Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mohd. Yousaf vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 5 August, 2025
Sr. No. 22
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case: WP(C) No.2814/2023
Mohd. Yousaf ..... Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Mohinder Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Moti Sharma, Advocate
Vs
Union Territory of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Assisting Counsel to
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Rajesh Khah, Advocate for R-4 to 12.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
05.08.2025
01. Through the medium of present writ petition filed under Article 226 read
with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the
following reliefs:-
(i) Writ of Certiorari: thereby seeking quashment/setting aside of order
dated 25.11.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional
Commissioner-I, (With Powers of Divisional Commissioner), Jammu in
an application for condonation of delay filed along with an appeal titled
Mohd. Younis & Ors vs Mohd Yousaf, whereby delay of more than 22
years 07 months and 30 days have been condoned in a mechanical
manner with utter disregard to law, in filing the aforesaid appeal by the
respondents herein against Mutation Order No. 742 dated 30.06.1996
passed by the Tehsildar, Ramban under Section 121 of Land Revenue
Act, 1992, 22 years ago [as per actual date of mutation & more than 24
years as per date of mutation in memo of appeal] with respect to land
underlying Khewat No. 64/29 min, Khata No. 296/192 min/193min,
Bashara Khewat 01, land falling under Khasra No. 181 (old) now
Khasra No. 1399 (new) measuring 05 kanals 06 marls, Khasra No. 179
(old) now Khasra No. 1399/1 (new) measuring 03 kanals 02 marlas and
Khasra No. 181 min (old) now Khasra No. 1400 (new) measuring 04
kanals 17 marlas situated at Maitra Govindpura, Tehsil and District
Ramban;
(ii) Thereby seeking quashment/setting aside of order dated 10.08.2022,
passed by the Court of learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K
in the Revision Petition filed under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act in
File bearing No. 1116/FC-AP filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid
impugned order dated 25.11.2021, whereby the Revision Petition
preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed in a mechanical manner
in utter disregard to the settled position of law and without proper
application of judicial mind, which has resulted n miscarriage of justice,
2 WP(C) No.2814/2023sheer abuse of process of law and will tend to unsettle the settled legal
rights of the petitioner as well as will also lead to multiplicity of
litigation, thereby resulting in perpetuating illegality against the
petitioner, as such, the same being illegal, unjustified and having been
passed by wrong exercise of jurisdiction deserves to be and is required to
quashed and set aside to secure the ends of justice, equity and fair play.
(iii)Writ of Mandamus: Commanding the official respondents, 1, 2 & 3 to
ensure the safety, security and protection of the petitioner as well as his
family members and also to ensure that the settled and peaceful
possession of the petitioner over the aforesaid land subject matter of the
instant petition is protected and is not forcibly taken away by the private
respondents or their agents or representatives illegally and forcibly by
endangering the life, limb and liberty of the petitioner and his family
members as the respondents are hell bent to evict and throw away the
petitioner along his family members.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
02. The specific case of the petitioner in the instant petition is that vide order
dated 25.11.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional
Commissioner-1, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Appellate Court’
for short), whereby the delay of more than 24 years has been condoned
without assigning any reasons or justifications for condoning such a long,
unexplained and inordinate delay in filing the appeal against the mutation
No. 742 dated 20.06.1996, passed by Tehsildar, Ramban, under Section
121 of the Land Revenue Act with respect to the land underlying Khewat
No. 64/29 min Khata No. 296/192 min /193 min, Bashara Khewat 01,
land falling under Khasra No. 181 (old) now Khasra No. 1399 (new)
measuring 05 kanals 06 marlas, Khasra No. 179 (old) now Khasra No.
1399/1 (new) measuring 03 kanals 02 marlas and Khasra No. 181 min
(old) now Khasra No. 1400 (new) measuring 04 kanals 17 marlas situated
at Maitra Govindpura, Tehsil and District Ramban.
