Dismissed

Bipin Prasad v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC3 May 2011CWJC/2625/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Patna dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging eviction orders for encroachment. The court declined relief holding that the petitioner approached with unclean hands by suppressing the rejection of an earlier injunction application in a related title suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is dismissed. The petitioner is denied relief due to suppression of relevant facts regarding an earlier injunction rejection.

Bipin Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2625 of 2010

¶2

BIPIN PRASAD S/O LATE RAMANAD PRASAD R/O VILL.BARITOLA, P.S.- MUFFASIL (BETTIAH), DISTT.- W. CHAMPARAN Versus

¶3

THE STATE OF BIHAR

¶4

2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH

¶5

THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COLLECTOR (D.D.C.) WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH

¶6

THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH

¶7

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BETTIAH, SADAR

¶8

THE ANCHALADHIKARI BETTIAH WEST CHAMPARAN

¶9

THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DISTRICT BOARD, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN

¶11

AMAR KISHOR PRASAD S/O LATE BINDHWASIN PRASAD R/O VILL.- BARITOLA, P.S.- MUFFASSIL (BETTIAH), DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN

¶12

¶13

03.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the Zila Parishad, Bettiah, West Champaran.

¶14

Respondent no.9 was granted a settlement by the Zila Parishad. He alleged obstruction in his ingress and egress. The Zila Parishad attributed it to encroachment by the petitioner on the lands of the Zila Parishad. Orders have been passed for eviction as an encroacher.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier in the year 1998 itself he had filed a Suit against the Zila Parishad, which is still pending. If a Title Suit was pending between the parties, the Zila Parishad could not have declared the petitioner as an encroacher insofar as the Zila Parishad itself is concerned.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State from the counter affidavit submits that the petitioner had sought the relief of

¶17

¶18

injunction in Title Suit No. 09 of 1998 which was rejected on 4.5.2000. The petitioner did not question the same and it attained finality.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that the aforesaid facts with regard to the injunction application are correct.

¶20

The writ petition has been filed in the year 2010, strenuously relying on the pendency of Title Suit No. 09 of 1998 to question the legal justification for the impugned order in Encroachment Case No. 18 of 2007-08. But the petitioner has chosen not to make disclosure with regard to the rejection of the injunction application as far back as 2000 and that it had attained finality.

¶21

Surely, the rejection of the prayer for injunction was a very relevant fact in light of the encroachment proceedings. Fairness on part of the petitioner demanded that he should have made full disclosure and complete of the true facts to this Court, leaving the final conclusion to the Court.

¶22

The law stands well settled that if a person approaches the writ Court with unclean hands and which also include suppression of relevant materials, the writ Court shall decline

¶23

to interfere on its jurisdiction.

¶24

In (2010) 4 SCC 728 (Oswal Fats and Oils Ltd. V. Commr. (Admn) it has been held as follows at paragraph-20:-

¶25

“20. It is settled law that a person who approaches the court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing

¶26

¶27

on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person."

¶28

The writ application is dismissed.

¶29

P.K.

¶30

( Navin Sinha, J. )

Bipin Prasad v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Prasad v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dabalu Kumar @ Dabalu Kumar Sa Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Deep Narayan Sah Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sheopujan Pandey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bholan Choudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Naresh Manjhi and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.