A Classic Case Wherein Litigant Misled Courts & Authorities At Different Levels To Put Life Into His Stale Claim: SC Allows State’s Appeal
The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal filed by the State of Orissa in a case relating to the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958. The Court said that it is a classic case wherein the litigant misled the courts and authorities at different levels to put life into his stale claim.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal held, “There is a huge delay on the part of the respondents to avail of their appropriate remedy against the final publication of record of rights. Hence, the respondents are not entitled to any relief. … On the application of principle of constructive res judicata, the writ petition filed by the respondents after withdrawal of the civil suit was not maintainable as no liberty was granted. In case still filing of writ petition was to be justified, at least complete facts need to be disclosed for the purpose, which were missing.”
The Bench observed that there was no mention regarding the filing of a civil suit earlier for the same relief and withdrawal thereof. It added that a litigant can be non-suited in case he is found guilty of concealing material facts from the court or misstating the same.
Advocate Shibashish Misra appeared on behalf of the appellants while Advocates S.K. Biswal and Chandra Bhushan Prasad appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, the order passed by the Orissa High Court was under challenge via an appeal. A writ petition was filed by Laxmi Narayan Das (dead) through legal representatives i.e., the respondents challenging the order passed by the Settlement Officer. The plea was filed more than 18 years after the said order was passed and the grievance raised was that the objections filed by the writ petitioners during the course of settlement were not considered by the authority concerned and the land was recorded in the name of General Administration Department (GAD) and a liberty was granted to the writ petitioners to file representation to the GAD.
The grievance was that the representation was filed, however, the same was not decided. There was no scope for interference in the writ jurisdiction and the writ petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, an intra-court appeal was filed by the respondents. The direction was given for consideration of the representation of the appellants before the High Court and allot them a suitable plot in exchange for their stitiban/sthitiban land. It was the aforesaid order which was challenged by the State before the Apex Court.
The following issues arose before the Supreme Court for consideration:
(1) Effect of delay and laches in availing the remedies against the final publication of record of rights.
(2) Maintainability of writ petition when the civil suit filed for same relief was withdrawn without liberty to file fresh one and on the concealment of material facts from the Court.
(3) Whether a party can rely on notings in the Government files without having communication of any order on the basis thereof?
While dealing with the first issue, the Court noted, “… it is evident that there is huge delay on the part of the respondents to avail of their appropriate remedy. Record of rights was finalised in the year 1962. As admitted in the writ petition, objections were filed by the respondents or their predecessors-in-interest before that. Remedy, after publication of final record of rights, was revision under Section 15(b) of the 1958 Act, to be filed within one year. No remedy was availed of. Nearly three decades after finalisation of record of rights, application was filed before the Settlement Officer, which was not maintainable after final record of rights is published.”
The Court further noted that when no relief was granted by the Settlement Officer, the respondents kept quiet for 13 years before filing a civil suit in the year 2003 and it was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2007. It said that the writ petition was filed in 2008, which was the subject matter of dispute, and that the writ petition to claim relief was filed after 46 years of finalisation of the record of rights, which was highly belated.
While considering the second issue, the Court said, “If the case of the respondents is considered on factual material, in view of the settled position of law, as has been referred in previous paras, it is evident that the respondents waived off their right to challenge the record of rights which stood finalised way back in the year 1962 and till date there has been no challenge made to the same.”
The Court further said that indirectly, relief was sought by filing an appeal before the Settlement Officer, which was not maintainable; a civil suit which was ultimately withdrawn and then filed the writ petition and thereafter writ appeal which was the subject matter.
“Admittedly, in the case in hand there is no order passed by the Government and conveyed to the respondents for allotment of any land, hence, no relief was admissible to them only relying on the official notings”, observed the Court while dealing with the third issue.
The Court said that the respondents including their predecessors-in-interest have been sleeping over their rights for decades and that the process for finalisation of the record of rights must have been started much prior to 1962, as the final publication of rights was made at that time.
“… the respondents are not entitled to any relief. … There was no order passed by the Government and conveyed to the respondents for allotment of any land in their favour. Hence, the respondents are not entitled to any relief solely based on the official notings”, concluded the Court.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court.
Cause Title- State of Orissa & Anr. v. Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead) thr. LRs & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 619)
