SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS .

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. Following the procedure, an award was made on January 9, 1964. Po~eSsio.{ was taken on April 6, 1971 and\vas handed over to tbe Jaipur UrbanDevelopment Aulhorily 0n the'same day under a duly drawn panchzlama, Thu5 the title in the property of Bli~lal, the original owner w'as divested' and stood vestec! in the' Jaipiir Urban Development Authoriijfree fro~ 3l!'encumbrancCi;. Bamidliai Agga..W!.t and his partner Surajmat'pW:cfuiSed tbe lands from the Kfuieda! BhudaI who in turn sold on February 28, 1970 to Appollo Cooperaii~e HoQSWg Society. A writ peittlon wasfiled by SurajnkJ qnesiioning'the acqtiisitici'n:. E. The Single Judge bY hiS judgment dated March 31, 1971 dismissed the writ petition which WaS ciinfirined in appeal on April 12, 1973, aported in AIR (1974) Raj. 116. On further appeal to ihiS Court, this co.;J.t dismissed the ,. appeal on September 17, 1974 reported inlndrapuri (iriha Ninnan Stihkilri Samiti Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1975) 4 SCC 296, Thus the • notification under s.4(1)' stood' confirmed. The Apollo Nagai" Housing ·F .Society said to hiiv~ sold the plots to !hf: appellants ari& allotted the same on May 31.,' 1971.'It would 'appear tkt outing the pendency c( the :writ petition and .writ appeal stay of'dispos5eSsiori WaS obtiiined and it was clainied that the Chairman U.l.T., Jaipur had offered 3notment of the lands to the APpollo Nagar HoUsing SocietY on J.;,tuary 5,"1972@ Rs: 8 per sq. G yard whii:h Appollo was claimed to have accepted ori January 15, J912 and started construction· on th~ lanct When the MWisif Magistrate was moved for stay of unauthorised corisinicticin, ultimately petition'was dismissed. But when the Urban Developihent Authority resisted their constructlon they invoked the jurisdiction on the Civil Court by filing a suit for perpetual 1 injunction. Ultimately in Civil Revision No. 769 of 1985 dated February 14, 'H

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S,C.R.

A 1986, the High Court dismissed the revision with certain observatio.ns to wit that Appollo Nagar Greh Nirman Sehkari Samiti. had neither prima facie nor had balance of convenience been proved nor had irreparable loss that would be caused been established.

On August 30, 1988 when the Jaipur Development Authority started B demolition of the structures, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 2956 of 1988 ·and sought for declaration that the land in question stood acquired or construction regularised in their favour and for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their constructions in respect of their plots. It may be relevant to mention at this juncture that the c appellants amended the writ petition and also filed additional affidavit. In the writ petition the case set up was that the government invited, by public notice, applications for conversion of the agricultural lands into urban lands and regularisation of the construction made thereon and pursuant thereto they had depositecJ the total sum of Rs. 91006.58 p. The government had accepted the same. A letter in proof thereof was issued by the Addl. Collector (South) on November 22, 1985 and marked in the High Court as Annexure-8. And it was also pleaded that the appellants were hopeful that the government would deacquire the property and regularise the un- authorised construction they had made. Instead, the respondents had chosen to demolish part of their construction on August 30, 1988 and repeated the demolition of the remaining construction by August 31, 1988. The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment dated November 26, 1988 dismissed the writ petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.

F Sri Rangarajan Kumaramangalam, the learned couns!fl for the appel- lants contended that the Addl. Collector in his proceeding dated November 4, 1985 converted the agricultural lands into non-agriculatural lands and allotted the lands to the appellants under Rajasthan Land Revenue Allot- ment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Lands Rules, 1981 for short 'the Rules'. Under s. 17A of the Act, unless by an order, possession is transferred to J.D.A., the land remains to be the property of the government, though the Collector had acquired the land and taken posses- sion under s. 16 or 17 and make over to the local authority upon payment of the cost of the acquisition. So the land did not vest in the J.D.A., local authority. There is no evidence placed on record that J.DA. had paid the cost of the acquisition to the state and an order of transfer was made by

SHANTI DEVI v. STATE [K RAMASWAMY, J.] 5

the Collector in its favour. The land, therefore, continues to vest in the government. The Add.I. Collector as a delegate of.the Collector under the Rules had regularised the construction by the receiving conversion charges

• etc. Thereby the title in the land stood vested in the appellants and that they are the owners. The action taken by the respondents in demolishing their house3 or attempt of demolition of part thereof is illegal, unwarranted and unauthorised. The High Court, therefore, committed error of law in dismissing the writ petition in this behalf. It is also contended that the appellants are challenging the very notification issued under s.4(1) in the writ petition.

