The Allahabad High Court has initiated criminal proceedings and requested the Bar Council of India to cancel the licenses of two advocates for playing fraud on the Court by inserting false interest rates into a typed copy of a land acquisition award to secure an unlawful financial benefit for their clients.

The Court rejected the submission of the Counsel that it was a typographical error and further refused to accept their subsequent pleas for mercy.

The Court said remorse arising from penitence for a wrong act is different from the fear of retribution from the Court upon discovery.

Consequently, the Court directed the recovery of all illegally disbursed funds as arrears of land revenue, requested the Registrar General to initiate an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 199 IPC, and instructed that complaints be lodged with the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council seeking the cancellation of the erring counsels' licenses to practice.

The Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed, "It is often said that the profession of advocacy is a noble profession however, a deep introspection is required by the Bar whether anyone other than the members of the Bar refer to the profession of advocacy as a noble profession anymore? Citizens approach the Courts through the members of the Bar out of sheer exasperation, desperation and helplessness, not because they want to, but because they have no other option. The angst of the average litigant is against both the Bar and the Bench. In such a situation, the litigant places his entire faith in his counsel believing that he would advise him properly and conduct his case with diligence and integrity. If the counsels for the Respondents are let off lightly by accepting their apology and an undertaking that they would never repeat it, the same would send a wrong message to the Bar, that sharp practice is acceptable as long as it remains undetected and if caught, the court shall be forgiving. Those nurturing such an impression must perish the thought."

Senior Advocate Dharmendra Singh Chauhan appeared for the Applicant, whereas Advocates Shiv Kant Mishra and Krishna Kant Mishra appeared for the Opposite Parties

Brief Facts of the Case

The present review application, preferred by Bareilly Development Authority seeking review/recall of the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 4600 of 2022. The land, in which the respondents have a 2/3rd share (Khasra No. 135 measuring 1.4750 hectares in Village Dohaniya, Bareilly) was acquired by the State for Bareilly Development Authority under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Since the award was not declared prior to the repeal of the 1894 Act, the compensation was determined by an award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The original award provided in the interest clause that interest would be payable under the rules from the date of taking possession until the award was declared.

However, the counsels for the respondents, while filing the writ petition, annexed a typed copy of the award in which an unauthorized text was inserted that interest would be payable at 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining period.

Relying upon the said typed copy as a genuine transcript, the Coordinate Bench issued a writ of mandamus on 24.05.2024 directing the Bareilly Development Authority to pay interest @ 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter from 16.12.2005 to 26.04.2016. 

Subsequently, the Respondents initiated contempt proceedings, and under pressure, the Authority disbursed the interest amounts. Upon discovering the fraud, the Authority filed the present review application along with an application for condonation of delay of 66 days.

Contentions of the Parties

The Applicant (Bareilly Development Authority) argued that the respondents and their learned counsels had played a deliberate fraud upon the Court by forging/interpolating terms into the typed copy of the award which were totally missing in the original award. It was argued that the order dated 24th May, 2024, was obtained on false premises and the applicant was compelled to make illegal payments on threat of contempt proceedings.

 The Respondents (Landowners) prayed for mercy for the counsels who are responsible for the deception and wanton corrupt practice of deliberately misleading the Court and securing a relief by fraudulent means to which their client was not entitled, the counsel for the Respondents before the Court. 

Observations of the Court

The Court said that it is shocked by the conduct of the counsels for the Respondents herein, who had prepared the writ petition in which the order under review was passed.

The Court said that a typographical error stands out from an act of deception. Typographical errors may result in spelling mistakes or mistakes in calculation or numerical errors, but where the interest @9% and 15% was never mentioned in the original award of 2016, adding the same in the typed copy was not an inadvertent error; it was misfeasance by the counsels.

"Learned counsels for the Respondents knew exactly what they were doing. They did it to benefit monetarily and to secure for their clients, relief that they were not entitled to under the law", the Court said.

The Court noted that had the respondents' counsels genuinely committed a mistake, they would have approached the Court for correction. Instead, they actively filed a contempt petition to enforce the fraudulent order, demonstrating clear mens rea and awareness of the offence.

The Court observed, "Remorse arising from penitence for a wrong act is different from the fear of retribution from the Court upon discovery. Today the apologies are forthcoming only because the bluff of the counsels for the Respondents has been called and they fear of what may befall them and therefore, the prayer for mercy is rejected."

The Court said that if the counsels for the Respondents are let off lightly by accepting their apology and an undertaking that they would never repeat it, the same would send a wrong message to the Bar, that sharp practice is acceptable as long as it remains undetected, and if caught, the court shall be forgiving.

"Those nurturing such an impression must perish the thought", it added.

The Court also observed that the Allahabad High Court has a history of 150 years, of which its members can truly take pride. It said that legends from the Bar and Bench have strode through its hallowed corridors, which is a reminder, frozen in time, of its enviable legacy of deep learning, erudition and most importantly, integrity, which is the backbone of character for the Bar and the Bench. 

The application for condonation of 66 days' delay in filing the review application was allowed.

The review application was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside on the grounds of fraud played upon the Court and lack of bona fides.

The Authority was also directed to immediately move an application before the concerned revenue authorities to recover the interest amounts disbursed at 9% and 15% from the beneficiaries as arrears of land revenue.

Finding a prima facie offence under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court requested the Registrar General to conduct an inquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the drafting counsels and file a formal complaint before the competent Magistrate.

The Registrar General was directed to prefer a formal complaint before the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council seeking the cancellation of the practice licences of the involved counsels.

The Court directed that the present order be placed before the respective Courts in all such matters where the set-aside order had been relied upon for seeking similar relief.

Cause Title: Bareilly Development Authority v. Ram Pal and Ors. [Neutral Citation:2026:AHC:159155-DB]

Appearances:

Applicant: Senior Advocate Dharmendra Singh Chauhan

Opposite Parties: Advocates Shiv Kant Mishra and Krishna Kant Mishra

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: