William Anton Dsouza v. Rajgonda Bhimgonda Patil and Ors

JUDGMENT

(Per MS Sonak J)

:-

¶1Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶2Review Petition (Stamp) No.2722 of 2024 seeks a review of the judgment and order dated 15 November 2017 in Writ Petition No.11997 of 2016.

¶3Since the above Review Petition was instituted six years beyond the prescribed limitation period, Interim Application No.1686 of 2024 seeks to condone the six-year delay in filing the Review Petition.

¶4Further, since the Review Petitioner was not even a party in Writ Petition No.11997 of 2016, which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 15 November 2017 for which review is applied, Interim Application No.1687 of 2024 seeks leave to institute this Review Petition.

¶5Interim Application No.1688 of 2024 seeks the impleadment of about 28 parties as Respondents in the Review Petition. This Interim Application also seeks an injunction against the proposed Respondent Nos.4 to 32 from creating any third-party right or interest regarding the property, which was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.11997 of 2016.

¶6The State had also filed Review Petition (Stamp) No.19950 of 2022 seeking review of the judgment and order dated 15 November 2017 in Writ Petition No.11997 of 2016. Since the same was filed after a delay of 4 years and 7 months, the State had, vide Interim Application No.13396 of 2024, applied for condonation of delay. By a separate order made today, we dismissed this Application for condonation of delay. However, in our order, we considered the Review Petition on merits, assuming that we were to condone the delay and found that the same was liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the reasoning in our order dismissing Review Petition (Stamp) No.19950 of 2022 would apply to Review Petition (Stamp) No.2722 of 2024. Based upon the same, Review Petition (Stamp) No.2722 of 2024 would be liable to be dismissed even assuming we were to condone the delay of six years in instituting the same.

¶7Initiating this review petition was delayed inordinately by six years. The same is sought to be explained by filing Interim Application No.1686 of 2024.

¶8The perusal of Interim Application No.1686 of 2024 indicates that the Applicant has given the history of how his land was acquired and how he was assured rehabilitation on the land, which was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.11997 of 2016.

¶9After that, the Applicant pleaded about some partition and other proceedings before the Revenue Authorities. In paragraph 23 of the Interim Application, the Applicant has pleaded that he had applied to the Government for allotment of the land, which was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.11997 of 2016 under the benefited zone. However, he was informed that the Government has filed the Review Petition in this Court and, therefore, his application would have to be kept in abeyance. Paragraphs 23 or 24 give no details about when such an application was made and that the Applicant was informed about the filing of the Review Petition by the State Government.

¶10In paragraph 24 of the Interim Application seeking condonation of delay, there is a vague statement that when the Applicant inquired "with the concerned Government and in the Hon'ble High Court when he realised that various documents are being suppressed by the Original Petition from the High Court." There is a further pleading that "in fact, there is a complete fraud on the part of the Original Petitioner for suppressing material documents from the Court and in addition they have suppressed that he was offered the compensation however he refused to take it." In paragraph 25, the Applicant pleaded that he is directly and adversely affected by the order under Review and that, as an aggrieved party, he "brings fraud before this Hon'ble Court."

¶11In paragraph 26, there are averments of how the Applicant is a necessary and proper party in the Review Petition and should be permitted to intervene in the Review Petition. Possibly, these averments have been "cut and pasted" from the Application seeking intervention in the State's Review Petition. In paragraph 27, there is an omnibus statement about how the Applicant has been waiting for justice for years together and for possession and enjoyment of the land. In paragraphs 28 and 29, there are statements that grave harm, loss or prejudice will be caused to the Applicant if "the impugned order is not recalled."

¶12After the matter was reserved for orders, learned counsel for the Applicant handed over a compilation of judgments without even seeking any leave to file the same. In any event, in the interest of justice, such authorities are proposed to be considered.

¶13In A. V. Papayya Sastry and others Vs Govt. of A.P. and others1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case of fraud, which vitiates all judicial acts, any judgment and order, which is the product of fraud can always be recalled. S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) By LRs. Vs Jagannath (dead) By LRs. and others2 provides that fraud vitiates everything. To the same effect are the observations in K. D. Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India Limited and others3, Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and others Vs Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society 1 (2007) 4 SCC 221 2 (1994) 1 SCC 1 3 (2008) 12 SCC 481 and others4 holds that the litigant must disclose all material facts, and the litigant cannot disclose which facts are material and which are not.

