ORDER
1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.1-50 cents in Sy.No.234/45 and 46, Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.234/11 and 47P, Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.234/41 and A. 1-00 cents in Sy.No.234/42 situated at Tiruchanoor village, Chittoor, District as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. The facts in detail may have to be noticed before adverting to the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief in this writ petition.
3. The Tiruchanoor village, according to the petitioners, is a minor Inam village and the provisions of the A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) was made applicable to this particular village. The petitioners applied for grant of Ryotwari pattas under Section 7 of the Act. The lands of which the details are as follows:
Name of the
Petitioner
Extent
Kambham Raja Reddy
Ac. 1-56 cents.
Chittoor Subba
Reddy
Ac. 4-00 cents.
T. Venkla Narsalah
Ac. 1-50 cents.
4. Apart from these three petitioners, others have also applied for grant of Ryotwari pattas under Section 7 of the Act. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar stated to have granted pattas to the petitioners as follows:
Name of the Petitioner
Extent
Survey No.
Kambham Raja Reddy
Ac. 1-50 cents.
234/45 & 46
Chittoor Subba Reddy
Ac. 4-00 cents.
234/11 & 47P
T. Venkta Narsaiah
Ac. 1-00 cents.
234/41
Ac. 1-00 cents.
234/42
5. It is claimed that pattas were granted to the petitioners on 12-9-1999 after an order of remand by the appellate authority. The petitioners claim that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the land by paying land revenue to the Government. It is also alleged that no appeals have been preferred against the order granting pattas to them by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. This is the simple case of the petitioners.
6. It is alleged that all of a sudden the fourth respondent herein entered into the said lands without any authority whatsoever proposing to construct the buildings in the said lands. On being questioned by the petitioners, the fourth respondent is stated to have informed them that the land was given to them by the District Collector. The land is stated to have been allotted to the A.P. Tourism Development Corporation, Hyderabad by the District Collector. The petitioners claim to have issued a lawyer’s notice on 28th July, 2000 to the District Collector, Chittoor. No reply is given to the same. But the fourth respondent was proceeding further in the matter and the steps were being taken to reclaim the land in question for the purpose of constructing buildings in the said land inspite of their protest. It is under those circumstances, the petitioners filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The action on the part of the respondents is discriminatory and arbitrary. [t is submitted by the petitioners that such an interference on the part of the respondents would amount to depriving their property without any authority of law.
8. The Mandal Revenue Officer filed a detailed and comprehensive counter-affidavit for and on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 inter alia denying each and every averment made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the writ petition. We may have to notice the averments made in the counter-affidavit in detail, as essentially the question that falls for consideration in the instant writ petition mainly revolves around as to whether any patta at all has been granted as contended by the petitioners.
9. According to the averments made in the counter-affidavit, Sy.No.234 admeasuring an extent of Ac.113-00 cents of Tiruchanoor of Tirupathi Rural Mandal is classified as “Pedda Cheruvu”, a tank Poramboke in the revenue accounts. The question as to whether the land is not an inam land is not res Integra. It is stated that the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.193 of 1990, dated 9-11-1994 observed that “Decision has been given by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar on 11-5-1993 that the land is not an Inam Dry Land and is communal poramboke land, no benefit can be made available to the respondents under the non-existent order dated 22-9-1983 and it is the land having been declared as communal poramboke land, proceedings under Section 7 in respect of the land is also not available to be taken”. It is contended that the action of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor in treating the entire extent of Ac.113-00 cents comprised in Sy.No.234 of Tiruchanoor as Government land and
bringing it under the purview of Section 2-A of the Act is correct. No individual is entitled for obtaining Ryotwari patta. It is further contended that the petitioners have approached this Court with forged documents. The Government of Andhra Pradesh to attract tourists decided to allocate a bit of Ac.3-00 cents out of a total extent in Sy.No.234 to A.P. Tourism Development Corporation for construction of “Urban Haat” and boating etc. It is exclusively for a public purpose. It is submitted that the question of trespassing into the lands as such does not arise. The petitioners are not in possession of any extent of the land as alleged by them. No Ryotwari pattas have been granted at the rate of Ac.1-56 cents and Ac.4-00 cents and Ac.1-50 cents as alleged by the petitioners. It is clearly stated that the documents purported to be Ryotwari pattas alleged to have been granted by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar on 12-9-1999 are forged documents. The Mandal Revenue Officer refers to the affidavit of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar as confirming that no Ryotwari pattas were granted to any individual in respect of Sy.No.234 and in particular to the writ petitioners.
10. It is stated that the State Tourism Promotion Committee under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has resolved to develop Tourism at Tirupati Pilgrim town and decided to construct Urban Haat near Tirupathi and advised the Collector, Chittoor to identify Ac.3-00 cents of land and to hand over the same to A.P. Tourism Development Corporation. Accordingly the land in Sy.No.234 of Tiruchanoor was identified by the Collector and the same was allocated by the Collector, Chittoor vide proceedings dated 23-5-2000 read with Government Memo dated 12-5-2000. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi (R) in whose jurisdiction the land falls has handed over the same to
the Corporation on 13-6-2000 after subdividing a bit of Ac.3-00 cents out of Sy.No.234 denoting it as Sy,No.571/4. The construction activity has been undertaken by the Tourism Development Corporation.
11. It is submitted that the writ petitioners with an intention to grab the valuable land adopted unfair methods and prepared forged documents and got issued notice dated 20th July, 2000 addressed to the Collector and to the fourth respondent.
12. It is stated in specific terms and in an emphatic manner that no such pattas dated 12th September, 1999 have been issued by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. The alleged pattas are forged documents. It is further stated that the signatures appearing on the purported Ryotwari pattas signed by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar on 12th September, 1999 are totally at variance with that of the actual signature of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar one Mr. M.Ch. Nageswara Rao who worked as Inams Deputy Tahsildar upto 31st October, 1999.
13. A copy of the affidavit of one Ravichandran worked as Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor is made available for the perusal of this Court. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar having gone through the contents of the legal notice dated 20th July, 2000 issued for and on behalf of the petitioners stated that no Ryotwari pattas were granted under Section 7 of the Act in favour of the petitioners and others. The signatures appearing on the purported Ryotwari pattas of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor when compared with the signatures of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar who was on duty as on 12th September, 1999 prima facie differs with each other and a naked eye will identify the difference and the signature of IDT, Chittoor appearing on the photostat copies of the purported ryotwari
pattas enclosed to the legal notice dated 28th July, 2000 are forged one.
14. Based on the said affidavit and the information furnished by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar dated 20th July, 2000 informed the petitioners that the purported Ryotwari pattas enclosed to the notice and possessed by the petitioners are forged documents for which criminal action will be initiated separately for possessing such forged documents. In the said reply, there is also a reference to an order passed by this Court in WP No.1876 of 2000 filed by one Subramanyam based on one such patta alleged to have been granted by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. This Court dismissed the writ petition observing that “this land vests with the State and the same cannot be assigned. For this reasons I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed”.
15. Having regard to the nature of controversy, this Court by an order dated 29-6-2000 directed the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor to be impleaded as 5th respondent and Sri M.Ch Nageshwar Rao who is alleged to have granted the pattas in his capacity as Inams Deputy Tahsildar as 6th respondent in the writ petition. The said M.Ch. Nageshwar Rao was required to be present in the Court on 11-10-2000 in connection with the hearing of this writ petition.
16. This Court by a further order dated 13th October, 2000, having regard to the nature of controversy and having regard to the assertion made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents that the pattas upon which reliance is placed by the petitioners are forged documents, decided to examine the petitioner/deponent of the affidavit on oath. Accordingly he was directed to be present for recording his evidence in Court on 20th October, 2000.
17. Having regard to the peculiar facts and the controversy, this Court examined the second petitioner (deponent of the affidavit) on oath as a witness.
