'Judicial Time & Resources Abused': Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs.5 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Supressing Facts, Filing Repeated Pleas

The Punjab & Haryana High Court imposed a cost of Rs.5 lakh on litigant who repeatedly abused the process of court by filing successive pleas and suppressed “crucial fact.”The plea was filed challenging the resumption order of a land which was allotted to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. The Court found that the petitioner did not full fill the conditions and filed successive petitions, suppressing facts and pleading ignorance.A bench of Justice Arun Palli and Justice Vikram Aggarwal said, “the case of the petitioner is based upon falsehood, clearly there was/is a conscious and calculated suppression of crucial facts as also the orders passed by this Court, the successive petitions filed and withdrawn by the petitioner reveal that he was circumventive, artful and insidious, and, indeed, abused the judicial process to the hilt. Often, particularly of late, the judicial process, time, resources and infrastructure are abused by unscrupulous and litigious.”The Court raised concern over litigants waiting for their turn while Court's time is wasted.“At the cost of a litigant, pursuing a genuine cause, who quietly wait for his/her turn to mature, with unflinching faith and trust, even though the previous generation perished, while pursuing the cause,” said the Court.These observations were made while challenging a resumption order issued by Haryana Government for non compliance of conditions.After examining the submissions, the Court noted that the land was alloted to the petitioner subject to certain conditions wherein he was required to start construction of a building within a period of one year, as per the approved building plans, from the issuance of letter of allotment/offer of possessiEven after 4 years the petitioner had not even submitted the building plans, leave alone constructing the site, and start production, per the terms of allotment, it added.Resultantly, in 2005 he was served with a show cause notice, under Section 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, for resumption and forfeiture.After the resumption proceedings had already been initiated and a show cause notice dated 01.08.2005 was issued, the Court noted that petitioner hurried to submit the building plans on 12.08.2005. And also managed to obtain the actual/physical possession of the site on 14.09.2005. The bench further highlighted that the resumption order was challenged before the appellate authority.In its order the appellate authority found that the petitioner proceeded the construction on the resumed site and the Estate Officer failed to safeguard its property.However, it stated now that the site had been fully constructed, the order of resumption was set aside. Accordingly, the site was restored, subject, however, to certain conditions including that petitioner would pay the extension fee and other dues, and start production within six months, failing which, the order of resumption would come into force automatically.The petitioner again failed to complied with the conditions and the order was challenged in revisional authority. The revisional authority said that the construction was done by a GPA holder, in connivance with the officials, illegally carried out the entire construction. The original allottee was nowhere in the picture. Though the subject site was allotted to set up a specific industry, but it was constructed for residential purposes. But still, being cognizant that resumption is the last resort, and before passing the formal orders, on 19.04.2011, directed the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat, to ascertain, if any industrial unit was actually being run at site. The Officer found that no plants or machineries were installed in the premises either. The building was lying closed permanently.Consequently, the Revisional Authority set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Further, the Chief Administrator, HUDA, was directed to hold an enquiry, as to how, the building plans were sanctioned, resumed site was allowed to be constructed. The Authority also opined that delinquent officers should be punished.The petitioner did not challenged the revisional authority order but chosed to file pleas questioning the resumption order.The division bench noted that the petitioner filed successive five petitions before the High Court and supressed crucial facts.Speaking for the bench Justice Arun Palli said that “power of resumption is to be used only as the last resort”, however, in conspectus of the factual position obtaining in this case, quite clearly resumption was the only and the inevitable option.For abusing “judicial process, time, resources and infrastructure”, the Court dismissed the plea with a cost of Rs. 5 lakh.Title: Naveen Kumar Batra v. State of Haryana and othersClick here to read/download the order

'Judicial Time & Resources Abused': Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs.5 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Supressing Facts, Filing Repeated Pleas

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags