shall be deposited by him within one month with the Legal Aid Committee of this Court.9. This disposes of the two applications filed by MHADA. We may also express our displeasure with the casualness with which MHADA has dealt with the matter. In the affidavit filed by PangareShah it is stated that when Gupta purchased the land he not only notified it but even sent intimation to the MHADA. That was in 1988. Even the VIPL when it entered into an agreement of sale with Gupta is stated to have intimated the A in 19 92. But they slept over the matter. No reply has been filed in this Court about the intimation and service of notice to MHADA. Similarly we are also at pains to observe that the Municipal Council despite intimation from MHADA in 1992 that the dispute in respect of the plot no.18 was pending in the Supreme Court chose to sanction the plan of VIPL. Since sufficient material is not before us we are directing the Chairman of both MHADA and the Municipal Council to make an enquiry into the authenticity of these allegations and if it is true that MHADA was served in 1988 then why no officer appeared on its behalf and did not bring it to the notice of the Mutation Authority that dispute was pending in this Court. Similarly we also direct the Chairman, Municipal Council to look into the matter and to find out whether it was correct as stated by MHADA in its affidavit. that despite intimation by it the Municipal Council sanctioned the plan of VIPL. If it is found to b e true then both the Authorities are directed to take action against the, officials concerned and report compliance of it to this Court within six months.This disposes of the two applications filed by MHADA. We may also express our displeasure with the casualness with which MHADA has dealt with the matter. In the affidavit filed by Pangareh it is stated that when Gupta purchased the land he not only notified it but even sent intimation to the MHADA. That was in 1988. Even the VIPL when it entered into an agreement of sale with Gupta is stated to have intimated the A in 19 92. But they slept over the matter. No reply has been filed in this Court about the intimation and service of notice to MHADA. Similarly we are also at pains to observe that the Municipal Council despite intimation from MHADA in 1992 that the dispute in respect of the plot no.18 was pending in the Supreme Court chose to sanction the plan of VIPL. Since sufficient material is not before us we are directing the Chairman of both MHADA and the Municipal Council to make an enquiry into the authenticity of these allegations and if it is true that MHADA was served in 1988 then why no officer appeared on its behalf and did not bring it to the notice of the Mutation Authority that dispute was pending in this Court. Similarly we also direct the Chairman, Municipal Council to look into the matter and to find out whether it was correct as stated by MHADA in its affidavit. that despite intimation by it the Municipal Council sanctioned the plan of VIPL. If it is found to b e true then both the Authorities are directed to take action against the, officials concerned and report compliance of it to this Court within sixlearned counsel for VIPL vehemently prayed that they may be permitted to complete the constructions. The prayer is rejected. We make it clear that VIPL shall not either itself or through any other person or assignee, raise any further construction nor it shall carry on any building activity in the building till the disposal of the writ petition by the High Court.