18. In his evidence, he stated that he claimed for patta for an extent of Ac.4-00 cents. In his evidence it is stated that on 10-12-1955 the Inamdar by name Srinivasa Charyulu granted permanent patta to his father. Since then his father and thereafter the family members are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. It is stated that applications were filed for grant of patta. But the same was returned by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. An appeal was preferred against the said order before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi also dismissed the appeal. Then a further appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Land Revenue Hyderabad. The appeal was decided in their favour by an order dated 10th May, 1999. It is stated that on remand by the Commissioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer further remanded the matter to the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. Ex.P3 is the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 30th June, 1999 remanding the case to the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. Ex.P4 is the copy of the order dated 30th June, 1999 in respect of the first writ petitioner. According to him, the Inams Deputy Tahsildar conducted enquiry and granted pattas to the petitioners. Ex.P5 is the order dated 12-9-1999 passed by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar in respect of the first writ petitioner. Ex.P6 is the Form VIII issued by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. Ex.P7 is the copy of the re-settlement register issued to the first writ petitioner. Ex.P8 is the no-objection certificate dated 13-9-1999 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi. Ex.P9 is the letter dated 30-9-1999 of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor certifying the enjoyment of the land by the first writ petitioner. Ex.P10 is the order passed by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar
dated 12-9-1999 granting patta to the second petitioner. Ex.P15 is the order dated 12-9-1999 of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar granting patta to the third petitioner.
19. In his evidence he stated that during the hearing the Inams Deputy Tahsildar scrutinised all the documents relied upon by the petitioners and also counter-signed the documents including the permanent patta granted by the original land owner. Ex.P20 (containing six sheets) are the documents counter-signed by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar in respect of the first petitioner herein. Ex.P21 are the documents relating to the second petitioner counter-signed by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar while Ex.P22 are the documents relating to the third petitioner counter-signed by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar.
20. In the cross-examination, it is stated by the petitioner that Ex.P3 order was obtained by him from the RDO’s Office after filing an application for a copy thereof. But he has no proof to show that such an application was filed by him. The copy was obtained by hand delivery. The petitioner denied the suggestion that the signature on Ex.P3 is not that of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi. It is further stated that Exs.P5, P10 and P15 were obtained by the petitioners by hand delivery from the office of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar after making necessary application. The witness denied the suggestion that the signatures on Exs.P8, P13 and P18 were not that of the MRO. The suggestion that Exs.P9, P11, P14, P16, P19 and P20 to P22 were not that of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor is also denied.
21. One Harilal who worked as Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi from 5-12-1998 to 9-12-1999 is examined on oath as RW1. He denied having passed any order in Ex.P3 proceedings dated 30th June, 1999 remanding the matter for fresh
consideration to the Inams Deputy Tahsildar for reconsidering the petitioner’s application for grant of patta under the Act. He denied the signature on Exs.P3 and P4. It is specifically stated that the appeal filed by the petitioners was still pending before the appellate authority till 9-12-1999 when he was transferred from that post. It is admitted by him in the cross-examination that the appeals were heard during his tenure as the RDO. But no orders were passed. It is stated that since he was transferred, since the conclusion of hearing he could not pass any order in the appeals, after reserving the case for orders. The records, after the remand order passed by the Commissioner, Land Revenue was received in his Office through the District Collector. He had not received any file directly from the Commissioner, Land Revenue. It is further stated that Bx.P3 and P4 purporting to be the orders of remand are not the formats in which the orders would be passed on appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Every order passed by the appellate authority contains the sea] of the office.
22. Sri M.Ch. Nageswara Rao is examined as RW2. As at present he is working as Superintendent, MRO Office, Nandigama. He was working as Inams Deputy Tahsildar from 2-12-1998 to 310-10-1999. In his evidence, it is positively stated that no applications were filed by any of the petitioners claiming pattas under the Act during his tenure as the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. It is stated that during his tenure as the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, he has not considered any claim for grant of pattas in Sy.No.234 of Tiruchanoor village of Chittoor District. The proceedings dated 12-9-1999 under Exs.P5, P10 and P15 granting pattas filed by the petitioners are not issued by him. He denied his signature on those documents. He denied the signature on Exs.P6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21 and 22. It is stated that the proceedings were not
issued by him and the signatures contained thereon were not of him. It is further stated that he had not received any proceedings dated 30-6-1999 in Exs.P3 and P4 from the RDO. Chittoor remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar.
23. The deponent identified his signature on the affidavit filed in this writ petition referred to hereinabove along with the counter-affidavit of the MRO. He has admitted his signature on Ex.C4 counter-affidavit. It is in his evidence that he is not in the habit of counter-signing the documents filed during the course of enquiry. The deponent denied of having issued any endorsement stating that he used to sign in different styles. It is stated that he has not received any notice from the petitioners alleging that he is in the habit of signing in different styles on different occasions.
