Dismissed

Saiyed Zaiuddin Husain v. Board of Revenue,U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024WRIB/749/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a revenue officer's order. The court held that the petitioner failed to disclose the pendency of related ceiling proceedings, violating the duty to reveal all connected facts. The petition was dismissed for concealment of a material fact without granting leave to withdraw.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with a cost of Rs.2,500/- to be deposited with the Mediation Center within 10 days.

Saiyed Zaiuddin Husain vs Board of Revenue,U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58160

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 749 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Saiyed Zaiuddin Husain Respondent :- Board Of Revenue,U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anjani Kumar Dvivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 has been accepted by the Office of Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

In pursuance of the order dated 23.07.2024, notices were issued to private respondent Nos.4 and 5 through Dasti summons. In pursuance thereof, Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 09.05.2024, whereby the Board of Revenue has remanded the matter to the court of Tehsildar to consider and decide the recall application dated 05.02.2024 after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties on its own merit.

¶9

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 has been passed without considering the fact that an order had been passed by the Tehsildar on a particular date, i.e., 02.02.2024. Against the said order, the petitioner herein had filed an application for recall, which has been allowed by means of the order dated 05.02.2024 and thereafter, the notices have been issued.

¶10

This order came to be assailed by filing a revision and the contention of learned counsel for the respondent was that the order dated 05.02.2024 was liable to be set aside as it was

¶11

passed in violation of provisions of Regulation 457 of the U.P. Revenue Code. The revisional court taking note of the aforesaid, had partly allowed the revision and after setting aside the order dated 05.02.2024 has remitted the matter to be decided afresh after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶12

The Court has inquired from learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner is claiming a right over the property in question, to which he has orally submitted that the property in question earlier belonged to Zahidul Nisha and it is in respect of the said property that both the petitioner and private respondent No.5 are contesting the proceedings before the Ceiling Authority. He has also submitted orally that a writ petition regarding the same is also engaging the attention of this Court.

¶13

At this stage, the Court has inquired from learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the pleadings made in the instant petition, as where he has disclosed the pendency of the ceiling proceedings and the number of the writ petition, to which he could not give any satisfactory answer as the same has not been mentioned in the petition at all.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that since he has filed the instant petition with a very limited prayer and the pendency of the said petition relating to ceiling proceedings is not the subject matter here, hence, he has not mentioned about the same in this writ petition.

¶15

The contention and the explanation given by learned counsel for the petitioner for not disclosing full facts, is apparently not sufficient nor can be countenanced. In this regard, the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors. Vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education

¶16

Society & Ors. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 531 is relevant, which reads as under:-

¶17

"44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision-making to the court. True, there is a mention of the order dated 2-5-2003 in the order dated 24-7-2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not enough disclosure. The petitioners have not clearly disclosed the facts and circumstances in which the order dated 2-5-2003 was passed or that it has attained finality.

¶18

We may only refer to two cases on this subject. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] stress was laid on litigants eschewing inaccurate, untrue or misleading statements, otherwise leave granted to an appellant may be revoked. It was observed as follows: (AIR p. 1560, para 9).

¶19

'9. … It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave 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. That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the present case, special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent."

¶20

In light of aforesaid and other decision of the Apex in K. D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 , it is no more open for the

¶21

petitioner to decide as to what is relevant and what is not relevant. It is bounden duty of the petitioner to come before the Court with clean hands and indicate all facts, which are connected with the petition and controversy. It is not open for the petitioner to select what is relevant or not as that is the domain of the Court. Since, it is not disputed that the ceiling proceedings also relate to the property in question, hence, it cannot be said that the fact regarding the pendency of the proceedings in the ceiling court, which has been brought to the the High Court by means of a writ petition, which is said to be pending is a germane fact which ought to have been disclosed.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage, submits that he may be granted leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh. This Court is not inclined to grant said relief or liberty inasmuch as this was a fact which ought to have been disclosed and for non-disclosure, the petition suffers from the vice of concealment of material fact. Moreover, the order passed by the Board of Revenue has merely remanded the matter before respondent No.2, where it is to be decided on merits.

¶24

For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition, which is accordingly, dismissed with a cost of Rs.2,500/- to be deposited with the Mediation Center of this Court within a period of 10 days from today.

¶25

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Ashutosh

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saiyed Zaiuddin Husain v. Board of Revenue,U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saiyed Zaiuddin Husain v. Board of Revenue,U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shubham Singh Alias Sibbu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Narendra Dev Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and Others

Seema Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Tehsildar Tehsil Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur and Others

Kailashi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Ors.

Madhuri Devi vs State Election Commission, U.P., Thru. Election Commissioner and Others

Suresh Chandra Mishra vs Sri Anand Kumar Singh, Managing Director Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Lko.