Ajaya Kumar Jena & Ors. Collector, Jajpur and others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 36968 of 2022 Ajaya Kumar Jena & Ors. Collector, Jajpur and others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioners Mr. S. Das, Adv. Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY ORDER 10.01.2023 Order No. 01. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State- opposite parties. 3. The petitioners, alleging that they have not been handed over copy of the order or award in respect of L.A. Case No.4/14 Duburi, due to their eviction on 06.05.2022 as per the notice dated 27.01.2022 and 09.03.2022 of Tahasildar, Sukinda, have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to provide land to carry out their business in the said locality as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 4. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that earlier the petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 5337 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.03.2022 granting liberty to the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation before opposite party no.1, namely, Collector, Jajpur within a period of two weeks, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within a period of three months by communicating result thereof to the petitioners. In compliance of the said order, the petitioners filed representation and on Page 1 of 5 being noticed they were given opportunity of hearing. But it is contended that the order passed by the Collector has not been communicated with regard to disposal of the representation of the petitioners. 5. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that the petitioners themselves enclosed the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the Collector, Jajpur, by which the Collector dismissed representation filed by the petitioners by rejecting their claim and, as such, the said order has already been communicated to the petitioners through ‘wahtsapp’, which has been placed on record by the petitioner. Therefore, now the petitioners cannot take a stand that the order has not been communicated to them. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioners have tried to mislead the Court by making wrong submission that the representation filed by the petitioners in compliance of the direction given by this Court has not been disposed of. But fact remains, the petitioners themselves enclosed the order dated 10.08.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.32 of 2022 by the Collector, Jajpur, which is arising out of W.P.(C) No. 5337 of 2022, by which the representation filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and, as such, the same was also communicated to the petitioners through ‘whatsapp’. More so, the noting of the order indicates that the order has been communicated to the petitioners for information. In any case, even if the order passed by the Collector has been received by the petitioners through ‘whatsapp’ and the same has
Decision
been enclosed by the petitioners to the writ petition, but the said order has not been challenged before any forum. Furthermore, even though the Collector has not applied its mind while rejecting the grievance of the petitioners, but the same is not now open for consideration by this Page 2 of 5 Court at this stage, reason being the petitioners have not come to the Court with the clean hand and, as such, is not entitled to get any relief, as claimed in the writ petition. 7. In Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council, (1956) AC 736, Lord Denning said that “No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything”. 8. In Smith v. East Ellows Rural District Council, (1956) 1 All ER 855, it has been held that “Fraud vitiated any act or order passed by any quasi judicial authority even if no power of review is conferred upon it. The effect of fraud would normally be to vitiate all acts and orders”. 9. In R v. West Sussex Quarter Sessions, ex p Albert and Maud Johnson Trust Limited, (1974) QB 24, it has been held by Lord Denning that “there is ample authority for holding that, where there is evidence that the decision of an inferior court has been obtained by the fraud of a party or by collusion, the court of Queen’s Bench will order it to be brought up and will quash it. 10. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Brothers, AIR 1992 SC 1555, it has been held that “Fraud and collusion vitiate even the utmost solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.” 11. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1: AIR 1994 SC 853, the apex Court in no uncertain terms observed “The principle of finality of litigation cannot be passed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must comes with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan dodgers and Page 3 of 5 other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation… A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage… A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him, which are relevant to the litigation. If we withhold a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party.” 12. In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550 : AIR 1996 SC 2592, the apex Court observed that “since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the court it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court that the courts have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by practicing fraud upon the court and that where court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudice a party, the court has the inherent power to recall its order. 13. In R. v. Kensington, Income Tax Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486 at page 506, it was held that “the prerogative writ is not a matter of course; the applicant must come in the manner prescribed and must be perfectly frank and open with the Court.” 14. In State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery, AIR 1977 SC 781, the apex Court refused to grant relief on the ground that the applicant has misled the Court. 15. In Chancellor v. Bijayananda Kar, AIR 1994 SC 579, the apex Court held that a writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands. Page 4 of 5 16. Taking into consideration the above judgments, this Court, in Netrananda Mishra v. State of Orissa, 2018 (II) OLR 436, came to a conclusion in paragraph-26 of the said judgment and held as under:- this Court with a clean hand, “…………. For suppression of facts and having not approached the encroacher is not entitled to get any relief, particularly when the valuable right accrued in favour of the petitioner is being jeopardized for last 43 years for no fault of him, on which this Court takes a serious view. ……..” 17. In the above view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, as the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Ashok (B.P. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Page 5 of 5