>·

SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ORS.

v.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS .

. AUGUST ~1, 1994

[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Practice and Procedure--Constitution of India, Article 136-New plea

in appeal on the basis

off abricated document made part of record for the

first time in the Supreme

Courl-Held, a case of blatant abuse of the process.

of court-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 41 Rule 27.

A

B

c

Cos(j-Writ Petition and Civil Appeal questioning land acquisition

proteedings after notification already finally upheld

by the Supreme Court

earlier-Held, blatant abuse

of process of the court deserving dismissal with

exemplary costs

of one lakh each to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid

Committee-Supreme

Court Rules, 1966-Constitution of India, Articles 32, D

142. .

Pursuant to a notification in 1960 under S.4 of the Rajasthan Land

Acquisition Act, 1953, an award was niade and the lands of B were acquired

and posession handed over to the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) in E

April, 1971. B sold the lands to A and his partner S who in turn sold it to

Appollo Co-operative Housing Society in February, 1970. In May, 1971

Appollo sold the plots to the Appellant. S's Writ Petition challenging the

acquisition failed before the High

Court and the notification

wa~ upheld

finally by the Supreme Court in 1975. ·

F

Claiming that the Chairman, Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur had

offered the land for sale to Appollo which had been accepted, unauthorised

construction was started on the land. When JDA resisted this, appellants

unsuccessfully moved the civil court for a perpetual injunction. Observing

that Appollo did ·not have title, the High Court also dismissed the Civil G

Revision Petition in February, 1986. ln.1988, when JDA began demolishing

the structures, the appellants tiled a writ petition which was dismissed

by

the High

Court.

In the Supreme Court the Appellants produced for the first time an

order dated November 4, 1985 whereby the Additional Collector (South) H

1

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A purported to convert agricultural lands to a non-agricultural. It was urged

that since the plots

had not been handed over to JDA yet, it continued to

vest in government. The Collector

had regularised the construction by

receiving conversion charges and thereby the title in the land stood vested

in the appellants. In a separate writ petition under

Afticle 32, the Appel-

B

lants challenged the S.4 notification.

Dismissing the Appeal

and Writ Petition with exemplary costs, this

Court

HELD : 1. The order of regularisation purported to have been made

C on November 4, 1985 appears to be a propped up document brought on

record for the first time. Not only a new case has been set up on the basis

of a fabricated document

but it is also pressed into service for

considera­

tion by the Court. The case, therefore, is absolutely a case of blatant abuse

of the process of the court. [6-G,

7-B]

D 2.1. The appeal is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs of

E

F

G

rupees one lakh. [7-C]

2.2. The writ petition is also a blatant abuse of process of the court

and stands dismissed with exemplary costs of rupees one lakh. [7-D]

2.3. The costs should be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid

Committee. In case of non-payment, the Legal Aid Committee is free to

have

it recovered by execution of the order. [7-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE

JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5802 of

1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.88 of the Rajasthan High

Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 2956of1988.

·WITH

Writ Petition (C) No. 423 of 1989.

(Under Article 32 of·the Constitution of India.)

P.R. Kumaramangalam, Vipin Gogia, Pavan Kumar, G.L. Parikh and

H S.K. Jain for the Petitioners.

,.

•

SHANTI DEVI v. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY, J.)

Mrs. Pratibha Jai,. for the Petitioner/Respondent.· A

V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, B.D. Sharma and

Aruneshwar Gupta for the Respondents. · •

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

'•;'

-, .. B

{ ;·."-.,

K. RAMASWAMY, J. Leave granted.

NotIBcation under section 4 of the Rajasthan LandAal~ition'Act

24 of 1953 (for short 'the'Act') ~ p;,blished in th~ State Ga2ett~ ori May

13, 1960 aequirirtg large tracts ofland irib!Uding the 13nd fu. Kh~ia N'6{-i61,

263-267, 269, 270, 272, 273, 520 and 52l'~ii;I~ted in BhojparaVmage ~hii:h C

is now part of Jaipur city for planned dev~lop~ont. Declaratio;, under s.6

was published on May 11, 1961. Following the procedure, an award was

made on January 9, 1964. Po~eSsio.{ was taken on April 6, 1971 and\vas

handed over to tbe Jaipur UrbanDevelopment Aulhorily 0n the'same day

under a duly drawn panchzlama, Thu5 the title in the property of Bli~lal, D

the original owner w'as divested' and stood vestec! in the' Jaipiir Urban

Development Authoriijfree fro~ 3l!'encumbrancCi;. Bamidliai Agga..W!.t

and his partner Surajmat'pW:cfuiSed tbe lands from the Kfuieda! BhudaI

who in turn sold on February 28, 1970 to Appollo Cooperaii~e HoQSWg

Society. A writ peittlon wasfiled by SurajnkJ qnesiioning'the acqtiisitici'n:. E.

