Sahadeo Ram, aged about 65 years, s/o late Visnudeo Ram r/o H-15, Jharkhand, Housing v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Government of Jharkhand State Nagar Vikas
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A No. 4 of 2023 Sahadeo Ram, aged about 65 years, s/o late Visnudeo Ram r/o H-15, Jharkhand, Housing Board (Sarley) Dipugarah, Hazaribag, PO-Hazaribagh, PS-Sadar, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand-825301 ...… Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Government of Jharkhand State Nagar Vikas & Housing Development, having its office at Project Building Dhurwa, Ranchi, PO- Dhurwa, PS-Jagnathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004 3. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Housing Board Head Quarter having its office at Harmu, PO & P.S-Argora, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 4. The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board Hazaribag Division, having its office at Hazaribag, PO-Hazaribag, PS-Sadar, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand-825301 .....Respondents -------------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant For the JSHB For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sahadeo Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. SC Mr. Gaurav Raj, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, SC-I --------------- Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. 22nd November 2023 Sahadeo Ram claiming that he has a right to seek regularization of the house which was allotted to his mother Most. Jhalwa Devi vide letter no.167 dated 5th June 2009 approached the writ Court in W.P(C) No.6516 of 2017. 2. Before the writ Court, Sahadeo Ram pleaded that since 2004 he was residing in House No.HIG-15 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board (in short, “the JSHB”) at Dipugarha in the district of Hazaribagh. This house was later on allotted on rental basis for Rs.1800/- per month in the name of his mother Most. Jhalwa Devi. By an order contained in the letter dated 2nd July 2011 this allotment was cancelled and Most. Jhalwa Devi approached the writ Court in W.P(C) No.4251 of 2011 to challenge the cancellation order contained in the letter no.510 dated 2nd July 2011 issued by the JSHB.
Decision
However, the writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 1st August 2018 and that order has become final. The main plank of the appellant is that by 2 L.P.A No.4 of 2023 letter dated 27th May 2017 the Executive Engineer of the JSHB asked his mother to file an affidavit in terms of the Notification dated 17th March 2017 for allotment of the house/flat on rent-cum-purchase basis which was at that time in her illegal possession. 3. Mr. Sahadeo Choudhary, the learned counsel for the appellant refers to the Gazette Notification dated 12th April 2017 to submit that the appellant was entitled for allotment of HIG-15 in terms of the said Gazette Notification and regularization of that house in his name on ‘hire purchase’ basis. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ Court committed a grave error in law in not considering the entitlement of the appellant who was in illegal possession of HIG-15 for a period over ten years as required under the Gazette Notification dated 17th March 2017. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that during pendency of the writ petition an eviction notice dated 13th April 2018 was issued to the appellant which was challenged by filing I.A No.3996 of 2018 but the writ Court did not advert the said application and dismissed the writ petition on a factually incorrect premise. 4. Several objections were taken by the JSHB and one of the objections was that the appellant had no right in law to seek regularization of HIG-15 which was allotted to his mother on rental basis but, later on, the allotment was cancelled. Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned senior standing counsel for the JSHB submits that in view of Regulation 8(d) of Bihar State Housing Board (Management & Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulation, 1983 the appellant could not have been allotted any other flat/house by the JSHB for the reason that his wife Geeta Devi was already allotted LIG House No.57. 5. The writ Court by an order dated 6th December 2022 dismissed W.P(C) No.6516 of 2017 accepting the stand taken by the JSHB that the scheme floated through the Gazette Notification dated 17th March 2017 for regularization of the illegally held house/flat was alive only for six months and, that too, on fulfilling certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. The Gazette Notification dated 17th March 2017 was issued pursuant to a decision taken for regularizing the flats/houses which were in illegal possession of the occupants. The appellant on his own saying was in illegal possession of HIG-15 since some time in the year 2004 and he also admits that the said house was allotted on rental basis to his mother Most. Jhalwa 3 L.P.A No.4 of 2023 Devi. While this is an admitted position that HIG-15 was allotted on rental basis, the appellant cannot claim that he was in illegal possession of the said flat since 2004. Furthermore, even assuming that the mother of the appellant was in illegal possession of the said flat after 2nd July 2011 when allotment on rental basis in her favor was cancelled by the JSHB the appellant still does not arrive at the milestone of ten years of illegal possession. Secondly, by virtue of Regulation 8(d) of Bihar State Housing Board (Management & Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulation, 1983 the appellant who apparently made a false statement and suppressed a material fact about allotment of another flat in the name of his wife is definitely not entitled for allotment of another flat/house in his own name. The appellant not only did not fulfill the requisite conditions under the Gazette Notification dated 17th March 2017, he approached the writ Court with unclean hands and was not entitled for any discretionary relief and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 6. In “State of Orissa & Anr. v. Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead) thr. LRs & Ors.” 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 39. The writ petition also ought to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of material facts regarding filing and withdrawal of the civil suit claiming the same relief. Neither in the writ petition nor in the appeal against the order passed in the writ petition, the respondents disclosed the filing of civil suit and withdrawal thereof. It only transpired only that at the time of the hearing of the appeal. 40. As to how a litigant who conceals material facts from the Court has to be dealt with, has been gone into by this Court, time and again in plethora of cases and the consistent opinion is that, he is not entitled even to be heard on merits. 41. In Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union of India and others, (2011) 6 SCC 145, this Court, while declining relief to the petitioners therein, who did not approach the court with clean hands, opined as under: "18. … In our view, the appellants deserve to be non suited because they have not approached the Court with clean hands. The plea of inadvertent mistake put forward by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and their submission that the Court may take lenient view and order regularisation of the admissions already made sounds attractive but does not merit acceptance. Each of the appellants consciously made a statement that it had been granted recognition by the NCTE, which necessarily implies that recognition was granted in terms of Section 14 of the Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the 2007 Regulations. Those managing the affairs of the appellants do not belong to the category of innocent, illiterate/uneducated persons, who are not 13 conversant with the relevant statutory provisions and the court process. The very fact that each of the appellants had submitted application in terms of Regulation 7 and made itself available for inspection by the team constituted by WRC, Bhopal shows that they were fully aware of the fact that they can get recognition only after fulfilling the conditions specified in the Act and the Regulations and 4 L.P.A No.4 of 2023 to recognition that WRC, Bhopal had not granted them. Notwithstanding this, they made bold statement that they had been granted recognition by the competent authority and thereby succeeded in persuading this Court to entertain the special leave petitions and pass interim orders. The minimum, which can be said about the appellants is that they have not approached the Court with clean hands and succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statement. Therefore, they are not entitled to relief under Article 136 of the Constitution. This view finds support from plethora of precedents. 42. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. and another v. Govt. of Karnataka and another (1991) 3 SCC 261 and plethora of other cases, this Court denied relief to the petitioner/appellant on the ground that he had not approached the Court with clean hands. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das (supra), the Court revoked the leave granted to the appellant and observed: "It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked." 7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the writ Court’s order dated 6th December 2022 passed in W.P(C) No.6516 of 2017 and, accordingly, L.P.A No.4 of 2023 is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) sudhir/N.A.F.R.