Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Sujoy Paul and Shailendra Shukla, JJ., dismissed a petition which was filed challenging the order passed by the specified authority under M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974.

The petitioners categorically averred that said Adhiniyam was not applicable to the agricultural land of the petitioners. In paras-2 & 3 of petition, the petitioners had not disclosed that they had previously filed any litigation in this regard. On a specific query from the Bench as to why proper disclosure was not made regarding WA No.185/2012, counsel for the petitioners repeatedly and vehemently urged that it was not necessary because the subject matter was different.

The Court reminded that as per High Court of MP Rules 2008, a prescribed format of writ petition was mentioned, wherein as per para-2, the litigant was required to give declaration as under:-

“A declaration that no proceeding on the same subject matter has been previously instituted in any Court, Authority or Tribunal. If instituted, the status or result thereof, along with copy of the order.”

The Court observed that in the instant case, neither in relevant para nor in the entire petition, had the petitioners disclosed regarding filing of said WA, wherein it was already held that public premises authority under the Lok Parisar Bedakhali Adhiniyam was competent to take action in relation to an agricultural land. Thus, suppression was relating to “subject matter” and is a serious suppression of fact.

The Court dismissed the petition and held that “a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands, clean mind, clean objective and clean heart. Suppression of fact or half disclosures of fact are growing tendencies to pollute the stream of justice. Litigation in the Court is not a “game of chess”.

Petitioner however at the last stage wanted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a properly constituted petition disclosing all relevant facts so the Court in the interest of justice permitted them to do so.[Shyamlal v. State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine MP 503, decided on 09-03-2021]

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.