Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated by a notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 published on May 13, 1960, acquiring large tracts of land in Bhojpura village, Jaipur for planned development. The original khatedar Bhurelal sold the lands to Bansilal Aggarwal and Surajmal, who in turn sold them to Appollo Co-operative Housing Society on February 28, 1970. A declaration under Section 6 was published on May 11, 1961, an award was made on January 9, 1964, and possession was taken on April 6, 1971 and handed over to Jaipur Urban Development Authority (JDA), thereby divesting the original owner and vesting title in JDA free from encumbrances. Surajmal filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition; the Single Judge dismissed it on March 31, 1971, the Division Bench confirmed the dismissal on April 12, 1973 (AIR 1974 Raj 116), and the Supreme Court dismissed the further appeal on September 17, 1974 in Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, thereby finally upholding the Section 4 notification. Appollo Co-operative Housing Society sold plots to the appellants on May 31, 1971. It was claimed that the Chairman of Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur had offered allotment of lands to Appollo on January 5, 1972 at Rs. 5 per square yard, which Appollo accepted on January 11, 1972, and started construction. When JDA resisted the unauthorized construction, the appellants unsuccessfully moved the civil court for perpetual injunction, and the High Court dismissed the civil revision petition in February 1986, observing that Appollo did not have title. In 1988, when JDA began demolishing structures, the appellants filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court on November 26, 1988. In the Supreme Court, the appellants produced for the first time an order dated November 4, 1985, purportedly made by the Additional Collector (South) converting agricultural lands to non-agricultural use. The appellants argued that since the plots had not been handed over to JDA, the land continued to vest in government, and the Collector had regularized the construction by receiving conversion charges, thereby vesting title in the appellants. They also filed a separate writ petition under Article 32 challenging the Section 4 notification. The Supreme Court dismissed both the civil appeal and the writ petition with exemplary costs of rupees one lakh each, payable to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, with liberty to recover by execution in case of non-payment. The Court held that the regularization order of November 4, 1985 appeared to be a propped up document brought on record for the first time; not only a new case had been set up on the basis of a fabricated document but it was also pressed into service for consideration. The Court concluded that the case was absolutely a case of blatant abuse of the process of court.
Headnote
A) Practice and Procedure - New Plea in Appeal - Article 136 of Constitution of India and Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Fabricated Document - Appellants produced an order dated November 4, 1985 purported to be made by Additional Collector for regularization of construction, for the first time in Supreme Court. Held that the order 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 consideration by the Court, amounting to blatant abuse of process of court (Paras 6-7). B) Costs - Abuse of Process - Civil Appeal and Writ Petition - Articles 32 and 142 of Constitution of India and Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Exemplary Costs of Rupees One Lakh Each - Appellants challenged land acquisition proceedings after notification under Section 4 of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 had already been finally upheld by the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings. Held that the appeal and writ petition were blatant abuse of process of court and dismissed with exemplary costs of rupees one lakh each payable to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, recoverable by execution in case of non-payment (Para 7). C) Land Acquisition - Finality of Acquisition - Sections 4 and 6 of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - Title Vested in Jaipur Urban Development Authority - Notification under Section 4 published on May 13, 1960 was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1974, and possession of land was taken and handed over to JDA in 1971, thereby divesting original owner and vesting title in JDA free from encumbrances. Held that subsequent challenges based on alleged non-handing over of land and purported regularization order were without merit and constituted abuse of process (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a new plea based on a fabricated document produced for the first time in the Supreme Court can be entertained under Article 136 of the Constitution and Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; whether the civil appeal and writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings after the notification had been finally upheld by the Supreme Court constituted abuse of process of court warranting exemplary costs.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal and the writ petition with exemplary costs of rupees one lakh each, payable to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, with liberty to recover by execution in case of non-payment. The Court held that the regularization order was a propped up document brought on record for the first time and the case was a blatant abuse of process of court.
Law Points
- New plea based on fabricated document made for first time in Supreme Court is not permissible
- amounts to blatant abuse of process
- land acquisition proceedings already finally upheld cannot be re-agitated
- exemplary costs of one lakh each payable to Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee
- Article 136
- Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
- Articles 32 and 142 Constitution of India
