JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J :—Every meritless petition for special leave commits a double sin and here we are scandalized that the sinner is the State itself. When thousands of humble litigants are waiting in the queue hungry for justice and the docket-logged court is desparately wading through the rising flood, every lawless cause brought recklessly before it is a dubious gamble which blocks the better ones from getting speedy remedy. Here is an instance.

2. If - this is a big if - I assume some of the uncontradicted statements in the counter - affidavit and writ petition to be true, read in the light of the High Courts decision against the Government twice over that its action was mala fide and void, this disturbing petition, by the State of Punjab for leave to appeal, which I now dismiss, lays bare the basics of power pathology and judicial philosophy in the unhappy setting of personal vendetta fuelling the politics of compulsory land acquisition. Prof. Millers assertion that the SC "acting as national conscience of the ......people does mandate standards towards which public and private behaviour is as true in our jurisdiction as in his country."

3. The factual matrix, enough to unfold why the High Court twice condemned the States action in a case of land acquisition as mala fide and why we endorse so that view, must be stated. The order under appeal is brief but there is more than meets the credulous eye beneath the verbal suface available in the affidavits. The vice of misuse of power centred round one Sri Satnam Singh Bajwa, 22nd respondent, a former mimister, a quondam M.L.A., and a continuous politician. The writ-petitioners (respondents 1 to 21 before us) seek to crucify him as the malefic presence prodding the impugned acquisition. Since he did not enter appearance, despite service of notice, we felt that a fresh opportunity or reminder should be afforded to him to deny,if he so desired, the sinister imputations made against him. The benefit of presumption of good faith belongs to every man, until rebutted. Fresh notice was directed and effected to the extent feasible but he did not respond and we leave it at that. We proceeded to hear the case after a few adjournments.

4. We must highlight the fact that Sri Har Dev Singh appearing for the state, struck a refreshing note of forensic propriety in dissociating himself from supporting State action if there be any, which, in the courts view was smeared with bad faith and argued that, for his part, the officers appear to have exercised power on the advice of the States legal remembrancer without ill will or affection. Counsel in court are robbed representatives, within the parameters of the adversary system, geared to the higher cause of justice, not amoral attorneys paid to ventriloquize the case of the principal. We cannot dismiss truth in paper-logged impatience but must try, with counsels services, to discover the justice of the cause. So we proceed to the facts.

5. Punjab, the pride of the green revolution, is a great agricultural State and, naturally, grain markets are a development imperative. The whole litigation is about a piece of land sought to be taken by the State to build a new mandi Way back in 1962, a site apparently best suited was selected in Qadian and the then Chief Minister, Partap Singh Kairon laid the foundation stone, and a few poles erected there bear witness to this old ceremony. Notification under Sec. 4 and declaration under Sec. 6 were reportedly issued ten years ago (1969). But the very next year the proceedings were denotified and in 1971 the lands of respondents 1 to 21 were notified. In Punjab, a province of peasant prosperity and private ownership, land is held dear even to the point of murder, and tragic factions fester round agriculture. Naturally, the land owners resisted and successfully impeached the acquisition on the ground of mala fides before the High Court. This order of the court, surprisingly enough, proceeded on the admitted mala f