2011 (9) TMI 943 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself? Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks? Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Expunging adverse remarks made in the judgment.
2. Actual physical possession of the disputed land.
3. Adverse remarks against Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA).
4. Application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. Legal principles for expunging adverse remarks.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Expunging Adverse Remarks Made in the Judgment:
The respondent NBA filed applications to expunge adverse remarks in paragraphs 129-132 and 145 of the judgment dated 11.5.2011, arguing that these remarks were unwarranted, uncalled for, and not based on any material/evidence on record. They contended that the remarks were unnecessary for adjudicating the controversy involved in the appeals and should be expunged.

2. Actual Physical Possession of the Disputed Land:
The primary factual controversy was regarding who was in actual physical possession of the land measuring 284.03 hectares in five villages. NBA claimed that the tenure holders had been dispossessed, making the abandonment of land acquisition proceedings by the State authorities void ab-initio. Conversely, the State authorities argued that the tenure holders were still in possession. The court ordered the District Judge, Indore, to conduct a spot inspection and submit a report. The District Judge's report concluded that the tenure-holders were in actual physical possession, which was accepted by the court, thereby rejecting NBA's claim.

3. Adverse Remarks Against Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA):
NBA argued that adverse remarks in the judgment amounted to blacklisting them and were made under a misconception. They contended that the term 'possession' had different meanings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the R & R Policy. The court, however, held that the adverse remarks were justified and necessary for deciding the case. The court modified paragraph 145 of the judgment to state that NBA had not acted responsibly and that future presentations by NBA should be viewed with caution and care.

4. Application Under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The State filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. at a later stage, which the court did not decide. The court clarified that the contents of this application or the issuance of notice did not affect the main judgment.

5. Legal Principles for Expunging Adverse Remarks:
The court referred to the principles laid down in State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim and other cases, emphasizing that adverse remarks should only be made if necessary for the disposal of the case. The court must ensure that such remarks are justified, based on evidence, and necessary for the decision. The court concluded that the adverse remarks against NBA were justified, following these principles.

Conclusion:
The applications to expunge adverse remarks were not justified, and the court modified paragraph 145 of the judgment to reflect that NBA had not acted responsibly. The applications were disposed of with the observation that future presentations by NBA should be viewed with caution and care, insisting on proper pleadings and full disclosure of facts.