Courts Flooded With Litigations, No Time For Frivolous Petitions: Rajasthan HC Imposes ₹25 Lakh Cost On Party For Concealing Relevant Facts

Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur, while directing the petitioner to deposit a cost of Rs. 25,00,000/- with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, observed,

"This case is a classic example where petitioner has taken the entire judicial system for a ride as before the Board of Revenue, he never disclosed that the writ petition filed by him has already been dismissed and further while filing of the present writ petition, he has not disclosed as what transpired in earlier round of litigation. This conduct of the petitioner is required to be deprecated by this Court."

The court opined that on one hand all the Courts are flooded with so much litigation that they find it difficult to decide the rights of the aggrieved parties who are genuinely approaching the Court and on the other hand, the Courts are dealing with such persons, who file frivolous writ petitions and take the Court for granted by not disclosing the complete facts.

The court also observed that this practice is required to be deprecated. The court added that this is a classic example of sheer misuse of Courts of law by the petitioner and accordingly,  it opined that not only the petition is required to be dismissed but the heavy cost is also required to be imposed on the petitioner for suppressing the basic facts. The wastage of Judicial time of this Court in frivolous litigation, also requires to be dealt with in a strict manner, added the court.

It was also observed by the court that concealment of facts or not disclosing the complete relevant facts, leads to a situation, where the Court is misled to believe certain facts, which are not obtained. The fate of any case is dependent on the pleadings of the parties and for fulfilling basic requirements of pleadings, the party has to write relevant & correct facts before the Court and no facts should be concealed from the Court, added the court.

Background

The Sub Divisional Officer, Baran dropped the proceedings for acquiring land in excess of ceiling limit under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, as no land in excess of ceiling limit was found with Devilal-father of the petitioner. Later in 1983, the Additional Collector (Revenue) Baran, reopened the ceiling proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Act and found that the land was in excess of the ceiling limit. The challenge against this was dismissed by the Board of Revenue in 1988.

After Devilal's death in 1989, the High Court allowed the application of the original petitioner to implead them as legal representatives. The High Court in 2001, by speaking order, dismissed the the contentions raised on behalf of the original petitioner through his legal representatives and upheld the orders passed by Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran and Board of Revenue.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue challenging the order of Additional Collector. The Board of Revenue on 18.06.2009, while dismissing the appeal, mentioned the fact of filing an appeal by father of the petitioner-Devilal and without disclosing such fact in the memo of appeal, the petitioner had filed appeal before the Board of Revenue. Later, in the present petition, this Court on 17.08.2009 directed that the status quo be maintained with regard to the land in question.

The petitioners pleaded that the Additional Collector (Revenue), after lapse of eight years of dropping of proceedings of acquisition of land on the basis of letters of the State Government, reopened the Ceiling Case under Section 15 (2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1973 and issued notices to late Devilal, father of the petitioner and no notice of re-opening of the case was given to the petitioner.

However, the respondents alleged that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner does not disclose the fact of earlier order of Board of Revenue, passed against the father of the petitioner and the same being challenged in the writ petition filed by father of the petitioner in this court. It was added that the petitioner in entire writ petition has taken the plea of the knowledge of order of Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran, by mentioning that Patwar Halka in the year 2001, when came to the land in question, where the petitioner learnt first time about the order which was passed by the Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran, in the year 1983.

Court's Observations

The court said that if the petitioner was allowed to become legal representative along with his brother and his two sisters, it was incumbent on the petitioner to disclose the fact of filing of such petition, impleadment of petitioner as legal representative and final decision passed by this Court on 24.07.2001.

It was added by the court,

"This Court finds that non-disclosure of complete facts in the writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dis-entitles the petitioner to seek any equitable relief, conduct of any petitioner is of a great importance and relevance and if any litigant conceals/suppresses the facts from the knowledge of the Court, such person does not deserve any indulgence of any kind and on the contrary, such unscrupulous and disgruntled litigant needs to be dealt with by this Court in proper manner."

The court stated that the issues which are now sought to be raised by the petitioner in the writ petition have already been dealt with by this Court by speaking order and as such, the findings have become final and binding on the parties. Relying on principle of res judicata, the court opined that it will not try any suit or issue in which the matter directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim has been decided.

Further, it was added by the court that the petitioner himself became a party in place of his father and the same issues questioning the legality of order passed by the Additional Collector and the Board of Revenue, have been finally decided, no right can accrue to the petitioner to raise the same issues before this Court again and the issues which have been finally heard and decided, will not be allowed to be re-opened.

Moreover, the court noted that the land was in the name of the father of the petitioner and as on 01.04.1966, if the father of the petitioner was having a particular number of units for claiming the benefit of saving the land from ceiling proceedings, necessary notice was required to be issued to the father of the petitioner-Devilal and he was given the said notice.

In addition to this, the court observed that if the letter which has been issued by the State Government, alleging that the interest of the State has been affected due to order passed by the SDO, then the Additional Collector, after taking into account the actual family members of late Devilal, rightly passed the order.

Adv. Harshita Sharma on behalf of Adv. Dr. Mahesh Sharma appeared for the petitioner. Additional Government Counsel Akshay Sharma appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Case Title: Kastur Chand v. The Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors.

Citations: LiveLaw 2022 (Raj) 232