Court Must Curb Down On Parties Attempts To Take Different Stands Before Different Forums, Perjury Must Be Nipped In The Bud: J&K High Court
Dismissing a writ petition filed by a landowner claiming compensation for land acquired for highway expansion, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphasized that legal forums must not devolve into battlegrounds for tactical maneuvers.Underscoring the Judiciary's duty to curb perjury and false statements a bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed, “The Courts must...
Dismissing a writ petition filed by a landowner claiming compensation for land acquired for highway expansion, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphasized that legal forums must not devolve into battlegrounds for tactical maneuvers.
Underscoring the Judiciary's duty to curb perjury and false statements a bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed,
“The Courts must effectively intervene and nip the evil of perjury and false statements in the bud. Where a party takes different stand in different Courts and/or say at different stages/places to defeat the effort of other party to get benefit therefrom such an effort must be curbed down by the Courts effectively by binding him with his earlier statement(s) and his plea of raising a dispute should not be heard nor entertained”.
Background:
The case revolved around a dispute regarding land compensation for a plot falling under the Delhi-Amritsar-Katra expressway project.
The petitioner, claiming ownership of the land, argued that despite leasing a portion of the land to the respondent, he remained the rightful owner and deserved the compensation.
The respondent, however, countered the claim by presenting a lease agreement signed by the petitioner. This agreement stipulated that in case of land acquisition, the lessee (tenant) would be entitled to claim compensation for both the land and any structures built on it.
Additionally, the respondent presented evidence of an agreement to sell the land and a power of attorney granted to him by the petitioner, further strengthening his claim.
Court's Observations:
After meticulously examining the presented documents and legal provisions Justice Koul observed that the petitioner, by admitting to the execution of the lease deed, had effectively agreed to the respondent receiving the compensation. The court emphasized the principle of "approbation and reprobation," stating that a party cannot simultaneously accept and reject the same agreement for personal gain.
“Petitioner admits execution of perpetual lease deed which makes it clear that he has agreed that it is respondent No.4 who is entitled to claim compensation for the land in question which may be awarded in the event it is acquired. Once, he has agreed to it, he cannot turn around and say that it is he who is entitled to claim compensation”, the bench remarked.
Highlighting the need to prevent "trial by trickery" and uphold the integrity of legal proceedings, the court opined,
“The Courts must keep in mind that the Courts cannot be converted into a wrestling field, for trial of tricks where the Court has to act as an umpire. The Courts must effectively intervene and nip the evil of perjury and false statements in the bud”.
Explaining the “Doctrine of election” which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument the bench underscored that a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage.
In light of these observations, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs UT of J&K.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 28