Rs 20000 cost imposed on appellants
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Mar 27: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal has made it clear that unscrupulous litigants attempting to abuse the process of court should be ready to face the consequences and parties should desist from concealing the material facts in order to maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in the law courts.
Moreover, the Division Bench has imposed Rs 20000 cost on the appellants for taking contradictory stands according to their own convenience and knowingly making false statements with a view to get favourable order.
The Division Bench was dealing with Letters Patent Appeal filed by Sukhdev Singh and Romesh Singh, sons of Mohinder Singh of village Najwal in Pargwal tehsil of Jammu district challenging judgment dated February 19, 2024 passed by the Writ Court whereby their petition was dismissed and order of the Deputy Commissioner (District Collector) Jammu dated February 3, 2024 by virtue of which Mutation No.42 dated October 3, 2005 was set-aside.
It was the submission of the appellants before the Division Bench that they were never heard by the District Magistrate while passing the impugned order whereby land measuring 3 kanals and 6 marlas has been escheated to State. Moreover, he was not competent to assume the jurisdiction of revision.
After hearing Advocate G S Thakur for the appellants and Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli for the UT, Deputy Commissioner Jammu and Tehsildar Pargwal, the Division Bench observed, “the order has been passed by the Collector under Land Revenue Act on a representation moved by the appellants/petitioners seeking correction of the revenue records. However, it is not clear in the impugned order as to whether the Collector has exercised powers under Land Revenue Act or exercised administrative powers vested in him”.
“As far as Section 11 of J&K Land Revenue Act is concerned, an appeal shall lie from an original or appellate order of a Revenue officer. Since, the order impugned seems to be an original order and not an appellate one, an appeal under Section 11 should be preferred by a person aggrieved of such an order”, the DB said, adding “a bare perusal of Section 11 of the Land Revenue Act would indicate that against any order passed by the Collector whether it is original or appellate is appealable before the Divisional Commissioner”.
However, the appellants/petitioners without availing the alternate and efficacious remedy provided under the statute had straight way filed the writ petition which came to be dismissed on this count alone and feeling aggrieved of the same, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
“From the perusal of the record, it is manifestly clear that the appellants/petitioners have tried to give colour to the order impugned dated 03.02.2024, before the Writ Court by projecting that the order impugned has been passed by District Collector under Section 13 of J&K Land Revenue Act, 1996 while exercising powers of review on the administrative side. However, the appellants have taken altogether a different stand by projecting that the order impugned has been passed under Section 15 of J&K Land Revenue Act, 1996, while exercising revisional powers”, the DB said.
“We are of the view that even the ground that Collector has no jurisdiction to pass the order, is not available to the appellants/petitioners more particularly, when the appellants/petitioners have themselves approached the Collector for exercising the original jurisdiction. Had the order been favourable to the appellants, they wouldn’t have any grievance and it was only when the order has gone against them, they have filed the petition before the Writ Court and subsequently appeal before this court by taking two contradictory stands just to mislead this court”, the DB observed.
The DB said, “law is well-settled that a litigant approaching an authority or a court cannot take two different stands as per his/her own convenience and cannot be allowed to plead in appellate court what he has not pleaded before the Writ Court and cannot go beyond pleadings”, adding “since, the appellants have taken two contradictory stands according to their own convenience and have tried to mislead this court with a view to get favorable order, we deem it proper to burden the appellants with costs with a view to deprecate such practice of unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court”.
The DB further said, “in order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits”.
“If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning proper lesson”, the DB said, adding “there is a compelling need to take serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice”.
Stating that there was no legal infirmity with the observation of the Single Judge, the DB upheld the order of the Writ Court and dismissed the appeal. Moreover, the DB has burdened the appellants with a cost of Rs 20,000 to be deposited in the Advocate’s Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
