Kumar Ajay Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2008 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Kumar Ajay Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Civil Review No. 68 of 2023

Kumar Ajay Singh, S/o Late Devendra Sinha, R/o B-325 no. 4, Sankalp, Ashok
Nagar, P.S. Argora, P.O. Ashok Nagar, District- Ranchi
                                                  .... .... Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.   The State of Jharkhand
2.   Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, P.O. Harmu Housing
     Colony, P.S. Argora, District- Ranchi
3.   Secretary, Jharkhand State Housing Board P.O. Harmu Housing Colony,
     P.S. Argora, District- Ranchi
                                                  ...    ....   Opp. Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant               : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
                                  Mr. Rishi Bharati, Advocate
For the State                   : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III
For O.P. Nos. 2 & 3               Ms. Surabhi, Advocate
                                  Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
                           ------

Order No. 06 / Dated : 27.01.2025.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1. The instant Civil Review petition has been filed for the review of the judgment dated 27.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 729 of 2013.

2. The fact of the case, in brief, is that allotment of (H.I.G.) Plot No. H-25, in Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi was quashed by Office Order No. 5/ Aa-09-2967/05 dated 21.01.2013 by the respondent- Housing Board with a direction for eviction.

3. The said order was passed in view of the material concealment/ suppression on affidavit that earlier allotment of house/ plot was not made in the name of his wife, namely Sujata Kumari.

4. The said order of cancellation was assailed in W.P. (C) No. 729 of 2013. The writ petition was dismissed on merit as allotment was obtained by material suppression of fact which was in violation of provisions of 8-(D) of Jharkhand State Housing Board Regulation, 2004 and the settled law in NOIDA Vs. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi, (2022) 5 SCC 591.

5. The main contention of the petitioner is that the said affidavit which was the basis of cancelling of the allotment was not produced, as there was no such affidavit made and further no allotment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner.

6. The second ground for review is of non-payment of compensation in view of the Clause 15 of the Tripartite agreement which reads as under:

"That the event of the termination of the lease either on matter of its cancellation or on account of non-compliance with the terms of this lease and after non-renewal on the expiry of the present terms the first party shall have the right to take has possession of the promises on payment of such compensation as may be determined by the first party."

7. Ms. Surabhi, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the Housing Board submits that earlier against the order of cancellation of allotment, petitioner had preferred Appeal No. 01/2023 which was dismissed vide Order dated 13.06.2023 by the Board and against the said dismissal, the petitioner had preferred another W.P. (C) No. 4945 of 2023 which was also dismissed and had attained finality with the dismissal of L.P.A. Thus, Petitioner had preferred two writ petitions arising out of the same cause of action. One was against the original order of cancellation and the second was against the appellate order of cancellation. Having failed in both the rounds, the instant review has been preferred.

8. This Court is of the view that review can be sought only on error in the finding which is apparent on the face of record.

It has been held in N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria, (2013) 15 SCC 534:

"The review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits".

9. In the present case review has been sought on the ground that Petitioner has not been allotted any house, but the Petitioner occupied the house on the basis of Tripartite Agreement. A further prayer has been made that the Respondents be directed to bring on record the original affidavit allegedly sworn by the Petitioner, but the Photocopy of the affidavit (Annexure-B) is not reliable.

10. During the course of argument, it has been stated that an FIR has been lodged with regard to the missing of the original Affidavit and, therefore, in the same breath, it has been pleaded for a direction to produce the original affidavit which was falsely sworn by suppressing the earlier allotment of the plot in the name of the wife of the Petitioner. This plea cannot be countenanced for the reason that theft or missing of the original affidavit will not help the case of the Petitioner, as the there is no bar of admissibility into evidence of photo copy of a document under Section 65 (c) of the Evidence Act, in the event of the original being missing.

11. The Petitioner cannot make a capital out of this issue. Fact of the matter is that

there is no denial that allotment of Plot No.H-25 by a tripartite agreement on 22.11.2005 [involving the original allottee, petitioner and the Housing Board] was made during the subsistence of earlier allotment of HIG Plot No 73 in favour of his wife, which is in violation of 8-(D) of Jharkhand State Housing Board Regulation, 2004. Therefore, the order of allotment was rightly cancelled and I do not see any reason to review the earlier order passed by this Court on this count.

12. With regard to claim for compensation under clause 15 of the tripartite agreement, it is to be noted that entering into an agreement by suppressing a material fact was a fraud on the Respondent - Housing Board for transfer of allotment. It is not a case of cancellation simpliciter, but the very transfer of allotment was vitiated by fraud. Law is settled that fraud unravels everything. Thus, petitioner has no case for compensation.

It has been held in Ashok Kapil v. Sana Ullah, (1996) 6 SCC 342 at page 345 But can the respondent be assisted by a court of law to take advantage of the mischief committed by him?

The maxim "Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No man can take advantage of his own wrong) is one of the salient tenets of equity. Hence, in the normal course, the respondent cannot secure the assistance of a court of law for enjoying the fruit of his own wrong."

13. Courts of law are public institution run by public money, and any litigant is not at liberty to encroach upon the valuable time of the Court with meritless multiple litigations arising out of the same cause of action. As noted above, this is the third or fourth round of litigation initiated without a valid cause. One of the fallouts of such litigation is that it impinges on the valuable court time. Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated such propensity of filing frivolous cases. It has been held in Padmawati v. Harijan Sewak Sangh, (2012) 6 SCC 460: -

"10. The case at hand shows that frivolous defences and frivolous litigation is a calculated venture involving a no-risks situation. You have only to engage professionals to prolong the litigation so as to deprive the rights of a person and enjoy the fruits of illegalities. I consider that in such cases where the court finds that using the courts as a tool, a litigant has perpetuated illegalities or has perpetuated an illegal possession, the court must impose costs on such litigants which should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigant and harm and deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigation and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through the courts. One of the aims of every judicial system has to be to discourage unjust enrichment using the courts as a tool. The costs imposed by the courts must in all cases should be the real costs equal to deprivation suffered by the rightful person".

Accordingly, the instant Civil Review being devoid of merit stands dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- [Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand] which shall be deposited to the JHALSA within a month of this order.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/-