24. The Mandal Revenue Officer is examined on oath as RW3. In his evidence he denied of having issued any no-objection certificate which are marked as Exs.P8, PI3 and P18. It is stated that he has not issued Exs.P12, 17 and 7 and the signature thereon were not of him. It is stated that the certificate in the nature of Ex.P18 are issued in the usual course by the Mandal Revenue Officer. But when applications are filed, the same will be forwarded to the Revenue Inspector concerned for verification and report and on receipt of report and on verification of village accounts and revenue records, such certificates will be issued. It is stated that when an application is made for issuance of copy of 10 (1) account, the same would be issued as a certified copy, duly affixing the stamps. It is stated that copies of 10 (1) as in Exs.P7, 12 and 17 are not issued in such manner. It is stated that Sy.No.234 of Tiruchanur is registered as “Tiruchanur big tank” in the revenue records.
25. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether the pattas purported to have been granted by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar are genuine? Whether they are forged and fabricated documents?
26. It may be necessary to briefly advert to the evidence available on record for the purpose of finding out as to whether the petitioners are speaking truth and as to whether the documents upon which reliance is sought to be placed are genuine and acceptable to this Court. Ex.P3 is the proceedings dated 30-7-1999 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer purporting it to be a remand order remanding the case for grant of Ryotwari pattas to the eligible persons. RWl-Revenue Divisional Officer denied his signature on Ex.P3. The order does not bear any seal of the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is not a certified copy of the order. It does not show as if the same has been dispatched to the petitioners. It is not known as to how the petitioners received the same. The petitioner in his evidence states that the order was obtained by him from the RDO after filing an application for a copy thereof. But he has no proof to show that such an application is filed. According to him, the copy was obtained by hand delivery. If really the petitioners filed such an application for grant of certified copies in the normal course, the office of the RDO would have supplied certified copies. I find it very difficult to accept the plea putforth by the petitioners particularly in the light of denial of signatures by the RDO on the order of remand. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the version of the RDO. His evidence remains unimpeached. I find it difficult to accept the evidence of the petitioners. The petitioner was not in a position to show that any notice was issued by the RDO or by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar proposing to hold enquiry. The RDO as well as the Inams
Deputy Tahsildar are the quasi judicial authorities. It is not as if they were disposing of some insignificant applications filed by the petitioners. There is no evidence whatsoever available on record to show that the RDO having heard the appeal passed any orders as contended by the petitioners. Ex.P3 the order of remand purported to have been passed by the RDO is highly suspicious document. Obviously, the petitioners brought the same into existence. Ex.P4 is the similar order as in Ex.P3 and the same observation would equally be applicable to Ex.P4 also.
27. Ex.P5 is purported to be the proceedings of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar dated 12-9-1999 allowing the claim of the petitioners for grant of Ryotwari pattas under the provisions of the Act. Ex.P6 is the patta certificate purported to have been granted by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar in the prescribed form. The signatures on both the documents are denied by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar in his evidence also denied the signatures on Exs.P10 and P15 proceedings which are similar to that of Ex.P5. The signature on Ex.P6 patta certificate is also denied. Ex.P9 is the no-objection certificate purported to have been issued by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. The same is denied by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. The signature on the said document is denied by him. Ex.P14 is similar to that of Ex.P9. The signature thereon is also denied. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar in his evidence denied the signature on Ex.P16 patta certificate and Ex.P19 no-objection certificate. Suffice it to observe that the Inams Deputy Tahsildar disputed and denied his signature on Exs.P6, P9, P10, P11, P14, P15, P16, P19, P20, P21 and P22. It is stated that the said proceedings are not issued by him and the signatures contained thereon are not his signatures. He denied that he counter-signed the documents Exs.P20 to P22. It is in his evidence
that there is no such procedure of counter-signing the documents filed by the party during the course of enquiry. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar reiterated the contents of Ex.C4-affidavit. In his evidence, it is clearly stated that the patta certificates and the proceedings, upon which reliance is sought to be placed by the petitioners are forged. There is absolutely no reason or justification whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. PW1 the second petitioner herein, in his evidence stated that it is true that when orders are passed by the statutory authorities like Inams Deputy Tahsildar, RDO, and the Commissioner, Land Revenue will communicate the order by registered post or by local tap pal. But in the instant case he stated that it is his habit to go and obtain orders after filing applications. According to him, he went to the office and made the application without waiting for communication of the order. It is stated that he used to appear before the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor on getting oral information from the office of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. The petitioner in his evidence admitted that there are no notices issued by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar proposing to hold any enquiry. In the circumstances, it is doubtful as to whether any enquiry at all has been held by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. The manner and method in which the petitioner claims to have got the copies of the proceedings would make the whole record produced by the petitioners as doubtful. Quasi-Judicial authorities do not orally correspond with parties appearing before them in respect of claims pending before them.
