Bombay High Court: In a writ petition filed by alleged owners of a property challenging its acquisition in 1947-48 by the State, the Division Bench of M.S. Sonak* and Jitendra Jain, JJ., dismissed the petition, holding that it was an abuse of the judicial process since the petitioners kept making contradictory pleadings without any cogent material and attempted to speculate or take chances with the judicial process.
Background
Allegedly, the petitioners purchased the suit property vide a sale deed dated 16-01-1993. The sale deed suggested that the vendor was a 93-year-old woman who apparently had no one to succeed her at the time of the sale. However, the official record showed that the property was acquired for Railway purposes in 1947-48.
In 2022, the petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the land acquisition proceedings dated 1947 of the suit property for the Railways. The foundational relief in the petition was the cancellation of Award Notifications dating back to 1947 and 1948, to the limited extent of the notifications being concerned with the said property.
Analysis
The Court noted that the present petition was drafted to make it appear like the disputes were live and not stale based on several references to mutation proceedings and changes in survey records. However, this did not explain the inordinate delay of 77 years in filing it.
The Court rejected the contention that the petitioners were unaware of the acquisition proceedings since they were peacefully in possession after buying the property in 1993. The Court stated that the 1947-48 notifications, about which no dispute was raised, were published in gazettes and local papers. The petitioners, who came to the scene only in 1993, could not complain about the lack of knowledge and file a petition based upon such alleged lack of knowledge in 2022. Apart from the falsity, the Court stated that the unexplained and inordinate delay and laches were sufficient reasons to dismiss this petition with exemplary costs.
The Court remarked that it was clear that the petitioners had attempted to take chances with the Court process to see whether anything could be done regarding the repossession of the land they purchased, possibly for speculative purposes or securing some additional compensation by taking undue advantage of their delay and banking on the loss of proper records.
The Court stated that the petitioners, based on so-called personal knowledge, alleged that no final award was ever declared, and therefore, the land was never acquired. The Court also rejected the contention that since the railways did not use the land for the purpose for which it was acquired, the acquisition had lapsed. The Court stated that there was absolutely no material on record in this regard.
The Court stated that the petitioners, without any regard for the truth, were making mutually inconsistent and contradictory averments on the aspect of the acquisition and possession. On one hand, they admitted that the property was with the railways, and on other hand, they asserted that they were in possession of the property. There were prayers for the restoration of possession as well as a claim of title by adverse possession. Thus, the Court remarked that the petitioners claimed to be in possession and, at the same time, sought restoration of possession. Additionally, none of these claims or prayers were backed by any cogent material or proper affidavits and verification. The Court stated that the contradictory pleadings regarding the status of acquisition and possession showed scant regard to the Court, Court procedures and the truth. Such kind of speculative litigation launched without any sense of responsibility and with the firm faith that perjury laws are seldom enforced, ought not to be encouraged. Instead, such speculative litigation must be nipped in the bud.
The Court added that the petitioners who came to the scene only in 1993 could not possibly know anything about what transpired between the then Government/Railway authorities and the property owners. But this did not deter the petitioners from making bold, irresponsible, unverified, inconsistent, confusing, and mutually destructive pleadings, fully convinced that there was not much to lose but a lot to be gained by simply taking chances.
The Court held that based on the documents placed by the petitioners on record, there were no reasons to doubt that the acquisition was completed in 1947-48. In any event, the petitioners who came to the scene only in 1993 could not, at this stage, try to point out some loopholes in the acquisition process of 1947- 48.
The Court remarked, “Writ Petitions cannot be filed by raising mutually destructive pleas without any sense of responsibility. The pleadings cannot be made casually without any evidence to support them.” The Court stated that in this case, even the disputes about survey records were raised only to keep the pot boiling. Such frivolous and speculative litigation could not be prolonged with the assistance of the Writ Court. The Court further remarked that writ jurisdiction was discretionary, and the petitioners’ conduct was crucial. Delay, laches, and disputed questions of fact were all matters that could not be ignored when it came to exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court stated that the entire objective behind the institution of this petition was to speculate or take chances with the judicial process, and there was not the slightest apprehension of the consequences of making false and contradictory claims or statements. There were no qualms for consuming valuable judicial time in challenging an acquisition after an inordinate delay of 77 years. The Court further remarked that this kind of attitude and litigations came at the cost of genuine litigation that called for judicial attention.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of Rs 2 Lakhs on the petitioners, to be deposited within four weeks.
[Satish Poptlal Shah v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 676 of 2023, decided on 21-02-2025]
*Judgment authored by Justice M.S. Sonak
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Gaurav Potnis and P H Potnis
For the respondent: Addl GP AI Patel, AGP MS Bane, RP Ojha, and Rakesh Dubey
Buy Constitution of India HERE
