Korba, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd
Case Details
SMT NIRMALA RAO 1 2025:CGHC:14674 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4521 of 2019 1 - Smt. Kaushalya Devi Mali W/o Kishan Chand Mali Aged About 61 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Balco, Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. (Balco), Through Its Chief Executive Officer And Whole Time Director, Bharat Aluminum Company Limited, Balco Nagar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Special Secretary, Department Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya - Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector - Korba, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar - Korba Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner For Respondent No.1 : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Khushboo Dua, Advocate. Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For Respondent/State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26.03.2025 1. 2. Heard on admission. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.8.2019 passed by the Tehsildar, Korba in Revenue Case No. 8/A-70/2017-18 Village Risda, whereby an application moved by respondent No.1 under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code was allowed, and an order of eviction was passed. 3. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was the owner of Survey No. 321/22, admeasuring 1800 sq.ft. situated at Village Risda, Patwari Circle No.10, Shanti Nagar, Balco, Korba. The petitioner executed a sale-deed on 26.8.2015 in favor of respondent No. 1. It is pleaded by the petitioner that assurance of rehabilitation was given by respondent No.1 to the petitioner at the time of taking over the possession of the property. It is further pleaded that when no action was taken by respondent No.1 with regard to the rehabilitation and payment of compensation, WP(PIL) No. 27 of 2013 was filed and it was disposed of vide order dated 28.11.2023 directing respondent No.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to payment of adequate compensation and to take steps for rehabilitation. 4. When respondent No.1 failed to take any initiative with regard to payment of compensation and rehabilitation, WP(PIL) No.129 of 3
Decision
2017 was filed and it was disposed of vide order dated 8.5.2018. It is further pleaded that despite two rounds of public interest litigation, respondent No.1 failed to comply with the assurance given before the Hon’ble Division Bench and thus respondent No. 1 moved an application for eviction under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. It is pleaded that the petitioner has no alternative accommodation, therefore, the order passed by the Tehsildar under the provisions of Section 250 of CGLRC dated 31.8.2019 is bad in law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that respondent No.1 had given an undertaking to rehabilitate the petitioner. He would submit that WP(PIL) No. 27 of 2013 was disposed of based on the undertaking given by respondent No.1. He would further submit that contrary to the undertaking, respondent No.1 moved an application under Section 250 of the CGLRC before the Tehsildar, Korba and the same was allowed vide order dated 31.8.2019. He would contend that the petitioner has no alternative accommodation and is currently operating a flour mill at the site, which is the only source of his livelihood. He would pray to quash the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 31.8.2019. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel would submit that the petitioner assailed the order dated 31.8.2019 by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba according to -4- the provisions of CGLRC on 18.10.2019. He would contend that the petitioner preferred this petition on 20.11.2019 suppressing the fact that the appeal was already preferred on 18.10.2019 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). Learned Senior counsel would further submit that the interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 19.2.2020 and even on that date, the petitioner failed to disclose the pendency of the appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue). He would further contend that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 17.7.2020, whereby the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 31.8.2019 was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Tehsildar to decide it afresh. He would further argue that Writ Petition (C) No. 1998 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner claiming rehabilitation and compensation and later on, that writ petition was withdrawn on 1.7.2015 without any liberty. He would also contend that this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner in the present petition. Furthermore, learned Senior counsel would contend that the land of the petitioner was never acquired rather it was purchased through a registered sale-deed dated 26.8.2015 for a consideration of Rs.61,43,206/-. This fact finds a place in the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 31.8.2020, and therefore, the claim of the petitioner with regard to rehabilitation appears to be misconceived. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the 5 judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Auroville Foundation vs. Natasha Storey, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 556. 7. Learned counsel for the State would support the contention made by the learned Senior Advocate. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 9. Admittedly, the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No. 321/22 was purchased through a registered sale-deed for consideration of Rs.61,43,206/- by respondent No.1/Balco but possession remained with the petitioner. In the year 2014, WPC No. 1998 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner claiming therein rehabilitation and compensation but later on, that petition was withdrawn. 10. The possession of the plot bearing survey No.321/22 remained with the petitioner, therefore, respondent No.1 moved an application under Section 250 of the CGLRC and that application was allowed vide order dated 31.8.2019. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing an appeal according to provisions of Section 44 of the CGLRC before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 18.10.2019. During the pendency of the revenue appeal, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 20.11.2019 challenging the very order passed by the Tehsildar dated 31.8.2019 and the interim order was granted in favour of the -6- petitioner on 19.2.2020. 11. A perusal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner would show that the petitioner has not disclosed the filing of revenue appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and filing of the earlier Writ Petition (C) No.1998 of 2014 and its withdrawal. Annexure-R/1 filed by respondent No.1 would show that the revenue appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) was allowed vide order dated 17.7.2019, whereby the order passed by the Tehsildar was set aside and the matter was remitted back to decide it afresh. The petitioner has suppressed the filing of an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue); filing of WP(C) No.1998 of 2014; withdrawal of WP(C) No.1998 of 2014 and the final order passed in appeal dated 17.7.2020 whereby the case was remitted back to the Tehsildar. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Natasha Storey (supra) while dealing with a similar issue in paras 9,10 & 11, held as under:- “9. It is no more res integra that the Doctrine of “Clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” is applicable with full force to every proceedings before any judicial forum. The party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and disclose all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition. If it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petition has been guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come with clean hands, such conduct must be seriously viewed by the courts as the abuse of process of law and the petition must be dismissed on 7 that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter. 10. As held in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.1, as a general rule, suppression of material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. Similar view has been taken in General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Jai Bhagwan & Anr., in Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India etc. 11. In the instant case, the Respondent-Natasha Storey had challenged the Office Order dated 01.06.2022 by filing the earlier Writ Petition No. 22895 of 2022, and the High Court while dismissing the same vide its Order dated 13.10.2022 had categorically held, after considering the various provisions of the A.F. Act, that the activities which are provided under Section 19 of the Act, to be undertaken by the Residents’ Assembly are only in the nature of supplementing and not supplanting the main powers and functions vested AIR 2004 SC 2421 (2008) 4 SCC 127 (2007) 8 SCC 449 with the Governing Board under the provisions of the Act, and that the writ petitioner could not claim that she being a member of the Assembly, the right of the Assembly was getting affected, or the functions of the Assembly as entrusted through the provisions of the Act were getting affected. Despite the fact that the said judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 22895 of 2022 was not challenged by the respondent any further, and had become final, the second Writ Petition was filed by her (i.e., Writ Petition no. 25882/2022 in the present proceedings), seeking substantially the same reliefs without disclosing the said material fact of dismissal of earlier petition. The non-disclosure of the material facts at the instance of the respondent should have been seriously viewed by the High Court, as the abuse of the process of court.” 13. Taking into consideration the fact that the order under challenge was already set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 17.7.2020, no case is made out for interference. -8- In the present case, the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and has not approached this Court with clean hands, therefore, this petition is dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the High Court Legal-Aid Committee. 14. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge