LexSMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
>·
SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS .
. AUGUST ~1, 1994
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
Practice and Procedure--Constitution of India, Article 136-New plea
in appeal on the basis off abricated 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.
A
B
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-
B lants challenged the S.4 notification.
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
E
F
G
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]
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.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.88 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 2956of1988.
·WITH
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. FolloExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.