Allahabad High Court Imposes Rs. 50K Cost On Litigant For Concealing Facts, Says Counsel Had 10 Yrs+ Standing But Failed His Bounden Duty

While considering a case under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1963, the Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 /- on a litigant for concealing material facts from the Court.

In imposing exemplary costs, Justice Jaspreet Singh relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, where it recently laid down corrective measures for advocates who had indulged in malpractice.

“There is a great sanctity attached to the proceedings conduct in the court. Every advocate putting his signatures on the Vakalatnamas and on the documents to be filed in the Courts, and every Advocate appearing for a party in the courts, particularly in the Supreme Court, the highest court of the country is presumed to have filed the proceedings and put his/her appearance with all sense of responsibility and seriousness. No professional much less legal professional, is immuned from being prosecuted for his/her criminal misdeeds,” held the Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh (supra).

Case Background

Petitioners approached the Court stating that in the year 2019-20, consolidation proceedings were conducted on their land under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1963. It was contended that during this procedure, a large number of irregularities were committed. Aggrieved by the same, they filed a writ petition.

Per contra, counsel for respondents argued that all process had been followed duly and that the petitioners had been encroaching on and falsely occupying government land. Respondents submitted that multiple proceedings had been initiated against the petitioners in this regard, including a writ petition by the Gaon Sabha and an F.I.R., a fact that the Court was previously unaware of. Based on this, they contended that the petitioners had concealed material facts.

Respondents stated that when actions were instituted against the petitioners, they resorted to filing multiple writ petitions.

The Court then directed the petitioners to file a rejoinder. In the rejoinder, it found that the petitioners did not dispute any of the allegations made against them. The petitioners conceded that an F.I.R. had been lodged against them and that they had also remained under judicial custody for a period of time.

In their defence, however, petitioners claimed that the writ petitions filed by them earlier were related to a different plot of land and were filed with a different cause. Thus, they claimed that there was no nexus between the earlier cases and the facts of the present case.

High Court Verdict

The Court relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagwan Das Chela Balram Das v. District Magistrate Ambedkarnagar and Ors. where law regarding concealment of material facts by a litigant was discussed in detail.

Justice Singh examined the facts of case it detail and held the petitioners had not disclosed a number of facts before the Court.

“In case if any of the petitioners would have been aggrieved, they would have a right of taking recourse to the provisions of U.P. Consolidations of Holdings Act, 1952 to ventilate their grievance but what prima facie appears from the record that the petitioners no.1 and 4 have already been held to the beneficiaries of fraudulent entries against whom action has been taken and the fraudulent entries have been expunged. This aspect of the matter and the background of the litigation has been deliberately suppressed,” held Justice Jaspreet Singh.

Further, the Court found the explanation given by the counsel for the petitioners, with regard to concealment, to be unsatisfactory. It held that since the same counsel had been representing the petitioners in their various proceedings, it could not be said that he was “not aware” of the facts. The Court held that before the counsel served his clients, he had a duty first and foremost to the Court.

“The role of an advocate in the justice dispensation system is of crucial importance as already noticed above that the counsel representing a case of his client is first an officer of the Court and then he pleads the case for his client fearlessly. In the instant case, the counsel for the petitioner, who has been representing them in their various petitions appears to have lost sight of his duties as an officer of the Court.”

The Court held the petition to be vague. It observed that had the respondent not brought on record the facts regarding the actual number of proceedings involved in the matter, the petitioners would have had gained a “leverage” by concealing the facts. It thus relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., to impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioners.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Keshav Prasad and Ors. v. Consolidation. Commissioner, Lucknow and Ors. [WRIT - B No. - 853 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order