Court Is Considered Place Where Truth, Justice Are Solemn Pursuits: J&K High Court Slams Litigant For Contradictory Statements, Imposes 20K Costs

Emphasizing the importance of transparency and honesty in legal proceedings, a Division bench of Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh & Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,

“In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits”.

Background of the Dispute:

The case involved a land mutation dispute. The appellants (Sukhdev Singh and Romesh Singh) challenged an order passed by the DC Jammu that set aside a mutation (transfer of land record) in their favor. They argued before the writ court that the DC lacked the authority to review the mutation order and that they were not given a hearing.

The writ court dismissed the appellants' petition, stating that they should have pursued the statutory remedy available under the J&K Land Revenue Act (filing an appeal with the Divisional Commissioner). The appellants then filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the writ court's decision.

In the LPA, the appellants changed their stance. They argued that the DC had no jurisdiction to act under either Section 13 (review) or Section 15 (revision) of the Land Revenue Act. They claimed the DC had exercised administrative powers instead.

The respondents maintained that the DC acted within their jurisdiction based on a representation filed by the appellants themselves seeking correction of the revenue records.

Court's Observations on Misleading the Court:

The bench found the appellants' change in arguments between the writ court and the LPA to be particularly concerning.

“The appellants cannot take contradictory stands before the writ and the Appellate Court according to their convenience which falls within the ambit of playing fraud with the Court”, Justice Nargal for the bench remarked.

Highlighting the importance of truthfulness in court proceedings the bench emphasised that a party cannot take contradictory stands in the same case and cautioned,

“If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take consequences that follow on account of its own making”.

Court's Findings on J&K Land Revenue Act:

The Court clarified that the order passed by the DC was not a review or revision under Sections 13 or 15 of the Land Revenue Act. It was an original order passed based on the appellants' representation. Since it was an original order, the proper course of action was to appeal to the Divisional Commissioner under Section 11 of the Act, as pointed out by the writ court.

Given the facts and circumstances of the case and based on said legal position the court upheld the writ court's decision, dismissing the appeal and imposing a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the appellants for attempting to mislead the court.

Case Title: Sukhdev Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 63

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment