The Allahabad High Court has taken a firm stance in a case of fraudulently obtaining relief. The court set aside its earlier order of May 24, 2024, which was obtained based on fraud and directed strict legal and disciplinary action against the lawyers involved. The order was issued by a division bench of Justice Atul Shridharan and Justice Kshitij Shailendra while hearing a review petition filed by the Bareilly Development Authority. Rampal and four others had filed a petition seeking compensation for two-thirds of a plot of land located in Dohaniya village, Bareilly district. The petition sought payment of interest based on the award announced by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. A typed copy of the award was submitted in lieu of the original award. The original award stated that interest would be payable as per the rules from the date of possession of the acquired land until the award..." and a fraudulent addition was made to the typed copy: "Nine percent annual interest will be payable for the first year from the date of possession of the acquired land until the award..." The court, accepting this typed copy as correct, ordered the BDA to pay interest at the rates of nine percent and 15 percent on May 24, 2024. The Bareilly Development Authority discovered this fraud during an investigation of the records, following which the BDA filed a petition to revoke the order. While the petition was pending, lawyers representing Rampal and others filed a contempt petition, pressuring the BDA, forcing the BDA to pay interest at the rates of nine percent and 15 percent. During the hearing on the withdrawal of the order, senior counsel for Rampal and others pleaded for forgiveness, citing it as an inadvertent typewritten error. The court rejected this argument, stating that adding rates that were not in the original award was not a typo but a fraud on the court and malicious intent on the part of lawyers. The court stated that while advocacy is a noble profession, it is necessary to deal strictly with those involved in such unethical practices to maintain the dignity of the bar and bench. It also stated that there is a difference between remorse arising from remorse and the fear of punishment after being caught. With this, the court completely vacated its May 24, 2024, order The BDA was directed to immediately recover the excess amount paid to beneficiaries at the rates of 9% and 15% through revenue officials, as arrears of land revenue. The Registrar General was also directed to conduct an investigation against advocates Shivkant Mishra and Krishnakant Mishra under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code (giving/using false evidence) and file a complaint with the relevant magistrate court. He also ordered a complaint to be filed with the Bar Council of India and the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council so that their licenses to practice may be revoked.

Rajkumar mehra press reporter

Real Estate Agent देहरादून, देहरादून, उत्तराखंड•

2 hrs ago

The Allahabad High Court has taken a firm stance in a case of fraudulently obtaining relief. The court set aside its earlier order of May 24, 2024, which was obtained based on fraud and directed strict legal and disciplinary action against the lawyers involved. The order was issued by a division bench of Justice Atul Shridharan and Justice Kshitij Shailendra while hearing a review petition filed by the Bareilly Development Authority. Rampal and four others had filed a petition seeking compensation for two-thirds of a plot of land located in Dohaniya village, Bareilly district. The petition sought payment of interest based on the award announced by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. A typed copy of the award was submitted in lieu of the original award. The original award stated that interest would be payable as per the rules from the date of possession of the acquired land until the award..." and a fraudulent addition was made to the typed copy: "Nine percent annual interest will be payable for the first year from the date of possession of the acquired land until the award..." The court, accepting this typed copy as correct, ordered the BDA to pay interest at the rates of nine percent and 15 percent on May 24, 2024. The Bareilly Development Authority discovered this fraud during an investigation of the records, following which the BDA filed a petition to revoke the order. While the petition was pending, lawyers representing Rampal and others filed a contempt petition, pressuring the BDA, forcing the BDA to pay interest at the rates of nine percent and 15 percent. During the hearing on the withdrawal of the order, senior counsel for Rampal and others pleaded for forgiveness, citing it as an inadvertent typewritten error. The court rejected this argument, stating that adding rates that were not in the original award was not a typo but a fraud on the court and malicious intent on the part of lawyers. The court stated that while advocacy is a noble profession, it is necessary to deal strictly with those involved in such unethical practices to maintain the dignity of the bar and bench. It also stated that there is a difference between remorse arising from remorse and the fear of punishment after being caught. With this, the court completely vacated its May 24, 2024, order The BDA was directed to immediately recover the excess amount paid to beneficiaries at the rates of 9% and 15% through revenue officials, as arrears of land revenue. The Registrar General was also directed to conduct an investigation against advocates Shivkant Mishra and Krishnakant Mishra under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code (giving/using false evidence) and file a complaint with the relevant magistrate court. He also ordered a complaint to be filed with the Bar Council of India and the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council so that their licenses to practice may be revoked.