03. It is specific case of the petitioner that a Revision Petition bearing File
No. 1116/FC-AP, filed by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Land
Revenue Act against the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 came to be
dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2022 by the Court of learned Financial
3 WP(C) No.2814/2023
Commissioner (Rev), Jammu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revisional
Court’ for short) without proper application of mind, which has resulted
in miscarriage of justice, sheer abuse of process of law and will tend to
unsettle the settled legal rights of the petitioner as well as will also lead to
multiplicity of litigation.
04. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, it would be apt to give a
brief background of the case leading to the filing of the instant petition as
under:-
i. That the Mutation No. 742 dated 20-06- 1996(sic in
Memo of Appeal, which is 20-06-1998) stands attested
in favour of the petitioner No.1 and respondents have
challenged said Mutation before the Court of Learned
Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and the said appeal
against the aforesaid mutation is sub-judice before the
Court of Learned Additional Commissioner-l (with the
powers of Divisional Commissioner), Jammu.
ii. That during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal the
respondents alongwith other unknown assailants tired
to forcefully evict the petitioner and his family members
from the subject land and attempted to take over the
possession of the said land but failed to succeed in their
sinister designs, however, the petitioner and his family
were brutally assaulted and injured, as such, an FIR
No. 0063/2O21 dated, 14-O4-2021 was got registered
at Police Station Ramban u/ss 452, 454, 380, 427, 147,
323 IPC against the respondents/accused assailants
wherein Challan/Chargesheet/Final Report has been
filed against the accused which is sub-judice before the
court of Learned Additional Special Mobile Magistrate,
Ramban.
4 WP(C) No.2814/2023
iii. That thereafter upon this incident, the petitioner
through his counsel moved an application before the
Court of Learned Additional Commissioner-I (With
Powers of Divisional Commissioner), Jammu seeking
directions to the Tehsildar, Ramban to submit factual
report as to the possession of the land on the spot and
in compliance to the directions issued by the Additional
Commissioner-1, Jammu to submit factual report about
spot position the Tehsildar, Ramban submitted his
detailed report vide No. TR/OQ/2021-22/Court/276
dated 09-06-2021 wherein it was clearly mentioned that
Mohd. Yousaf (petitioner herein) is in peaceful
possession of the land in question over the years.
IV. That upon the submission of the report of the
Tehsildar, Ramban the Counsel of the petitioner prayed
before the Court of Learned Additional Commissioner-1,
Jammu that directions be issued to the Tehsildar,
Ramban to ensure that the possession of the petitioner
shall not be disturbed and the Learned Additional
Commissioner-I, Jammu vide order bearing No.
AS/ADCOM/2021/137-40 dated 16-07-2021 directed
the Tehsildar, Ramban to ensure that the party in
possession as per his report shall be not disturbed.
V. That even though there were categoric directions to the
Tehsildar, Ramban to ensure that the possession of the
petitioner is not disturbed but despite that the respondents
continued to interfere into the peaceful possession of the
petitioner and did not allow the petitioner to cultivate his
land, as such, the petitioner again sought directions from
the Court of learned Additional Commissioner-1, Jammu to
protect his right to cultivation of his land which has been
admittedly in possession of the petitioner and the Court of
learned Additional commissioner, Jammu was pleased to
pass another speaking order bearing
5 WP(C) No.2814/2023
No.AS/ADCOM/2021/170-173 dated 05.08.2021 whereby
it was ordered that possession of the parties over the land
shall not be disturbed and party in possession is free to
cultivate the land. It was further ordered that parties shall
not raise construction or alienate the suit land till next date
of hearing.
VI. That thereafter on 02.02.2022, the Court of Additional
Divisional Commissioner-1, Jammu passed and announced
the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 thereby allowing the
application of the respondents in a mechanical manner
condoning the delay of more than 22 years (24 years as per
impugned dated of Mutation in memo of appeal), against
which the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the
Court of learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) J&K
which came to be dismissed by way of impugned order
dated 10.08.2022, hence the instant writ petition.