28. The Mandal Revenue Officer in his evidence stated that he has not issued Exs.P7 and P8. The signature thereon is not of him. The Mandal Revenue Officer denied his signature on Exs.P12 and P13 and also on Exs.P17 and P18.
29. The evidence of the petitioner does not inspire any confidence. Obviously,
he is not speaking truth. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever to hold that the documents referred to hereinabove, upon which reliance is sought to be placed by the petitioners are brought into existence. Prima facie, they are forged documents. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Officers who in categorical terms stated that the signature upon those documents, upon which reliance is placed by the petitioners are not of theirs.
30. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the version given by the Revenue Divisional Officer that the appeals, after remand from the Chief Commissioner, Land Revenue are still awaiting adjudication. The proceedings sheet in Ex.C3 would reveal that the Revenue Divisional Officer having heard the matter reserved the same for orders. The proceedings dated 27-8-1999 bears the signature of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Even to a naked eye the signature on the proceedings sheet dated 27-8-1999 and Exs.P3 and P4 the orders purported to have been passed “by the Revenue Divisional Officer further remanding the matter to the Inams Deputy Tahsildar are not one and the same. The signatures on Ex.C3 proceedings sheet of the Revenue Divisional Officer is not in dispute. It is nobody’s case that the proceedings sheet itself is brought into existence by the respondents in order to suite their version. Therefore, we may have to proceed on the basis that the signature on Ex.C3 proceedings sheet is that of the Revenue Divisional Officer. On comparison of the said signature with the signature on Exs.P3 and P4 it is clearly evident that the signatures on Exs.P3 and P4 is not the same as on Ex.C3. In the circumstances, the conclusion is inescapable that all the documents upon which reliance is sought to be placed by the petitioners are brought into existence by the petitioners in order to suite their claim.
31. In the circumstances, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the
alleged proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi dated 30-6-1999 in Ex.P3 are forged documents. No such proceedings appear to have been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi. So also Ex.P4 the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer is also not a genuine document.
32. Consequently, the proceedings dated 12-9-1999 in Ex.P5 passed by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar in respect of the first petitioner and Ex.P6 Form VII patta issued is also not a genuine document. Obviously, they are forged and fabricated and brought into existence. Likewise Ex.P9-order of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar relating to grant of patta to the second petitioner and Ex.P11 Form VII dated 12-9-1999 is also forged one. No objection certificates alleged to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer are also not genuine documents. The same finding would apply in respect of Ex.P5 order dated 12-9-1999 granting patta to the third petitioner and Ex.P16-Form VII dated 12-9-1999. Consequently the no-objection dated 30-6-1999 in Ex.P18 is also to be held as not a genuine document. There is nothing on record to accept that the Inams Deputy Tahsildar certified in Ex.P19 certifying the enjoyment in respect of the land in question. No reliance can be placed on any of these documents to grant any relief whatsoever to the petitioners.
33. It is well settled that the remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a matter of course. While exercising the extraordinary power, this Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the petitioners who invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court is entitled to dismiss the petition if the petitioner makes a false statement thereby attempting to mislead or deceive the Court. The Court may refuse to grant the relief only on that ground. The party invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is supposed to be truthful disclosing only material facts.
34. In the instant case, there is no doubt left in the mind of the Court that the petitioners have not only suppressed the material facts in the petition but have also tried to abuse judicial process. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is full of misstatements. They have resorted to tactics which can only be described as abuse of the process of Court. The Court has no option but to express and to record strong and emphatic disapproval of the conduct of the petitioners in this case.
