S.N.A. Rizvi vs U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 9 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

 
 
AFR
 
Reserved
 

 
Writ Petition No.5984 (MB) of 2000
 

 
S. N. A. Rizvi					...	Petitioner 
 

 
Versus
 

 
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad 
 
and others 						...	Opposite parties 
 

 
-----------
 
						
 
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.

Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi,J.

1. A peculiar prayer has been made through this writ petition on the averments of strange facts having eccentric variations and omissions in relation to the predicted pattern.

2. The petitioner, a Scientist in the Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow had deposited 40,000/- through Bank Draft in the office of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. He alleges that the said Bank Draft was received by opposite party no. 2, who was a daily wage employee of opposite party no. 1. The petitioner further alleges that he has deposited the same Bank Draft as against the allotment of House No. D-1395/8, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. In lieu thereof, the opposite party delivered possession of the said house to the petitioner on 01.03.1998 and, since then, the petitioner is living in the house peacefully. But some manipulations were made in the office of the opposite party No. 1 and the Bank Draft deposited by the petitioner as contained in Annexure No. 1 was deposited in the name of opposite party no. 2, who is an ad-hoc employee of opposite party No. 1. That the price of the house, in question was Rs. 1,10,000/-. When the remaining amount was not accepted by the opposite party no. 1, the petitioner moved a representation dated 19.11.1999 as contained in Annexure No. 2 to the Commissioner, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, who, in turn, referred the matter to Joint Housing Commissioner (Vigilance) as contained in Annexure No. 3, resulting in some enquiry. Upon enquiry, it was found that it is a matter of forgery as is evident from the copy of enquiry report as contained in Annexure No. 4. The petitioner, again moved an application to the Chairman of Opposite No. 1, as contained in Annexure No. 5. Ultimately, the petitioner was informed through letter contained in Annexure No. 7. Upon enquiry, it was found that it is a matter of personal give and take between the petitioner and Opposite party no. 2. The petitioner has come to this court for quashing of Annexure No. 7. Affidavits and counter affidavits have been exchanged.

3. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the records.

4. It is true that a Bank Draft of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited by the petitioner in the Office of opposite party no. 1, but the petitioner has failed to show as to how and in what connection the said Bank Draft was deposited by him. The opposite party No. 1 is an autonomous body run by the Government of U.P., which has its rules and regulations. Allotment of a house is regulated by various Regulations and Rules. Mere deposit of a Bank Draft does not, ipso facto become an allotment order, nor this Bank Draft shows as to why it was deposited and in what connection. The prevalent procedure is that the plots/houses when put to sale are being advertised properly, which is an "invitation to offer" to the general public for allotment of a particular plot/house. When the said offer of a particular person is accepted, it is followed by letter of acceptance and then consideration is passed. Mere passing of consideration, no presumption can be drawn in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, if the contents of the petition are considered to be true to the hilt, it becomes a civil dispute which relate to right to hold property which is obviously a civil right for which the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach the Civil Court in original jurisdiction under Section 9 C.P.C which says that the civil court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

5. We are unable to understand the reason behind filing of this writ petition, by which no relief, directly or indirectly regarding the right over house no. D- 1395/8 can be granted. A simple certiorari has been sought for quashing the order dated 23.09.2000 as contained in Annexure No. 1. The said letter shows nothing except that it has been found upon enquiry that there appears to be a matter of personal give and take and by that letter, the petitioner has also been advised to move to the appropriate court. Even if the letter is quashed by allowing the writ petition, the net result would be zero as the petitioner would get nothing regarding the disputed house nor he can get redressal regarding the payment if any made by him to the opposite party through Bank Draft dated 18.08.1997. It is noteworthy that in the year 1997, when Rs. 40,000/- was paid, it was a big amount which nobody can give to anybody regarding purchase of a house, without any basis, without any documents, without any allotment order and without establishing any connection or cogent reason between the amount of Rs. 40,000/- and the house in question as mentioned in the writ petition. Thus, the petition is devoid of merits.

6. We are constrained to hold that the petitioner, a Scientist has been wrongly advised to approach this court and he has been contesting this writ petition for the last 12 years without any consequences.

7. While dealing with this case, we are reminded of the Book "Justice-Courts and Delays" written by Dr. Arun Mohan which deals in detail in causes of delay in the administration of Justice. According to the learned author, 90 per cent of our court's time and resources are consumed in attending uncalled for litigation, those involved, receive less than full justice and there are many more in the country in fact greater number than those involved, who suffer injustice because they have little assess to justice. In fact, lack of awareness is a scar, stigma tottering confidence in the judicial system. This uncalled for litigation gets encouragement from ill advice and the victims, more particularly are Scientist, technocrats and highly talented members of the society because they have no basic legal knowledge or proper opinion, usually raise unwarranted claims and also adopts obstructionistic tactics. This is the basic reason of delayed justice which sometimes called as denial of justice because the Court's precious time is consumed in unrealistic and unfruitful litigation which has no bearing in the results.

8. The book, referred to above, has been relied upon by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi [(2011) 8 SCC 249]. The litigation must be result oriented. If in the given case, the writ petition is allowed, in toto, the petitioner would get nothing, if vigilance enquiry is conducted and opposite party No. 2 is prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, even then the petitioner will not get back his house if it was allotted to him or if the money paid by him in connection with the house in question. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi (supra) has observed in para nos. 37 and 38, which are as under:-

"It is a matter of common knowledge that lakhs of flats and houses are kept locked for years, particularly in big cities and metropolitan cities, because owners are not certain that even after expiry of lease or licence period, the house, flat or the apartment would be vacated or not. It takes decades for final determination of the controversy and wrongdoers are never adequately punished. Pragmatic approach of the courts would partly solve the housing problem of this country.

The courts have to be extremely careful in granting ad- interim ex-parte injunction. If injunction has been granted on the basis of false pleadings or forged documents, then the concerned court must impose costs, grant realistic or actual mesne profits and/or order prosecution. This must be done to discourage the dishonest and unscrupulous litigants from abusing the judicial system. In substance, we have to remove the incentive or profit for the wrongdoer."

9. We would like to observe that the petitioner has annexed the report of vigilance Committee as Annexure No. 4 without establishing the source from which he obtained this copy obviously, with the connivance of unscrupulous employees of the opposite parties. The back page of which as is evident from the original record which we have perused, which mentions that no order of the property office or zonal Office regarding allotment of the house has been in existence. Nor any notification regarding allotment is in existence. This Office report also mentions that opposite party No. 2 informed the opposite party no. 1 that the Bank Draft was delivered to him by the petitioner as he has obtained a loan from opposite party no. 2. This fact, though mentioned on the back of annexure No. 4 is also not prima facie acceptable as the Bank Draft is not in the name of opposite party No. 2, but it is in the name of opposite party No. 1, which is a corporate body. There appears to be a mischief on the part of opposite party no. 2. All these matters relate to the right to property which are intricate enough and can be determined and adjudicated upon by the Civil Court in a title suit and not by this Court in exercise of extraordinary constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Departmental proceedings or domestic tribunal cannot bring fruits to the whole dispute as alleged by the petitioner. The material must be germane and relevant to the fact in issue, even if it be considered to be a grave case like forgery, fraud, conspiracy, mis-appropriation etc. The same cannot be brought to book by mere filing of counter affidavit and it requires examination of the witnesses including cross-examination which must be considered carefully. Distinguished from conjectures or speculations, there can be no inferences unless there are objective proved facts, direct or circumstantial from which to infer the other fact which is sought to establish. The standard of proof is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but the preponderance of probabilities tending to draw the inference that the fact must be more probable. Standard of proof, however, cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. The probative value could not be gauged from facts and circumstances in a given case. The Standard of proof is the same both in civil cases and domestic enquiries.

10. Prima facie, in our view, the dispute involved in this writ petition is purely a simple question of civil litigation and intricate question of ownership is involved in this case which has neither been raised nor can be raised in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrong- doers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that court's otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases.

12. We have to dispel the common impression that a party by obtaining an injunction based on even false averments and forged documents will tire out the true owner and ultimately the true owner will have to give up to the wrongdoer his legitimate profit. It is also a matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in our courts because they have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the courts or even pay heavy costs. In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 668] this court was constrained to observe that perjury has become a way of life in our courts.

13. It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoer.

14. Perhaps, the present writ petition has been filed with an ulterior motive to coerce the other party to enter into a settlement with the petitioner and he may get property rights over the house in question without any allotment and following required procedures of law. The principle of judicial discipline require that such litigations must be nipped in the bud. The writ petition is against all the healthy rules of justice.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Dt.22.3.2013

Nitesh

(Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.)

(Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi,J.)