In a landmark ruling that underscores the importance of integrity in judicial proceedings, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has imposed a ₹50,000 penalty on petitioners Satpal Sharma, Hardev Singh, and Ishan Sharma for suppressing material facts and misleading the court. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, delivering the judgment, emphasized that litigants who attempt to “pollute the stream of justice” through deceit and manipulation are not entitled to any relief, either interim or final.
Case Background
The case, titled Satpal Sharma & Others v. State of J&K & Others (OWP No. 2015/2018), was initiated by Satpal Sharma (aged 65), Hardev Singh (aged 63), and Ishan Sharma (aged 30). They sought legal protection against the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) and other respondents, including the State of J&K, represented through the Commissioner/Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, and several officials of the JDA. The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Mr. K. S. Johal, assisted by Mr. Supreet S. Johal and Ms. Radha Sharma. The respondents were represented by Ms. Monika Thakur, assisting counsel to Mr. S. S. Nanda, Senior Additional Advocate General, along with Mr. Adarsh Sharma and Mr. Atul Verma for JDA officials.
Factual Matrix of the Case
The dispute centered around land measuring 1 Kanal 16 Marlas situated at Channi Rama, Jammu, which the petitioners claimed ownership over through various sale and gift deeds. The land was initially owned by Jagdev Singh, Ved Pal, and Saba Ali, and later divided among them. The petitioners contended that the JDA, without any legal basis, attempted to forcibly take over the land and demolish existing structures.
The petitioners had previously secured a decree from the Sub-Judge, Jammu, in 2008, affirming their ownership and restraining the Northern Railways from interfering with their possession. This decree was upheld by the Additional District Judge, and the petitioners continued to assert their rights over the property, which they claimed to have developed in accordance with municipal regulations.
Legal Issues
1. Right to Property: The petitioners argued that their right to property, recognized as a constitutional right in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, was being violated by the JDA’s actions. They sought a writ of Certiorari to quash the JDA’s decision to demolish the structures and a writ of Mandamus to restrain the JDA from interfering with their possession.
2. Misrepresentation and Suppression of Facts: The core issue was whether the petitioners had misled the court by filing the writ petition after the demolition had already taken place, thereby securing an interim order based on incomplete or incorrect information.
3. Due Process of Law: The court examined whether the JDA had followed due process in carrying out the demolition and whether the petitioners had been afforded a fair opportunity to present their case.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Nargal meticulously analyzed the evidence and concluded that the petitioners had deliberately suppressed the fact that the demolition had already been conducted by the JDA on September 30, 2018, a day before the petitioners filed their writ petition on October 1, 2018. This suppression of facts led to the granting of an interim status quo order by the court on October 1, 2018, which effectively halted any further action by the JDA.
In his judgment, Justice Nargal cited the principle established by the Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited, which states, “An applicant who does not come with candid facts and a ‘clean breast’ cannot hold a writ of the court with ‘soiled hands’. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy; it is a jugglery, manipulation, and misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.”
The court further noted that the petitioners, in separate applications filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., had admitted that the demolition occurred on September 30, 2018. Despite this, they approached the High Court the following day, falsely representing that the demolition was imminent, thereby securing a favorable interim order. This act, the court observed, amounted to a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive the court.
Decision
In light of these findings, the court dismissed the petition, labeling it as “misconceived, false, and frivolous.” Justice Nargal imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioners, to be paid jointly within two weeks to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund. Failure to comply with this order would result in further legal consequences. The court also vacated all interim orders and declined to address the merits of the case, focusing instead on the petitioners’ conduct.
Justice Nargal underscored that such dishonest behaviour not only misuses judicial resources but also undermines the integrity of the legal system. He emphasized that courts, as institutions of equity, cannot condone actions that amount to fraud and manipulation. “Suppression of truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, and those who attempt to pollute the stream of justice will receive no relief,” the judgment stated.
Case Title: Satpal Sharma & Others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others
Case Number: OWP No. 2015/2018
Connected Case Number: CPOWP No. 293/2018