VII. That after the dismissal of the Revision Petition, the
respondents again forcefully tried to evict the petitioner and
take over the possession of the subject land but again failed
leaving the petitioner and his family members injured, as
such, FIR No.0384/2022 dated 13.11.2022 u/s 447, 323,
336, 504, 506 and 147 IPC was registered at Police Station,
Ramban and the Challan/Charge-sheet in the said FIR also
stands filed against the accused which is sub-judice before
the Court of learned Additional Special Mobile Magistrate,
Ramban. It is submitted that the respondents/accused also
managed to get a false/frivolous FIR registered against the
petitioner bearing FIR No.0385/2022 dated 13.11.2022 u/s
447,323,504,506,147 IPC which finally came to be closed
as “Not Admitted” as is evident the order bearing
No.CB/Order/2022/21302-05 dated 27.12.2022 issued by
the Superintendent of Police, Ramban.
VIII. That as counter blast to the aforesaid FIR, the
respondents though one of their female relatives, lodged
6 WP(C) No.2814/2023
FIR No. 0113 dated 02.04.2023 registered at Police
Station Ramban u/ss 307, 354, 341, 323, 336, 147,
148, 506 IPC and Section 3 of the SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment
2015) against the petitioner and his entire family
members as well as relatives, in which the investigation
is going on, however, the filing of challan has been stayed
by this Hon’ble Court.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated
25.11.2021 has been passed back dated and has been announced actually
on 02.02.2022, as is evident from the interim order dated 21.11.2021
annexed with the appeal file of the court below, which reads as:-
“25.11.2021-Case called. Ld. Counsels of both the sides
present. The order for the condonation of delay could not be
passed due to busy schedule. The same shall be passed and
placed in the case file. Put up on 23.12.2021”.
06. It is further submitted that on 23.12.2021, the Presiding Officer did not
hold the Court as he was deputed for training programme in Chandigarh,
which fact can be substantiated from an office order issued by the
Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in this regard. Moreover, the interim
orders passed in the above titled appeal by the Court below are
contradictory and reflect non-application of mind and casual approach of
the Court below, which clearly depicts that the impugned orders have also
been passed arbitrarily and mechanically to confer unjust and undue
benefits upon the respondents herein. It is further submitted that the
impugned orders suffer from perversity and arbitrariness as both the
orders are devoid of any plausible reasons or justifications for condoning
such inordinate and unexplained delay.
7 WP(C) No.2814/2023
07. It is argued that the Courts below have given no justification as to what
grounds prevailed upon the Court or what convinced the Court below to
condone such a long, inordinate and unexplained delay, as such, the
impugned order is required to be set aside to secure the ends of justice.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
08. Per contra, Reply on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 to 12 has been filed
wherein they have pleaded that the present petition is not maintainable on
the ground of delay and laches. It is further argued that order passed by
the learned Additional Commissioner, Jammu with powers of Divisional
Commissioner, Jammu which is under challenge before this Court has
been passed on 25.11.2021 and the Revision petition filed by the
petitioner against that order has been decided on 10.08.2022 by the
learned Financial Commissioner, Jammu and the same is also under
challenge before this Court.
09. The petitioner thereafter not only kept on waiting but was contesting the
appeal before the appellate Court, in fact, was wholeheartedly trying to
derail the proceedings there on one pretext or the other and has filed the
present petition only in the month of April, 2023 i.e., almost after eight
months of order passed by the Revisional Court.
10. Not even a single reason or justification has been given by the petitioner,
muchless the cogent one, explaining what has made him not to challenge
the impugned orders within a reasonable time. It is further argued that the
petitioner has been contesting the appeal before the Appellate Court in
pursuant to the order dated 10.08.2022, passed by the Revisional Court
which is subject matter of the instant petition till 04.11.2023 i.e., 08
months from the date of passing of order by the Revisional Court.
