LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011] 11 S.C.R. 678 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN & ANR. I.A. NOS. 256-270 & 271-285 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2083-2097 of 2011 SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 [J.M. PANCHAL, DEEPAK VERMA AND DR. &..S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Adverse remarks: Expunction of - In a land acquisition case, the State Authorities took a decision to abandon the land acquisition proceedings - Before High Court, applicant- respondent pleaded that order of the Authorities to abandon D the proceedings was void ab initio as possession of the land in dispute had already been taken - High Court held that as the possession of land had already been .. taken, it was not permissible for the Authorities. to resort to withdrawal of the proceedings - Before Supreme Court, applicant took stand E that the. tenure holders of the land had already been dispossessed and, therefore, the question of abandoning the land acquisition proceedings could not arise - Authorities pleaded that actual physical possession was still with the tenure holders and the stand taken by applicant was not F factually correct - The Supreme Court directed appointment of Local Commissioner to find out who was in possession - Local Commissioner recorded the statements of tenure holders in the presence of representative of the applicant and filed the report that the tenure holders were in actual physical possession of the said land - The applicant was given G opportunity to file objections - Thereafter, the Court held that :;mce the finding of the Local Commissioner was recorded in the presence of representative of applicant, the same was worth acceptance and in view thereof the claim made by H 678 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. NARMADA 679 BACHAO ANDOLAN & ANR. applicant regarding the physical possession of land was not A factually correct and passed certain adverse remarks in the judgment - Application seeking expunction of remarks on the I ground that the word 'possession' denoted different meaning so far as 1894 Act and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy were concerned and, therefore, adverse marks were B made under total misconception - Held: In the instant case, the Court had not to decide the issue of justification of the tenure...flolders for retaining the possession of the land rather the question was, as to who was in actual physical possession of the land - Had it been the case of justification of retaining c the possession of the land by the tenure-holders without being rehabilitated, the question of appointing the Commissioner would not have arisen - The applicant cannot be permitted to make out a new case to justify expunging of adverse remarks - More so, while making certain observation against D the applicant, the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Nairn had strictly been -observed - Remarks were made as it was necessary to do so while deciding the controversy involved therein - However, -submission made by the applicant that it has rendered great service for down E trodden and poor farmers and thus applicant· should not be deprived of the opportunity to represent poor peasants - In view thereof, para 145 of the earlier judgment modified to the extent that although the applicant ·had not acted with a sense of responsibility and not taken appropriate pleadings as required in law, however, in a PIL, the court has to strike a F balance between the interests of the parties and thus it is desirable that in future the court must view presentation of any matter by the applicant with caution and care, insisting on proper pleadings, disclosure of full facts truly and fairly and should insist for an affidavit of some responsible person in G support of facts contained therein - Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Administration of Justice: Adverse remarks - Held: Court may not be justified in making adverse remarks/strictures H 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A against a person unless it is necessary for the disposal of the case to animadvert to those aspects in regard to the remarks that were made - Adverse remarks should not be made lightly as it may seriously affect the character, competence and integrity of an individual in purported desire to render justice B to the other party. State of U.P. v. Mohammed Nairn AIR 1964 SC 703: 1964 SCR 636; Jage Ram, Inspector of Police and Anr. v. Hans Raj Midha AIR 1972 SC 1140: 1972 2 SCR 409; R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srini
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.