There is angst against bar and bench: Allahabad HC orders action against lawyers who filed false copy of award to mislead court

The Allahabad High Court has ordered criminal proceedings and disciplinary action against two advocates who allegedly misled the court by filing a manipulated land acquisition award mentioning higher rate of interest than the one in the original document [Bareilly Development Authority v Ram Pal And 4 Others]

A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that advocates Shiv Kant Mishra and Krishna Kant Mishra deliberately altered the contents of the award to secure monetary benefits for their client. 

"Learned counsel for the respondents knew exactly what they were doing. They did it to benefit monetarily and to secure for their clients, relief that they were not entitled to under the law," the Court observed.

The Court thus ruled that the advocates’ conduct prima facie attracted the offence of perjury under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for submitting false evidence. It directed the Registrar General to conduct an inquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and thereafter file an appropriate complaint for perjury before the competent magistrate.

Additionally, the registrar general was directed to lodge complaints before the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council seeking cancellation of the advocates' licences “for their unpardonable conduct.”

The Court also made strong observations on the legal profession, stating that people approach courts today not because they want to but only because they have no other option left

“It is often said that the profession of advocacy is a noble profession however, a deep introspection is required by the bar whether anyone other than the members of the bar refer to the profession of advocacy as a noble profession anymore? Citizens approach the courts through the members of the bar out of sheer exasperation, desperation and helplessness, not because they want to, but because they have no other option," the Bench stated.

An average litigant has angst against both the bar and the bench today, the Court said.

"The angst of the average litigant is against both the bar and the bench. In such a situation, the litigant places his entire faith in his counsel believing that he would advise him properly and conduct his case with diligence and integrity," the Court said

The Court was dealing with a review petition filed by the Bareilly Development Authority (BDA) against a May 2024 judgment of the High Court directing it to pay interest to landowners at 9 percent for the first year and 15 percent thereafter on compensation awarded for acquired land.

According to the BDA, while the original award passed by the land acquisition officer on April 26, 2016 merely stated that interest would be payable "as per rules" from the date possession was taken until the award was passed.

The landowners later filed a petition before the High Court claiming the payment was not made.

The typed copy of the award attached to the petition said that interest would be payable at 9 percent for the first year and 15 percent for the remaining period.

The petition specifically sought payment at those rates, leading a co-ordinate bench to grant the relief to the land owners.

However, the BDA later discovered the discrepancy between the original award and the copy attached to the landowners' petition.

It then approached the High Court seeking review of the High Court judgment. It also informed the Court that during the pendency of the review proceedings, contempt proceedings were initiated against it which compelled it to release the enhanced interest amounts to the beneficiaries.

The landowners' counsel claimed that the the discrepancy was an inadvertent typographical mistake.

However, the Court rejected the explanation and said there was a clear distinction between a genuine clerical error and a deliberate act of deception.

“Typographical errors may result in spelling mistakes or mistakes in calculation or numerical errors but where the interest @9% and 15% was never mentioned in the original award of 2016, adding the same in the typed copy was not an inadvertent error, it was misfeasance by the counsel," the Court said.

The Court further observed that had the advocates themselves moved for correction of the order after discovering the mistake, it may have viewed the matter differently. 

“However, not doing so and filing a contempt petition for the payment of interest at the aforementioned rates, goes to further buttress the opinion of this Court that what the learned counsels were doing was an offence of which they were fully aware of. The prayers for forgiveness and pardon put forth by learned Senior Counsel and by the counsels in question is rejected,” it added.

The Bench said that remorse born out of fear of consequences could not be equated with genuine repentance.

The Court also said that accepting the advocates’ apology would send a message that "sharp practice is acceptable as long as it remains undetected." 

“Today the apologies are forthcoming only because the bluff of the counsels for the Respondents has been called and they fear of what may befall them and therefore, the prayer for mercy is rejected,” the Bench said.

Hence, it allowed BDA's review petition and recalled its earlier order on the ground that it had been obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. It also directed the BDA to initiate recovery proceedings to recover the excess amounts already paid to the beneficiaries as arrears of land revenue.

Advocate Dharmendra Singh Chauhan represented BDA.

[Read Order]