Litigant Who Withholds Material Facts Or Attempts To Mislead Court Forfeits His Right To Be Heard On Merits: J&K&L High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
17 Dec 2025 9:26 PM IST
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Monday (15 December) observed that litigant who withholds or suppresses material facts while approaching the Court disentitles himself from being heard on merits and cannot seek or claim any equitable or discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal made this observation while dismissing two connected writ petitions, seeking conferment of proprietary rights over Nazool land at Sheikh Bagh, Srinagar, and challenging eviction proceedings initiated under the Public Premises Act.
“This Court is constrained to record that the petitioners haveindulged in deliberate and conscious suppression of material facts. Their previous writ petitions, OWP No. 2336/2018 and OWPNo. 383/2019, were withdrawn immediately after the respondents filedtheir replies, yet this vital fact has been intentionally concealedinthe present proceedings. Such conduct is not a mere omissionbut acalculated attempt to mislead this Court and to get interimrelief bydeception. A litigant who attempts to secure orders of the Court bysuppressing material facts forfeits all right to be heard, let alonetoseek equitable or discretionary relief under Article 226. This Court cannot permit its process to be abused in such a brazen manner, andthe petitioners' conduct warrants not only dismissal of the petitionbut also imposition of exemplary and deterrent costs,” Court observed.
Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to claim parity with leaseholders granted ownership rights under Government Order No. Rev/NDK/248 of 1981, as they were not lessees on the date of issuance of the said order. The Court further upheld the eviction notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner Nazool, holding that the petitioners had rendered themselves unauthorized occupants after expiry of their lease and failure to seek renewal.
Background
The dispute pertained to a leased property measuring five marlas at Sheikh Bagh, Srinagar, originally leased to the predecessors of the petitioners. While the lease expired in 1974, it was later renewed in 1982. The petitioners sought conferment of proprietary rights under the 1981 Government Order, contending that similarly situated leaseholders had been granted ownership on concessional rates.
However, in 2005, only three marlas and 269 sq. ft. of land were regularised in favour of the petitioners under the J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership Rights) Act, 2001 (Roshni Act), at a much higher rate. Aggrieved, the petitioners alleged discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
During the pendency of the matter, eviction proceedings were initiated against them under the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988, prompting the filing of the another writ petition.
Court's Findings
Rejecting the claim for proprietary rights under the 1981 Government Order, the Court held that eligibility under the said order was confined to those who were lessees at the relevant time. Since the petitioners' lease had expired in 1974 and was renewed only in 1982, they fell outside its ambit.
The Court further noted that the petitioners had voluntarily applied under the Roshni Act, which constituted a separate and distinct statutory regime, and therefore could not seek parity with beneficiaries under the 1981 Government Order.
Importantly, the Court emphasized that the Roshni Act had already been declared void ab initio by a Division Bench in Prof. S.K. Bhalla v. State of J&K. Consequently, any proprietary rights claimed by the petitioners on the basis of regularisation under the said Act were held to be legally non-existent.
On the issue of eviction, the Court found that after expiry of the lease in 2014 and non-renewal thereof, the petitioners became unauthorized occupants. The eviction notice issued under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises Act was held to be within the statutory competence of the Estate Officer and free from illegality.
The Court came down heavily on the petitioners for deliberate suppression of material facts, noting that they had earlier filed and withdrawn two writ petitions after replies were filed by the State, a fact consciously concealed in the present proceedings.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments including K.D. Sharma v. SAIL and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., the Court observed that a litigant who approaches the writ court with unclean hands forfeits the right to any equitable or discretionary relief.
While terming the case fit for exemplary costs, the Court refrained from imposing the same, taking into account the advanced age of the petitioners, but issued a stern warning against abuse of the judicial process.