2010 Supreme(SC) 369

2010 (3) Supreme 701
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and R. M. Lodha, JJ.
Sri Srinivasa Bhat (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Sri A. Sarvothama Kini (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2315 of 2003
Decided on : 27-04-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and relief may be refused if it is found that the party invoking such jurisdiction has not disclosed true, correct and complete facts. Relief may also be refused in extraordinary jurisdiction where writ petition suffers from laches and unexplained delay.

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950- Article 226-Grant of occupancy rights by Land Tribunal to appellants in respect of suit land - Respondent nos. 1 to 5 filed a writ petition challenging order of Land Tribunal -Single Judge, on consideration of material placed on record, held that writ petitioners were not able to show that they had any interest in land in respect of which occupancy rights had been conferred in favour of appellants- Single Judge also observed that writ petitioners did not disclose complete facts about suit and approached the court in challenging the order belatedly and,dismissed the writ petition- Division Bench in writ appeal interfered with order of Single Judge-Appeal- Held Division Bench though recorded the finding that writ petition was hopelessly belated and there were other factors which would disentitle writ petitioners from any relief, yet it interfered with the order of Single Judge- What was more astonishing was that Division Bench even did not consider the findings recorded by Single Judge, particularly that for want of documentary evidence, version of writ petitioner nos. 1 to 4 that said land had been conveyed to them by 5th writ petitioner and they were in possession of that land could not be believed- Single Judge recorded a positive finding that material produced by writ petitioners did not show that they had got any right or interest in suit land and, accordingly, they could not be said to have any locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Land Tribunal- On the face of findings recorded by Single Judge which had not been disturbed, there was no justification for Division Bench to hold that overwhelming interest of justice would require that writ petitioners be afforded an opportunity and thereby upset order of Single Judge as well as that of Land Tribunal- Division Bench without consideration of reasons recorded by Single Judge interfered with that order which was held unjustified- Moreover, writ petitioners concealed vital facts from the Court viz., rejection of their application for temporary injunction by trial court and the appointment of Court Commissioner by trial court and his report- Apart from that order of Land Tribunal was challenged in writ petition almost after five years-Hence no justification for Division Bench to interfere with discretion exercised by Single Judge-Impugned order of Division Bench set aside-Appeal allowed. (Paras 6 to 9)

       Facts of the Case :

       Occupancy rights were granted by Land Tribunal to appellants herein in the instant case in respect of suit land. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 filed a writ petition challenging order of Land Tribunal .Single Judge, on consideration of material placed on record, held that writ petitioners were not able to show that they had any interest in land in respect of which occupancy rights had been conferred in favour of appellants. Single Judge also observed that writ petitioners did not disclose complete facts about suit and approached the court in challenging the order belatedly and,dismissed the writ petition.Division Bench in writ appeal interfered with order of Single Judge.

       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       Division Bench though recorded the finding that writ petition was hopelessly belated and there were other factors which would disentitle writ petitioners from any relief, yet it interfered with the order of Single Judge. What was more astonishing was that Division Bench even did not consider the findings recorded by Single Judge, particularly that for want of documentary evidence, version of writ petitioner nos. 1 to 4 that said land had been conveyed to them by 5th writ petitioner and they were in possession of that land could not be believed. Single Judge recorded a positive finding that material produced by writ petitioners did not show that they had got any right or interest in suit land and, accordingly, they could not be said to have any locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Land Tribunal. On the face of findings recorded by Single Judge which had not been disturbed, there was no justification for Division Bench to hold that overwhelming interest of justice would require that writ petitioners be afforded an opportunity and thereby upset order of Single Judge as well as that of Land Tribunal. Division Bench without consideration of reasons recorded by Single Judge interfered with that order which,was held unjustified- Moreover, writ petitioners concealed vital facts from the Court viz., rejection of their application for temporary injunction by trial court and the appointment of Court Commissioner by trial court and his report. Apart from that order of Land Tribunal was challenged in writ petition almost after five years. Hence no justification was found for Division Bench to interfere with discretion exercised by Single Judge. Impugned order of Division Bench was set aside. Appeal was allowed.