Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANJAY KAROL, S. KUMAR, JJ.
Dr. Rash Lal Yadav, son Late Ramji Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17144 of 2008
Decided on : 06-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General Mrs. Binita Singh, SC-28
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing right, title, and interest in the land, upholding the time limitations prescribed under the Bihar Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and preventing the abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
Fraud and Abuse of Process of Law - Land Acquisition - Bihar Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18, 30 - The court dismissed a petition seeking re-litigation of a land acquisition issue, highlighting the abuse of process of law and fraudulent claims. The court emphasized the importance of establishing right, title, and interest in the land and upheld the time limitations prescribed under the Act for filing applications for reference and dispute resolution. The petition was deemed a gross abuse of process of law, and costs were imposed on the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought re-litigation of a land acquisition issue, claiming inadequate compensation and seeking reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Bihar Land Acquisition Act, 1894, despite the proceedings being time-barred. The court found that the petition was an abuse of process of law and had caused a considerable delay in the construction of a public work.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' claims were contradictory and self-destructive, and their attempt to re-litigate and re-agitate issues already adjudicated in an earlier round of litigation amounted to a gross abuse of process of law. The court dismissed the petition and imposed costs on the petitioners.
Issues: The issues involved the abuse of process of law, fraudulent claims, and the time limitations prescribed under the Bihar Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for filing applications for reference and dispute resolution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing right, title, and interest in the land, upheld the time limitations prescribed under the Act for filing applications for reference and dispute resolution, and deemed the petition a gross abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The petition seeking re-litigation of a land acquisition issue was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
The Court cannot remain a silent spectator to fraud and blatant abuse of process of law perpetrated by a party trying to reagitate and re-litigate the issue which already stands tried and decided against him. Fraud would vitiate all proceedings is what stands held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Versus Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (Dead) through legal representatives and others (2019) 14 SCC 449.
2. Incidentally, this Court is called upon to adjudicate the instant lis covering the very same issue.
3. To the Court's consideration, petitioners have not only filed the instant petition agitating the issue, already decided in an earlier round of litigation, but have also misled this Court in passing an interim order, resulting into a considerable delay of execution of a public work of immense importance. Not only that, petitioners have also taken a self-contradictory and mutually destructive plea and stand. Even, they have attempted to illegally claim compensation of a higher amount with the change of position in law.
4. For the construction of the western Kosi Sakari-Jhanjharpur Canal popularly known as ‘Dumariyahi Sub Distributory', the land was acquired by the State in different revenue estates including Village- Phulwariya and Village-Basuwa.
5. According to the State, petitioners’ land falling within the revenue estate Basuwa, was acquired vide Award dated 07.02.1989, Case No.86 of 1985-1986, possession of which stood taken over on 28.02.1989. Petitioners’ land falling within the revenue estate Phulwariya was acquired vide Award dated 07.07.1988, Case No.90/1985-86, possession of which stood taken over on 12.08.1988. Since petitioner no.1 failed to accept monetary compensation, the same stood deposited with the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended to the State of Bihar). The record reveals that Notification intending to acquire the land was issued, to which effect documents are on record (Annexure-B series to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 6 on 24.07.2009, Page-110 and 111 of the brief).
6. It is a matter of record that several landowners filed several petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings, and not one of them stood accepted by this Court. In fact, in one such petition, being CWJC No.2944 of 2001 titled as Ashok Kumar Jha Versus the State of Bihar & others, this Court, while dismissing similar petition directed the State to complete the project without any delay (page-131 of the brief). Petitioners have placed on record orders passed concerning other petition being CWJC No.3430 of 2001 titled as Ram Rup Paswan Versus State of Bihar & Ors.
7. It has come on record that petitioner no.1 Dr. Rash Lal Yadav was the recorded owner of the land in question. His sons, petitioner no.2 namely Robins@ Rahul, petitioner no.3 namely Rohit Kumar @ Rohit and his wife petitioner no.4 namely Lalita Yadav were not the recorded owners of the land. As such, they filed an application seeking correction of the revenue record (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.2, 4 and 6 on 24.07.2009, page 104 of the brief). It was much after the passing of the Award under the Act. It is, for this reason, that information furnished by an officer under the provision of the Right to Information Act does not reflect the portion of the acquisition of land. Can information provided under a Right to Information Act be the basis to set up a claim or title. In our considered view, not so. Petitioners have to establish their right, title and interest in the land. Then only they would have locus or cause of action to seek appropriate relief.
8. It is a matter of record that petitioner no.1 namely Dr. Rash Lal Yadav had filed a petition being CWJC No.3876 of 2008 titled as Dr. Rash Lal Yadav Versus The State of Bihar & Ors, in which claim set out was only concerning inadequate payment of compensation, with a limited prayer fo
