G.S. Sandhawalia, J.@mdashThis order shall dispose of aforesaid ten Civil Writ Petitions being No. 25537 to 25545 and 25555 of 2013 as common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions. However, for dictating order, the facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 25537 of 2013. The petitioners in the present writ petition are laying challenge to the orders dated 2.7.2007 (Annexure P-1) and 6.2.2009 (Annexure P-2) whereby the petition filed u/s 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for declaration that they are owners of the land situated in village Kansuha Khurd, Tehsil Nabha District Patiala was dismissed by the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development & Panchayat, Patiala exercising the powers of Collector and the said order was upheld in appeal on 6.2.2009 by Director, Rural Development & Panchayat, Punjab exercising the powers of Commissioner.
2. Keeping in view the fact that more than 4-1/2 years have passed, counsel for the petitioners was asked to justify as to why the petitions should not be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself
3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the authorities had decided a large number of cases by common orders and in case of Civil Writ Petition No. 15696 of 2012 Nahar Singh and others v. State of Punjab decided on 12.9.2012, this Court had set aside the Appellate Authority''s order dated 6.2.2009 and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within three months. The petitioners had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No. 18923 of 2011 in this Court which was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh with better particulars on 29.2.2012, it was thus contended that the petitioners being poor persons could not be held faulted for approaching this Court belatedly. Counsel for the petitioners was also directed to file affidavit as to what was the fate of the case which had been remanded by this Court on 12.9.2012. Affidavit of Dharvinder Singh, petitioner No. 2 dated 24.11.2013 was placed on record wherein it was deposed that the Appellate Authority had adjourned the proceedings and the matter was still fixed for pronouncement of order but order had not been pronounced. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as under:-
That the deponent has enquired from the office of the Resp. No. 2 and came to know that the case was taken up by Resp. No. 2 on 10.1.2013 and thereafter, same was adjourned for 25.1.2013, 8.2.2013, 21.2.2013, 7.3.2013, 14.3.2013, 21.3.2013, 4.4.2013, 11.4.2013, 25.4.2013, 3.5,2013 and 9.5.2013. The same is stated to be fixed for pronouncement of order but no order has been pronounced till date.
4. Accordingly, keeping in view the said affidavit, counsel for the State was directed to furnish information as to whether final order has been passed in the said case which had been remanded. In pursuance of the said direction, counsel for the State placed on record the vernacular copy of the order dated 9.5.2013 whereby the Appellate Authority had dismissed the said appeals and maintained the order dated 2.7.2007.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that even otherwise petitioners are entitled for fresh hearing as was done in similarly situated cases. We are, however, not impressed with the said submission and are of the opinion that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on two grounds, namely delay and concealment of facts.
6. On the first ground of delay, admittedly the Appellate Authority had passed the order on 6.2.2009 and against the said order, the petitioners had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 18923 of 2011 which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 29.2.2012 with liberty to file afresh. It is, thus, apparent that even at that point of time, the order dated 6.2.2009 was challenged two years later and inspite of the liberty being given vide the above said order, the petitioners chose to sleep over for a period of more than 1-1/2 years and did not file fresh petition for which they had taken the permission. The purpose of delaying the proceedings is very much apparent as the effort is to keep litigation alive and since the claim for title had been rejected and the petitioners would, thus, face eviction eventually from the land in their possession. Though there is rule of limitation as such but it is settled principle that law protects the ones who are vigilant and do not sleep over their rights and do not let them crystalize. The explanation given by the petitioners is not justified that due to poverty they were not in a position to approach this Court earlier. The Hon''ble Apex Court in
14.........The applicant having set the machinery in motion cannot abandon it to resume it after number of years because the authority with whom it had entered into correspondence did not heed to its request to file appeals. The question is: Can the respondent/applicant in this case take advantage of its negligence, after lapse of number of years, of the decision of Government? It knew the exact grounds on which appeals could have been preferred. The law will presume that it knew of its right to file appeal against the award. Everybody is presumed to know law. It was its duty to prefer appeals before the court for consideration which it did not. There is no explanation forthcoming in this regard. The evidence on record suggest neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and ''do not slumber over their rights.''
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
18. Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel relying on the decision of this court in
It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
7. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioners are only misusing the process of the Court since they were well aware that in pursuance of the earlier order of remand, the authorities have already decided against similarly situated persons on 9.5.2013. The submission that since other similarly situated persons were agitating their rights, the petitioners were under the conception that their rights would also be covered is also without any basis as in a suit for title every person individually would have to set out his case and claim title on the basis of the provisions of the Act and try to bring it within the exception clause u/s 2(g) of the Act and because other similarly situated persons were agitating their rights would not give any cause to the petitioners to sleep over their rights.
8. The second issue on the ground of which the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine is the concealment of facts. The specific affidavit was got filed from the petitioner No. 2 in which it has been deposed that the Appellate Authority is yet to decide the proceedings even though this Court had directed the matter should be decided within four months. Counsel for the State has already placed on record the order of the Appellate Authority vide which the appeals were dismissed way back on 9.5.2013. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioners have concealed the material fact and are misusing the process of Court to keep the proceedings alive as one batch of litigants had earlier approached this Court to get the matter remanded and now once the Appellate Authority has decided against them, another batch of litigants have come forward with the same plea that the matter should be remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide afresh. The principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Chiranji Lal and others v. Financial Commissioner Haryana and others, 1978 PLR 582 was that a party is not entitled to be heard on merits under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is material concealment. The Apex Court in
33. It is thus clear that though the appellant-Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss Displaced Persons Action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
37. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that by dismissing the petition in limine, the High Court has neither committed an error of law nor of jurisdiction. The appellant-Company is not entitled to any relief. Though the respondent-Bank is right in submitting that the appellant has suppressed material facts from this Court as also that it has not complied with interim order passed by the Court and it has, therefore, no right to claim hearing on merits, we have considered the merits of the matter also and we are of the considered view that no case has been made out for interference with Displaced Persons Action taken by the respondent-Bank or the order passed by the High Court.
9. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present Civil Writ Petitions and the same are dismissed in limine. A photocopy of this order be placed on the record of each connected file.