The Single Judge bY hiS judgment dated March 31, 1971 dismissed the writ

petition

which

WaS ciinfirined in appeal on April 12, 1973, aported in AIR

(1974) Raj. 116. On further appeal to ihiS Court, this co.;J.t dismissed the

appeal on September 17, 1974 reported inlndrapuri (iriha Ninnan Stihkilri

Samiti Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1975) 4 SCC 296, Thus the

notification under s.4(1)' stood' confirmed. The Apollo Nagai" Housing ·F

. Society said to hiiv~ sold the plots to !hf: appellants ari& allotted the same

on

May 31.,'

1971.'It would 'appear tkt outing the pendency c( the :writ

petition and .writ appeal stay of'dispos5eSsiori WaS obtiiined and it was

clainied that the Chairman U.l.T., Jaipur had offered 3notment of the lands

to the APpollo Nagar HoUsing SocietY on J.;,tuary 5,"1972@ Rs: 8 per sq. G

yard whii:h Appollo was claimed to have accepted ori January 15, J912 and

started construction· on th~ lanct When the MWisif Magistrate was moved

for stay of unauthorised corisinicticin, ultimately petition'was dismissed.

But when the Urban Developihent Authority resisted their constructlon

they invoked the jurisdiction on the Civil Court by filing a suit for perpetual

1

injunction. Ultimately in Civil Revision No. 769 of 1985 dated February 14, 'H

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S,C.R.

A 1986, the High Court dismissed the revision with certain observatio.ns to

wit that Appollo Nagar Greh Nirman Sehkari Samiti. had neither prima

facie nor had balance of convenience been proved nor had irreparable loss

that would

be caused been established.

B

c

On August 30, 1988 when the Jaipur Development Authority started

demolition of the structures, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 2956 of

1988 · and sought for declaration that the land in question stood acquired

or construction regularised in their favour and for perpetual injunction to

restrain the respondents from interfering with their constructions in respect

of their plots. It may be relevant to mention at this juncture that the

appellants amended the writ petition and also filed additional affidavit.

In

the writ petition the case set up was that the government invited,

by public

notice, applications for conversion of the agricultural lands into urban

lands and regularisation of the construction made thereon and pursuant

thereto they had depositecJ the total sum of Rs. 91006.58 p. The government

D had accepted the same. A letter in proof thereof was issued by the Addl.

Collector (South) on November 22, 1985 and marked in the High Court as

Annexure-8. And it was also pleaded that the appellants were hopeful that

the government would deacquire the property and regularise the un­

authorised construction they had made. Instead, the respondents had

E

chosen to demolish part of their construction on August

30, 1988 and

repeated the demolition of the remaining construction by August

31, 1988.

The Division Bench of the

High Court in the impugned judgment dated

November

26, 1988 dismissed the writ petition. Thus this appeal by special

leave.

F

Sri Rangarajan Kumaramangalam, the learned couns!fl for the appel-

lants contended that the Addl. Collector in his proceeding dated November

4,

1985 converted the agricultural lands into non-agriculatural lands and

allotted the lands to the appellants under Rajasthan Land Revenue Allot­

ment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Lands Rules,

1981 for

G short 'the Rules'.

Under s. 17A of the Act, unless by an order, possession

is transferred to J.D.A., the land remains to be the property of the

government, though the Collector had acquired the land and taken posses­

sion under

s. 16 or 17 and make over to the local authority upon payment

of the cost of the acquisition.

So the land did not vest in the J.D.A., local

authority. There

is no evidence placed on record that J.DA. had paid the

H cost of the acquisition to the state and an order of transfer was made by

•

,.

SHANTI DEVI v. STATE [K RAMASWAMY, J.] 5

the Collector in its favour. The land, therefore, continues to vest in the A

government. The Add.I. Collector as a delegate of.the Collector under the

Rules had regularised the construction by the receiving conversion charges

etc. Thereby the title in the land stood vested in the appellants and that

they are the owners. The action taken by the respondents in demolishing

their house3 or attempt of demolition of part thereof is illegal, unwarranted

B

and unauthorised. The High Court, therefore, committed error of law in

dismissing the writ petition in this behalf. It is also contended that the

appellants are challenging the very notification issued under s.4(1) in the

writ petition.

Having given our anxious consideration to the contention, our prim.a C

f acie view was that the contention is unexceptionble and that the appellants

have a case for interference. But, when

we went deep into 'the facts it

shocked our conscience to notice that the order of regularisation by the

Addl. Collector, Jaipur (South) puported to have been made on November

4, 1985 appeared to be a propped up document brought on record for the D

first time in this Court. That document had never seen the light of the day

when proceedings in two stages were pending in the High Court and a new

case, for the first time, has been advanced before us on its foundation.

It

is seen that in the High Court, though the appellants had opportunity which

they availed of and to amend the pleadings and file additional affidavit,

1,. f.,

had not pleaded that the Add.I. Collector had converted the agricultur&;._ "E

lands into urban lands regularised the authorised constructions and thaC'

allotment of the government plots of land was made in their favour nor was

it argued before the division bench. Though we have doubt whether Add.I.