8 WP(C) No.2814/2023
11. A specific objection has been taken by the private respondents that the
petitioner availed two remedies simultaneously. On one hand, the
petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Revisional Court
and on the other hand, he (petitioner) has taken a calculated chance
appearing before the Appellate Court in pursuance to the order passed by
the Revisional Court and this aspect of the matter has been deliberately
concealed by the petitioner while filing the instant petition.
12. It has also been urged by learned counsel for the private respondents that
the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and has
suppressed material fact of contesting the said appeal before the Appellate
Court and there is no whisper in this regard in the entire writ petition.
13. Thus, after having taken a calculated chance before the Appellate Court in
pursuance to the order passed by the Revisonal Court, the petitioner has
filed the instant petition on false and flimsy grounds with a view to
mislead this Court by suppressing the material facts and to get a
favourable order.
14. It has also been pleaded that since the matter was remanded back to the
appellate Court by the Revsional Court, the petitioner has chosen to
appear before appellate Court voluntarily and simultaneously, has filed
the instant petition before this Court which tantamount to abuse of
process of Court.
15. The record reveals that even on 05.04.2023, an ex-parte proceeding was
initiated against the petitioner by the appellate Court and the counsel
representing the petitioner in the instant petition sought sometime to file
fresh power of attorney on behalf of the respondent before the Appellate
Court.
9 WP(C) No.2814/2023
16. Additionally, the counsel sought last and final opportunity to file an
application to set aside the ex-parte proceeding and to present arguments
before the Appellate Court.
17. In view of these submissions, the Appellate Court granted last and final
opportunity and fixed the case for arguments.
18. This aspect of the matter has been deliberately concealed by the petitioner
while filing the instant petition. Even on 18.05.2023, the counsel for the
petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex-parte proceedings,
which, with the consent of the respondents’ counsel, was allowed on the
same day. The petitioner was, therefore, granted last and final opportunity
to argue the matter. However, the petitioner has chosen to remain absent
on three consecutive dates thereafter and was again proceeded ex-parte on
06.09.2023.
19. The private respondents, in support of the averments pleaded in their
reply, have placed on record various orders passed by the Appellate
Court, a perusal whereof, reveals that on 04.11.2023, the counsel for the
petitioner again caused his appearance before the Court, who instead of
arguing the matter, requested the Court to call reports from the Deputy
Commissioner, Ramban, and the Tehsildar Ramban regarding his
application filed under Section 151 CPC and submitted that the ex-parte
proceedings initiated against him be set aside.
20. Another set of response has been filed by the learned counsel for the
respondent No. 3, who has contended that a case FIR No. 63/2021 under
Section 452/454/308/427/147/323 IPC has been registered at Police
Station Ramban on 14.04.2024 on a written complaint lodged by the
applicant, stating therein that the accused Mohd. Younis S/o Abdul Gani
10 WP(C) No.2814/2023
R/o Majri Kathua A/P Maitra along with other 15 persons entered in his
house with common criminal intention, attacked his family, tried to drag
them out of house, beat them and took away of their 01 buffalo and 01
bull, also stole some gold ornaments etc. After investigation, the instant
case has been closed and challan was presented against accused persons
namely 1. Mohd. Younis 2, Abdul Gani both sons of Chattu Gujjar 3.
Mohd. Farid 4. Lal Hussain 5. Mohd. Sadiq all sons of Ghulam Ali 6.
Shakeel Ahmed @ Kalu Gujjar 7 Asha Begum w /o Ghulam Ali 8. Abdul
Gani s/o Musa 9. Mukhtiyara Begum w/o Farid Ahmed all residents of
Govindpura Maitra Ramban and produced the same before the Hon’ble
Court of law for its judicial determination and now is on prosecution
evidences.