¶14As noted above, there are hardly any pleadings about fraud or suppression in the present case. The bare statement that the original Petitioners did not disclose that they were offered compensation is not sufficient to allege or establish any fraud. Even this allegation may not be correct because this Court, by relying on Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others5, held that mere compensation tender was not sufficient to save the lapsing of acquisition.

¶15S. Sundaram Pillai and others Vs V. R. Pattabiraman and others6 deals with the concept of "wilful default" in the context of rent control legislation. The context in which this decision was included in the compilation of judgments is unknown because no decisions were cited in the course of arguments by Mr Narvankar, learned counsel for the Applicant.

¶16State of Bihar and others Vs Ramesh Prasad Verma7 is possibly included in the compilation of judgments because it holds that if any clarificatory or declaratory explanation is provided in the statute, the same will typically have retrospective operation, especially in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the parent Act. This decision is 4 (2013) 11 SCC 531 5 (2014) 3 SCC 183 6 (1985) 1 SCC 591 7 (2017) 5 SCC 665 not an authority for the proposition that a review would be maintainable because Indore Development Authority Vs case. Manoharlal and Others8 had only clarified the legal position.

¶17Zile Singh Vs State of Haryana and others9 was also possibly included in the compilation of judgments to explain the concept of retrospective operation of statutes. This decision, with respect, will not apply because of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), which, Mr Narvankar tried very hard to sidestep given the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi and another vs K. L. Rathi Steels Limited and others10.

¶18T. Arivandandam vs. T. V. Satyapal and another11 is a decision dealing with the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, the context in which it is included in the compilation of judgments is not known. State of Gujarat and Ors. Vs Jayantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel, by relying upon Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal (supra), interferes with the Gujarat High Court's decision holding that there was lapsing. This was not a case of any review based upon the subsequent ruling in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal (supra).

¶19Thus, even upon due consideration of all the authorities belatedly submitted by learned counsel for the Applicant, no 8 (2020) 8 SCC 129 9 (2004) 8 SCC 1 10 (2024) 7 SCC 315 11 (1977) 4 SCC 467 case is made to condone the delay or allow the Review Petition.

¶20The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of K. L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra) and Delhi Development Authority vs. Tejpal and Others12 are also sufficient to dismiss the Application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the Review Petition. As noted earlier, even if we were to condone the inordinate or unexplained delay of six years, there would be no merit in the Review Petition, which, otherwise, would have to be dismissed.

¶21On a detailed consideration of the Applicant's Interim Application seeking condonation of delay of six years, we find that the Applicant shows no sufficient cause. Most of the averments in the Interim Application have nothing to do with the delay in instituting the Review Petition. Besides, the remaining averments are wholly vague and bereft of any particulars. Based on such averments, no cause can be said to have been shown to explain the inordinate delay of six years in instituting this Review Petition. Accordingly, Interim Application No.1686 of 2024 is liable to be dismissed and is hereby rejected.

¶22The detailed reasoning in the order disposing of the State's Application for condonation of delay or the Review Petition (Stamp) No.19950 of 2022 applies to the present matter. Therefore, by adopting the said reasoning, the Application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. 12 (2024) 7 SCC 433

¶23For all the above reasons, we dismiss Interim Application No.1686 of 2024, seeking condonation of delay and, as a consequence, Review Petition (Stamp) No.2722 of 2024. We clarify that even if we were to condone the delay of six years, the Review Petition was still liable to be dismissed on merits.