,. Having given our anxious consideration to the contention, our prim.a C f acie view was that the contention is unexceptionble and that the appellants have a case for interference. But, when we went deep into 'the facts it shocked our conscience to notice that the order of regularisation by the Addl. Collector, Jaipur (South) puported to have been made on November 4, 1985 appeared to be a propped up document brought on record for the D first time in this Court. That document had never seen the light of the day when proceedings in two stages were pending in the High Court and a new case, for the first time, has been advanced before us on its foundation. It is seen that in the High Court, though the appellants had opportunity which they availed of and to amend the pleadings and file additional affidavit, 1,. f., had not pleaded that the Add.I. Collector had converted the agricultur&;._ "E lands into urban lands regularised the authorised constructions and thaC' allotment of the government plots of land was made in their favour nor was it argued before the division bench. Though we have doubt whether Add.I. Collector could allot government land after regularisation under the Rules, we need not go into nor record any findings in the view we are taking on the facts. The intrinsic evidence on record falsifies the stand and leads us F to an irresistible interference that the said order of the Add.I. Collector must have been a document brought up subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court. The Add.I. Collector in his letter dated June 17, 1985 to the J.D.A. stated that Appollo Nagar Greh Nirman Coop. Society made an application on July 21, 1974 for conversion. The J.D.A. G 'had not recommended for transfer of the land to that society and, there- fore, their letter was rejected on October 31, 1984. This letter is made part of the record as Annexure R-1. In the order dated November 4, 1985, the Add.I. Collector has .purported to note that a total sum payable towards transformation fee and penalty for construction area and land allotment fee would be Rs. 92189.48 p. and the amount deposited was Rs. 91006.58p. H

r 6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A and direction was given to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 1182.90 p. In ilie letter dated October 15, 1985 addressed by Appollo Nagar t-lo"sing Coop. Society, he requested the Adell Collector to issue receipt. for a deposit, of• Rs. 91006 and also requested for allotment of the laiid in accordance with the government decision dated Septemb.er 1, 1984. In the letter addresseef by the Addi Collector to the Senior Town Planner of B J.D.A. while intimating of the letter it was stated as November 22, 1985 i.e. after the date of the purported regularisation that the appellants had deposited only Rs. 9100658 'p. In other words as on November 22, 1985 there is no mention of either deposit made by the appellants for the balance. amount of Rs. 1182.90 p. or of the order dated November 4, 1985 of the alleged regularisation and allotment. Moreover, there is no reference in that letter to the letter dated November 4, · 1935 regularising the· illegal construction by converting agricultural lands into non-agricultural lands and collection of the total amount and calling upon the appellant to pay the balance. amount of Rs. 1182.90 p. It is not the case of the appellants that they had ever deposited the balance amount pursuant to the letter of allotment dated November 4, 1985. The High Court dismissed civil revision petition on February 14, 1985 (2nd stage of the litigation) holding that there is no prima fade title established for issuance of an injunction order in their favour. One would legitimately expect the production of the purported order dated November 4, 1985 and pressed the appellants' case on its basis as title for claiming an injunction. As seen the admission in the pleadings, the writ petition (3rd stage) is that the government have not chosen to regularise the conversion and that the relief was for the declaration of deemed regularisation_ During the course of the arguments when the counsel° for the J .D.A. asserted that the land stood vested in them, no attempt was made even at that stage of the assertion of the · alleged regularisation and conversion of the land into urban area and adjustment of deposit amount towards the conversion charges, allotment charges and . penalty and allotment of the land. Thus it is clear that as on date of disposal of the writ petition in the High Court, the alleged regularisation order dated November 4, 1985 did not see the light of the day. Obviously it must be a fabricated document propped up thereafter and for the first time it was made part of the record in this court and a new plea was found for the relief on its basis. Thus not only a new case has been set up in this · Court on the basis of fabricated document but also the fabricated docu- ment is presse_d into service for consideration by this Court. The case thus clearly indicates the need for the amendment of the Supreme Court Rules H to insist upon raising grounds only on the case set up and argued in the

SHANTI DEVI v. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 7

courts below on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence placed before the High Court or the Courts below unless leave of this court is sought and . • obtained. If any additional evidence is to be made part of the record, an application in this behalf under the Rules and Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. should be made. Until then they cannot be looked into. Lest the party gets scot free introducting new documents which have no foundation or fabri- cated documents find free passage into the record of this court for which no one takes responsibility. The respondents would have no opportunity to properly verify the authenticity of the documents etc. The case, therefore, is absolutely a case of blatant abuse of the process of the court. The appeal . is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs of rupees one la.kb. The Govt. of Rajasthan shall get investigation made into the fabrication of the order purported i:o be issued by the Addl. Collector, Jaipur (South) and said to be dated November 4, 1985 and to take appropriate steps in that behalf. The writ petition is also a blatant abuse of the process of the court. The acquisition proceedings have become final and the notification was upheld by this Court, as stated already. Therefore the writ petition also stands dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs of rupees one lakh. Cost should be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. In case of non-payment, the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee is free to have it recovered by execution of this Order. '. S.M. Appeal and Petition dismissed.