Collector could allot government land after regularisation under the Rules,

we need not go into nor record any findings in the view we are taking on

the facts. The intrinsic evidence on record falsifies the stand and leads

us F

to an irresistible interference that the said order of the Add.I. Collector

must have been a document brought up subsequent to the dismissal

of the

writ petition by the High Court. The

Add.I. Collector in his letter dated

June

17, 1985 to the J.D.A. stated that Appollo Nagar

Greh Nirman Coop.

Society made an application on July

21, 1974 for conversion. The J.D.A. G

'had not recommended for transfer of the land to that society and, there­

fore, their letter

was rejected on

October 31, 1984. This letter is made part

of the record as Annexure R-1. In the order dated November 4, 1985, the

Add.I. Collector has . purported to note that a total sum payable towards

transformation fee and penalty for construction area and land allotment

fee would

be Rs. 92189.48 p. and the amount deposited was Rs.

91006.58p. H

r

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A and direction was given to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 1182.90 p. In

ilie letter dated October 15, 1985 addressed by Appollo Nagar t-lo"sing

Coop. Society, he requested the Adell Collector to issue receipt. for a

deposit, of• Rs. 91006 and also requested for allotment of the laiid in

accordance with the government decision dated Septemb.er 1,

1984. In the

letter

addresseef by the Addi Collector to the Senior Town Planner of

B J.D.A. while intimating of the letter it was stated as November 22, 1985 i.e.

after the date

of the purported regularisation that the appellants had

deposited only Rs.

9100658 'p. In other words as on November 22, 1985

there is no mention of either deposit made by the appellants for the balance.

amount

of Rs.

1182.90 p. or of the order dated November 4, 1985 of the

C alleged regularisation and allotment. Moreover, there is no reference in

that letter to the letter dated November 4, · 1935 regularising the· illegal

construction by converting agricultural lands into non-agricultural lands

and collection of the total amount and calling upon the appellant to pay

the balance. amount

of Rs.

1182.90 p. It is not the case of the appellants

that they

had ever deposited the balance amount pursuant to the letter of

D allotment dated November 4, 1985. The High Court dismissed civil revision

petition on February

14, 1985 (2nd stage of the litigation) holding that there

is no

prima fade title established for issuance of an injunction order in their

favour.

One would legitimately expect the production of the purported

order dated November

4, 1985 and pressed the appellants'

case on its basis

E as title for claiming an injunction. As seen the admission in the pleadings,

the writ petition (3rd stage) is that the government have not chosen

to

regularise the conversion and that the relief was for the declaration of

deemed regularisation_ During the course

of the arguments when the

counsel° for the J .D .A. asserted that the land stood vested in them, no

attempt was made even at that stage of the assertion of the · alleged

F regularisation and conversion of the land into urban area and adjustment

of deposit amount towards the conversion charges, allotment charges and

. penalty and allotment of the land. Thus it is clear that as on date of disposal

of the writ petition in the High Court, the alleged regularisation order

dated November

4, 1985 did not see the light of the day. Obviously it must

G be a fabricated document propped up thereafter and for the first time it

was made

part of the record in this court and a new plea was found for

the relief on its basis. Thus not only a new case has been

set up in this

· Court on the basis of fabricated document but also the fabricated docu­

ment is presse_d into service for consideration by this Court. The case thus

clearly indicates the need for the amendment of the Supreme Court Rules

H to insist upon raising grounds only on the case set up and argued in the

•

..

' .

SHANTI DEVI v. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 7

courts below on the basis of the pleadings

and the evidence placed before A

the High Court or the Courts below unless leave of this court is sought and

.

obtained. If any additional evidence is to be made part of the record, an

application in this behalf under the Rules and Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C.

should be made. Until then they cannot be looked into. Lest the party gets

scot free introducting new documents which have no foundation

or fabri­cated documents find free passage into the record of this court for which B

no one takes responsibility. The respondents would have no opportunity to

properly verify the authenticity

of the documents etc. The case, therefore,

is absolutely a case of blatant abuse of the process of the court. The appeal

is, therefore, liable to

be dismissed with exemplary costs of rupees one la.kb .

The Govt.

of Rajasthan shall get investigation made into the fabrication of C

the order purported

i:o be issued by the Addl. Collector, Jaipur (South)

and said to be dated November 4, 1985 and to take appropriate steps in

that behalf. The writ petition is also a blatant abuse of the process of the

court. The acquisition proceedings have become final

and the notification

was upheld by this Court, as stated already. Therefore the writ petition also

stands dismissed with exemplary costs

of Rs.

1,00,000. The appeal is D

accordingly dismissed with costs of rupees one lakh. Cost should be paid

to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. In case of non-payment, the

Supreme Court Legal

Aid Committee is free to have it recovered by

execution

of this

Order.

S.M. Appeal and Petition dismissed.