SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS .

                        SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ORS.                                    A
                                    v.
                      STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS .

                                . AUGUST ~1, 1994

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

             Practice and Procedure--Constitution of India, Article 136-New plea
     in appeal on the basis offabricated 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.                        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-
    lants challenged the S.4 notification.
B
         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
    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]

E         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.
F
         From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.88 of the Rajasthan High
    Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 2956of1988.

                                       ·WITH
G
            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.

          On August 30, 1988 when the Jaipur Development Authority started
B 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
c   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
    chosen to demolish part of their construction on August 30, 1988 and
E   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 fabri-
     cated 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.