¶24The other Interim Applications do not survive and are disposed of. (Kamal Khata, J) (M. S. Sonak, J) Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 14/10/2024 17:32:43

Pradnya IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 2722 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11997 OF 2016 1. WILLIAM ANTON D'SOUZA, Age 53 yrs., Occu. Agriculture All R/at – Dharan Grasta Vasahat, Rukadi, tal. Hatkanagali, District Kolhapur, …PETITIONER ~ IN THE MATTER BETWEEN ~ 1. RAJGONDA BHIMGONDA PATIL, Age. 75 yrs., Occ : Agri R/at Uchagaon, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur 2. BHIMGONDA RAMGONDA PATIL, Through I/R. Amor Patil Age. 34 yrs., Occ : Agri, R/at Uchagaon Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur. …PETITIONER (ORIGINAL PETITIONER) ~ VERSUS ~ 1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, Through General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND REHABILITATION OFFICER, Kolhapur. 2024:BHC-AS:40601-DB 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 12, Kolhapur, having its Office at Swarajya Bhavan, Collector Office, Nagala Park, Kolhapur …RESPONDENTS (ORIG. RESPONDENTS) ALONG WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1686 OF 2024 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 2722 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11997 OF 2016 WILLIAM ANTON D'SOUZA, Age 53 yrs., Occu. Agriculture All R/at – Dharan Grasta Vasahat, Rukadi, tal. Hatkanagali, District Kolhapur, …APPLICANT ~ IN THE MATTER BETWEEN ~ 1. RAJGONDA BHIMGONDA PATIL, Age. 75 yrs., Occ: Agri R/at Uchagaon, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur 2. BHIMGONDA RAMGONDA PATIL, Through I/R. Amor Patil Age. 34 yrs., Occ: Agri, R/at Uchagaon Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur. …PETITIONER (ORIG. PETITIONER) ~ VERSUS ~ 1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, Through General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND REHABILITATION OFFICER, Kolhapur. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 12, Kolhapur, having its Office at Swarajya Bhavan, Collector Office, Nagala Park, Kolhapur …RESPONDENTS (ORIG. RESPONDENTS) ALONG WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1687 OF 2024 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 2722 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11997 OF 2016 WILLIAM ANTON D'SOUZA, Age 53 yrs., Occu. Agriculture All R/at – Dharan Grasta Vasahat, Rukadi, tal. Hatkanagali, District Kolhapur, …APPLICANT ~ IN THE MATTER BETWEEN ~ 1. RAJGONDA BHIMGONDA PATIL, Age. 75 yrs., Occ: Agri R/at Uchagaon, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur. 2. BHIMGONDA RAMGONDA PATIL, Through I/R. Amor Patil Age. 34 yrs., Occ: Agri, R/at Uchagaon Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur. …PETITIONER (ORIG. PETITIONER) ~ VERSUS ~ 1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, Through General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND REHABILITATION OFFICER, Kolhapur. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 12, Kolhapur, having its Office at Swarajya Bhavan, Collector Office, Nagala Park, Kolhapur. …RESPONDENTS (ORIG. RESPONDENTS) ALONG WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1688 OF 2024 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 2722 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11997 OF 2016 WILLIAM ANTON D'SOUZA Age 53 yrs., Occu. Agriculture All R/at – Dharan Grasta Vasahat, Rukadi, tal. Hatkanagali, District Kolhapur …APPLICANT ~ IN THE MATTER BETWEEN ~ 1. RAJGONDA BHIMGONDA PATIL, Age. 75 yrs., Occ: Agri R/at Uchagaon, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur. 2. BHIMGONDA RAMGONDA PATIL, Through I/R. Amor Patil Age. 34 yrs., Occ: Agri, R/at Uchagaon Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur. …PETITIONER (ORIG. PETITIONER) ~ VERSUS ~ 1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, Through General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND REHABILITATION OFFICER, Kolhapur. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 12, Kolhapur, having its Office at Swarajya Bhavan, Collector Office, Nagala Park, Kolhapur. …RESPONDENTS (ORIG. RESPONDENTS) 4. RAMESH DAYALDAS TANWANI, Age Adult, Occu. Business 5. PARAM ANIL TANWANI, Age Adult, Occu. Business 6. ROHIT AMAR TANWANI, Age Adult, Occu. Business R/a: All In front of Collector Office, Main Road, Nagala Park, Kolhapur 7. GANESH KHIYALDAS DARYANI, Age Adult, Occu. Business 8. KHIYALDAS SAHAJRAM DARYANI, Age Adult, Occu. Business 9. RATNADEVI KHIYALDAS DARYANI, Age Adult, Occu. Business R/a: All at Gopal Agencies, Main road, Gandhinagar, Nigadewdi