Expressing deep anguish and serious concern over filing of wrong statement before the court of law by a high ranking official of the administration, the High Court has directed for initiating criminal proceedings against the then Deputy Commissioner Ganderbal for submitting false statement before the court.
Justice Sanjay Dhar has directed the Principal District Judge Ganderbal for launching appropriate criminal proceedings against the then Deputy Commissioner Ganderbal for having filed a written statement before the court stating therein that the building in question is not under their occupation.
The crux of the case was that petitioner- Abdul Majid Sofi being owner of a six storied building situated at Beehama Ganderbal leased it out to Central University, Kashmir, by virtue of agreement for the purpose of operating hostel for its students and the said agreement came to be extended from time to time till 19.02.2021.
The dispute arose that the said building as per the Central University Kashmir authorities stand was taken over by the District Administration Ganderbal forcibly for the purpose of accommodating politically protected persons of District Ganderbal in view of the security reasons.
The petitioner-owner approached the District Court Ganderbal for possession of his building and during the proceedings of the case the Central University Kashmir contended that as per the terms of the rent agreement dated 26.11.2020, the University was to hand over possession of the building to the petitioner on 19.02.2021 but prior to that, the building was taken over forcibly by District Administration, Ganderbal, without any consent of the owner.
The District Development Commissioner Ganderbal was directed by the court to file his stand with regard to the issue involved in the plea. He filed a written statement taking a stand that the commercial complex belonging to the petitioner has not been taken over by District Administration, Ganderbal.
The Principal District Judge, Ganderbal appointed a Commissioner for visiting the site and to report as to who is in possession of the building in question. The Commissioner reported that the building is in possession of the District Administration.
The District Administration Ganderbal, however, before the High Court while contesting the plea in their reply admitted that the building in question was earlier occupied by the Central University, Kashmir (CUK), for housing a boys hostel up to 20.12.2020 and thereafter for providing accommodation to politically protected persons of District Ganderbal in view of the security reasons, verbally took over the building in question from the CUK without issuing any formal order/execution of agreement in favour of the owner.
“To top it all, the then Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, filed a palpably false pleading before the Principal District Judge, Ganderbal, stating therein that the building in question is not in occupation of the District Administration. This stand of the Deputy Commissioner is contrary to the stand of the respondents taken in this writ petition. This conduct of a responsible officer of the Government is reprehensible and shows that the said officer has no respect for rule of law”, Justice Dhar observed.
The Court added that the officer concerned did not think twice before filing a false written statement before the trial court with a view to defeat the claim of the petitioner. The Courts generally trust the statements of public officers given by them in their pleadings at their face value as there is a presumption of correctness attached to the pleadings filed by the public officers in the course of their official duties but the present case is a classic example of a public officer filing misleading pleadings before the Court just to defeat the rightful claim of a litigant.
“The Principal District Judge, Ganderbal, shall consider launching of appropriate criminal proceedings against the then Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, for having filed prima facie false written statement before the said Court in the suit filed by the owner”, Justice Dhar directed.
The court further directed the Government to pay rent @ Rs.12 per sqft (built up area) for use and occupation of the building in question with effect from 21.12.2020 to 06.06.2024 to the owner. “Besides this, Government shall also be liable to clear the electricity and water charges for the aforesaid period”, read the judgment
Justice Dhar said that right to property is a constitutional right guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the same cannot be taken away without adopting due process of law but in the instant case, Administration have taken over possession of the building in question without even informing the petitioner not to speak of obtaining his consent.
In such circumstances it is not open to the Government to fix the rent or occupation charges of the building in question unilaterally without consent of the petitioner and without associating him in the process. The respondents could have fixed rent/occupation charges of the building in question only after holding negotiations with the petitioner and after following the due procedure prescribed under law and not unilaterally.