21. It is argued that a case FIR No. 384/2022 u /s 447 /323/336/ 504/506/147
IPC has been registered at Police Station, Ramban on 13.11.2022 on the
written complaint lodged by the applicant, wherein he stated that he along
with other family members were working in the field, suddenly accused.
(1) Mohd Fareed (2) Lal Hussain (3) Sadiq all sons of Ghulam Ali (4)
Abdul Gani s/o chattu (5) Billa s/o Mohd Farees (6) Ashia w/o Ghulam
Ali (7) Mukhtiyara Begum w/o Farid (8) Rubi w/o Lal Hussain, appeared
with criminal intention started stone pelting and abusing them, due to
which his daughter got injured. The challan of the instant case has been
produced against (1) Mohd Fareed (2) Sadiq both sons of Ghulam Ali (3)
Ashia w/o Ghulam Ali (4) Mukhtiyara Begum w/o Mohd Farid (5)
Rubina w/o Lal Hussain (6) Lal Hussain S/o Ghulam Ali (7) Abul Gani
S/o Chattu (8) Rubi W/o Lal Hussain, before the Honble court for its
judicial determination in which the next date of hearing was fixed on
11 WP(C) No.2814/2023
28.10.2024, for prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that on the
same day i.e on 13.11.2022, a case FIR No. 385/2022 u/s
447/323/504/506/147 IPC has been registered at Police Station, Ramban
on the written application of the applicant, wherein he alleged that he
along with his family members were working in the field on the same
day, suddenly accused namely Mohd Yousaf Naik s/o Samdu Naik R/o
Govindpura Maitra, Ramban along with other accused persons entered in
his land, attacked his family, pelted stone and
abused them. After the investigation, the case has been closed as “Not
Admitted” vide Final Report number 30/2O22 dated 29.12.2022.
22. It is further submitted that a case FIR No. 91/2023 under section 452/
307/323/447/427/147/506 IPC has been registered at Police Station
Ramban on the written complaint lodged by the applicant, against accused
persons namely (1). Mohd. Hafiz s/o Mohd. Rafiq, @ Hafrzu, (2). Abdul
Qayoom s/o Fareed Ahmed. @Billa, (3). shakeel Ahmed S/o Mohd. Kallu
@Kallu Gujjar, (4). Fareed Ahmed s/o Late. Ghulam Ali, (5). Mohd.
sadiq S/o Late Ghulam Ali, (6). Lal Hussain s/o Late Ghulam Ali, (7)
Rubina Begum w/o Lal Hussain, all resident of Govindpura, Maitra,
Ramban (8) Abdul Latief S/o Late Mohd. Raliq R/o Saroda, Billawat (9)
Mohd Younis (10) Abdul Gani S/o Chattu (11) Ayasha Begum W/o Lt.
Ghulam Ali (12) Mukhtyira Begum W/o Mohd. Fareed and were arrested
in the instant case and later released on bail from the Hon’ble Court. The
investigation of the case is going on as other accused persons in the
instant case are still evading their arrest and efforts are going on to trace
the accused persons.
23. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
12 WP(C) No.2814/2023
24. This is a classic case where the petitioner after choosing to appear before
the Appellate Court, pursuant to the order passed by the Revisional
Court, has taken a calculated chance before this Court after having
participated voluntarily and willingly in the proceedings as is evident
from the perusal of the order sheet of the Court below. Since the
petitioner gladly and voluntarily participated in the proceedings before the
Appellate Court from 18.08.2022 till 04.11.2023 and once, the petitioner
anticipated that he will not get any favourable order, has now taken a U-
turn by filing the instant petition on 08.11.2023 without disclosing the
fact of such participation during the intervening period. After having
taken a chance before the Appellate Court, the petitioner has filed the
instant petition on false and flimsy grounds, suppressing this material fact
which has direct bearing on the instant case.
25. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner suppressing their appearance
before the Appellate Court from 18.08.2022 to 04.11.2023 and in absence
of specific pleading on this crucial fact, it can safely be concluded that the
petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has
suppressed material facts with intent to mislead this Court and to get a
favourable order. On one hand, the petitioner is contesting the order
passed by the Revisional Court, while on the other hand, has voluntarily
availed parallel proceedings by appearing before the Appellate Court and
taking a calculated chance before that Court.
26. Thus, the petition cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold contesting the
order on one hand, while simultaneously accepting it by appearing before
the Appellate Court in compliance with the Revisional Court’s direction .
The petitioner’s act of filing the present petition by suppressing material
13 WP(C) No.2814/2023
facts, after having taken a chance before the Appellate Court, cannot be
condoned.
27. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the
maintainability of the instant petition, on the ground of suppression of this
material fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not give any
satisfactory reply, however he sought some time to have instructions from
his client.
28. The record further reveals that it was in the knowledge of the petitioner
about the factum of filing of the said appeal, which fact has been
deliberately concealed, while filing the instant petition. Thus, a duty was
cast upon the petitioner to have come up before this court with clean
hands but the petitioner has deliberately misled this court.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
29. It is settled preposition of law that a person invoking the writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 must approach the Court with clean hands. A petitioner
who suppresses material facts disentitles himself from any equitable or
discretionary relief.
30. In the instant case, petitioner has deliberately suppressed the prior
proceedings before the appellate Court on the same cause of action and
seeking identical reliefs and failed to bring this important fact which has
direct bearing in the instant case to the notice of this Court. Such
concealment, especially by a litigant represented by the same counsel in
both proceedings, cannot be brushed aside as inadvertent. The
concealment is found to be willful and calculated, with the intent of
misleading this Court and re-agitating a matter already adjudicated.
14 WP(C) No.2814/2023
31. Instead of challenging the subsequent order passed by the Appellate Court
on 04.11.2023, which was within the petitioner’s knowledge, the
petitioner has chosen to challenge the order dated 25.11.2021 and the
subsequent order passed by the Revisional Court on 10.08.2022. Notably,
the order passed by the learned Revisional Court was gladly and
voluntarily accepted by the petitioner and the petitioner did not raise any
grievance. Moreover, the petitioner participated in the proceedings before
the Appellate Court out of his own volition in which various orders were
passed, which have been placed on record by the private respondents in
their reply. The petitioner, through the instant petition, has suppressed all
these subsequent orders passed by the Appellate Court, despite
voluntarily accepting them, and has instead chosen to challenge the earlier
order passed by the Revisional Court.
32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as “K. Jayaram and ors v.
Bangalore Development Authority and others“, reported as (2022) 12
SCC 815, has held as under:
“10. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary,
equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner
approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put
forward all facts before the court without concealing or suppressing
anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to
the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order
to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of
playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties
which cannot be countenanced.”
33. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as “Prestige
Lights Ltd v SBI reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449” has held that a
prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising
extraordinary power, a writ court would indeed bear in mind the conduct
of the party which is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not
15 WP(C) No.2814/2023
disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty
of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without
adjudicating the matter. It was held thus: (SCC p. 461, para 33).
“33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had
approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it
had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is
exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a
court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party
approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court
without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on
the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the
Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss
it without entering into merits of the matter.”
34. In the present case, the petitioner availed two remedies simultaneously.
On one hand, the petitioner has called in question the order passed by the
Revisional Court and, on the other hand, has taken a calculated chance to
appear before the Appellate Court in pursuance to the order passed by the
Revisional Court, as such, the suppression of the this fact seems to be
deliberate and conscious. It is, therefore, evident that the concealment was
not inadvertent, but intentional, aimed at securing an undue advantage
from this Court after failing to obtain relief from the appellate court.
