The curious case of Samanta and his claim over the Bombay High Court

Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court is renowned for his dry sense of humor. He was not amused however, when a decree-holder appearing in person told him that he was entitled to actual physical possession of not just the Bombay High Court, but everything that fell within the E and C wards of the city..A presumably flabbergasted Justice Patel recorded the following in his order..“I then asked if that meant he was entitled to physical possession of the Bombay High Court. “Yes,” he said; and then added that he would pay all salaries (including, presumably, of the judges; I did not care, or even dare, to go further down this particular road).”.One Sukumar Samanta appeared for a decree-holder Sushma Samanta, who according to the order was entitled to possession of three properties with an aggregate area of 209 square meters..Justice Patel tried, ill-advisedly in his own words, to explain to Samanta that he has no suit, no decree and no order against the state government or the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, in whom public lands vest; nor against any other property owner or lessee..All Samanta’s applications are based on the premise that since the decree and conveyance mentioned street numbers, he was entitled to all properties in the two city wards..This was a claim Justice Patel termed “preposterous”..The judge ordered all matters filed by Samanta to be grouped and listed together after Samanta demanded that possession of the entire High Court building, its grounds, furniture, and staff be handed over to him..Recording that an already stretched Registry was being bombarded with thousands of pages of densely packed irrelevancies, Justice Patel observed thus:.“Enough is enough. Samanta must be stopped. Once and for all: Samanta is not entitled to possession of one millimeter of property beyond the area and the Cadastral Survey numbers of the three properties mentioned in his decree and conveyance.”.The Court also directed that the decree holder and Samanta are not to directly approach any department, section or officer of the High Court or any other court in Mumbai with regard to the subject decree under any circumstances, without specific leave of the judge taking chamber work..Samanta, whose applications were described as vexatious in the extreme, was given a final warning by the Court and ordered not to attempt to revive these applications. Justice Patel also threatened to refer the matter to the Advocate General, for action to prevent vexatious litigation..Finally, Samanta was informed that any action to renew any execution application beyond the properties decreed would result in punitive costs amounting to at least the market value of the properties that were the subject matter of the suit. Criminal contempt for interference with the administration of justice would be the cherry on the icing of the cake, should Samanta dare to push his luck and give it one last try..Read the order