The Allahabad High Court has mandated criminal proceedings and disciplinary measures against two lawyers accused of deceiving the court by filing a falsified land acquisition award. This document allegedly cited a higher interest rate than the original. The case, titled Bareilly Development Authority v Ram Pal And 4 Others, was presided over by a Division Bench consisting of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Kshitij Shailendra. The court found that advocates Shiv Kant Mishra and Krishna Kant Mishra had intentionally altered the award’s contents to gain undue financial benefits for their client.
The court stated, “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.” Consequently, the court determined that the lawyers’ actions amounted to perjury under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for presenting false evidence. The court directed the Registrar General to initiate an inquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and, subsequently, to file a perjury complaint before the appropriate magistrate.
Further, the court instructed the Registrar General to file complaints with the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council to seek the cancellation of the advocates’ licenses due to their ‘unpardonable conduct.’ The court also expressed concern over the state of the legal profession, observing that individuals approach courts not out of choice but out of necessity.
The bench remarked, “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 court noted that the average litigant today harbors frustration towards both the bar and the bench, emphasizing the reliance placed on legal counsel to act with diligence and integrity.
More Read
The case arose from a review petition filed by the Bareilly Development Authority (BDA) against a previous High Court judgment from May 2024. This judgment had directed BDA to pay interest to landowners at rates of 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter on compensation for acquired land. According to the BDA, the original award from April 26, 2016, specified that interest would be payable “as per rules” from the date of possession until the award issuance. However, the petition submitted to the court included a typed copy of the award with altered interest rates, leading a co-ordinate bench to initially grant relief to the landowners.
Upon discovering the discrepancy, BDA sought a review of the High Court’s judgment, revealing that contempt proceedings had compelled it to release the enhanced interest amounts. The landowners’ counsel argued that the discrepancy was a typographical error, but the court dismissed this claim, distinguishing between clerical mistakes and deliberate deception.
The court highlighted, “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.” Had the advocates moved to correct the order upon discovering their error, the court may have considered the matter differently.
More Read
The court further noted that the apologies offered by the advocates were motivated by fear of consequences, rather than genuine remorse, and thus rejected their pleas for forgiveness. It also underscored that accepting such apologies would imply that deceitful practices are permissible if undetected.
Consequently, the court allowed BDA’s review petition, rescinding its prior order, and directed BDA to recover excess payments made to the beneficiaries as arrears of land revenue. Advocate Dharmendra Singh Chauhan represented the BDA in this matter.