35. The petitioners are not entitled for any relief from this Court in view of the finding that they have not only approached this Court with unclean hands but produced forged and fabricated documents in support of their case for gaining an advantage to themselves. False averments are made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The evidence of the second petitioner is totally unacceptable to this Court. By reason of such conduct, the petitioners have disentitled themselves from getting any relief from this Court. This Court is bound to refuse to hear anything further from the petitioners in this proceeding which has been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit followed by production of fabricated and forged documents.
36. It is well settled that the very basis of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India rests on disclosure of true and correct facts. If the facts are distorted, the very functioning of this Court and exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would become impossible. There is no place for any jugglery in equitable jurisdiction of this Court. Strategies and
devices which are unfair in nature cannot be equated to that of display of forensic skills. It is equally well settled that this Court has not only inherent power but duty bound in order to protect itself and to prevent abuse of its process and thus refuse to proceed further with the scrutiny of the case on merit if it comes to the conclusion that an attempt was made to mislead or deceive the Court.
37. It would be worth to recall the classic statement of law in this regard “We will not listen to your application because of what you have done ” (See R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, (1917) 1 KB 486.)
38. But the matter does not end there. This Court finds that the petitioners have produced forged and fabricated documents with oblique motive of deceiving or defrauding the Court. The Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, , observed that “Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior Courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one howsoever high he may be, if he violates Court’s order, but also to keep the stream of justice clear and pure so that purity of Court’s atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State and the parties who approach the Courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples”. It is observed by the Supreme Court that to enable the Courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any Court to administer justice in the true sense. It is held by the Supreme Court that the matter of prejury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods would amount to committing criminal contempt as given in
Section 2(C) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Such acts would amount to interference and obstruct the administration of justice. It is observed that “If recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive, the same would definitely hinder, hamper or impede even flow of justice and would prevent the Courts from performing their legal duties as they are supposed to do”.
39. In the circumstances this Court could have as well proceed against the petitioners herein under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
40. In Mohan Singh v. Late Amar Singh, , the Supreme Court having found that the records of the Rent Tribunal have been tampered with and having found that an attempt was made to hoodwink the Court directed the Registrar of the Court to file a complaint before the appropriate Court and set the criminal law in motion against the appellant therein. The Supreme Court observed that “tampering with the record of judicial proceedings and filing of false affidavit in a Court of law has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of justice. It undermines and obstructs free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice and aims at striking a blow at the rule of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and no one can be permitted to take liberties with it by soiling its purity”.
41. In M.S. Ahlawal v. State of Haryana, , the Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are mandatory and no Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that section. In the said case it so happened that while disposing of an earlier writ petition, the Supreme Court found that the writ petitioner to have filed affidavits before
it with forged signatures. He was also found to have made false statements at different stages in the Court. The Supreme Court after a show-cause notice convicted the petitioner therein under Section 193 of the Penal Code and also under Article 129 of the Constitution for committing contempt of the Supreme Court. The petitioner filed writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to challenge his conviction under Section 193 of the Penal Code on the ground that the Supreme Court could not itself inflict the punishment under Section 193 IPC. It ought to have, instead followed the procedure under Sections 195 and 340 Cr.PC. However, his conviction under Article 129 of the Constitution of India was not challenged. It is thus clear, if a false statement is made at different stages in the Court and if the Court finds that parties to the proceedings have indulged in forgery and fabrication, it is not only duty bound to order prosecution but also entitled to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
42. But the Courts is of the opinion that any further finding by this Court in the proceedings if to be initiated under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, may cause avoidable prejudice to the petitioners. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned amicus curiae submits that interest of justice would be met by directing the prosecution of the petitioners in accordance with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court finds substance in the submission made by the learned amicus curiae.
43. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to file complaint before the appropriate Court and set the criminal law in motion against the petitioners herein. The complaint to be so filed shall be taken on file by the learned Magistrate. The inquiry and trial shall go on in accordance
with law. It is needless to observe that the findings by this Court are prima facie in nature and intended to set the criminal law in motion against the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled for their defence in the matter.
44. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and shall stand accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousands).
45. The Court acknowledges the valuable assistance rendered by Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Advocate who readily responded to assist the Court at its request.