35. This Court also draws strength from the unequivocal position adopted by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as “Subrata Roy Sahara v
union of India and Ors” reported as (2014) 8 SCC 470, wherein the
Court has categorically deprecated abuse of judicial process by
unscrupulous litigants and held that:
“191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous
litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from
their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered
claims. One needs to keep in mind that in the process of litigation,
there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible
and senseless claim. He suffers long-drawn anxious periods of
nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending without
any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation from out of his savings
(or out of his borrowings) worrying that the other side may trick him
into defeat for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing
16 WP(C) No.2814/2023counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have
spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a
litigant not be compensated for what he has lost for no fault? The
suggestion to the legislature is that a litigant who has succeeded must
be compensated by the one who has lost. The suggestion to the
legislature is to formulate a mechanism that anyone who initiates and
continues a litigation senselessly pays for the same. It is suggested
that the legislature should consider the introduction of a “Code of
Compulsory Costs.”
36. This Court is further fortified by the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court laid down in the case titled as “Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors“, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114, wherein the following
has been held:
“1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of
life i.e.”satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam
Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these
values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the
justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence
era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts
irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period
has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has
overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has
become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to
take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts
in the court proceedings.
2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those
who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They
shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving
their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of
litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it
is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the
stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with
tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”
30. Thus, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is squarely applicable
to the facts of the instant case. Here also, the petitioner has deliberately
suppressed the fact with regard to availing of two remedies
simultaneously on the same cause of action. Therefore, the concealment
was neither innocent nor incidental it was a conscious attempt to secure
relief by misusing the process of law.
31. Additionally, this Court in the case titled as “Satpal Sharma vs. State of J
& K Through Commissioner/Secretary, Housing and Urban Dev
17 WP(C) No.2814/2023
Department” reported as 2024 SCC online J&K 775 lamented the rising
trend of dishonest litigants abusing the system and observed as under:
“64. Thus, from the aforementioned enunciations of law, it has been
settled that suppression of any material fact amounts to abuse of the
process of law and playing fraud, which would deprive an
unscrupulous litigant from availing equitable or discretionary
remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant
case, the petitioners, with a view to mislead this Court, have
deliberately suppressed the fact that the demolition over the land of
the petitioners was already carried out by the JDA before filing the
instant case, which fact has been admitted by the petitioners in three
separate applications filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and also
in the petition filed under Section 561-A of J&K Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners. In these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to
claim the discretionary remedy/relief available under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.”
32. Furthermore, this court in the case titled as “Madan Lal v. State Bank of
India“, reported as 2025 Live Law (JKL) 56 reaffirmed the same
principle and clearly held as under:
“49. Thus, the law is well settled that the discretionary relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution will only be granted to the person,
who comes to the Court with clean hands, which means that a party
seeking judicial intervention must come to the Court in good faith
without any form of deception, misrepresentation or fraud. The Court
has to exercise its discretion in favour of justice, fairness and equity
and will deny relief to a party, whose conduct does not fall within
these principles. Hence, a person, who is found guilty of such
fraudulent conduct, is not entitled to get a relief under Article 226 of
Constitution of India.”
CONCLUSION
3. In light of the aforementioned settled legal annunciations/preposition and
having regard to the conduct of the Petitioner and also keeping in view
the principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court including this Court, the
Court finds sufficient reasons not only to dismiss the instant writ petition
due to misconduct and concealment of material facts but also to levy
exemplary costs as a way to express its disapproval and to discourage the
improper use of constitutional remedies.
34. Further, with a view to curb such abuse of the judicial process, to deter
litigants from engaging in unscrupulous and dishonest pleadings, and to
18 WP(C) No.2814/2023
prevent recurrence of such malpractice, this Court deems it appropriate to
impose exemplary costs of ₹20,000/- on the Petitioner, to be deposited in
the Advocate’s Welfare Fund.
35. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant petition deserves dismissal
and, accordingly, the same is dismissed along with connected
application(s). if any.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
JAMMU
05.08.2025
Vijay
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Vijay Kumar
2025.08.11 18:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document