IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26305 of 2009(G)
1. S.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.
... Respondent
2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM.
3. TAHZILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
4. VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :14/12/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
.......................
W.P.(C).26305/2009
.......................
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner purchased a parcel of land as per Ext.P1
sale deed dated 21.1.1994. Long thereafter, he submitted
Ext.P3 representation dated 10.10.2001 to the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Devikulam seeking assignment of two
cents of land in Survey No.82/7 of Pallivasal Village for the
purpose of beneficial enjoyment of the land purchased as per
Ext.P1. It is stated that though the Revenue Divisional
Officer forwarded the original of Ext.P3 to the Village Officer,
Pallivasal for enquiry, no reply was forthcoming and
therefore, the petitioner sent Ext.P6 letter dated 30.8.2009 to
the Village Officer and the Revenue Divisional Office
requesting them to expedite the proceedings for assignment.
This writ petition was thereafter filed on 17.9.2009 seeking a
direction to the second respondent to consider and pass
orders on Ext.P3 application for assignment of land.
2. The third respondent has filed a statement dated
26.10.2009. Paragraph 3 thereof reads as follows.
The land applied for assignment for beneficial
W.P.(C).26305/09
2
enjoyment is indispensably necessary for the
widening of the National Highway. In fact as
stated earlier the petitioner has encroached
upon the National Highway and put up a pukka
construction over the National Highway. Steps
are being taken for removal of the said
encroachment. At the same time, it is
submitted that the said land cannot be assigned
to the petitioner as the said land is
indispensably required for the widening of the
road. If the illegal construction put up by the
petitioner in Sy.Nos.38 and 82/7 of the
Pallivasal Village is removed the same will lead
access to the patta land of the petitioner
situated in Sy.No.82/9.
It is also stated in paragraph 4 that the petitioner is running
a resort under the name and style “Sky Blue” in the lands
covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, that he has trespassed upon
3.40 cents of Government land and put up a building therein
and that Ext.R3(a) memo was thereupon issued by the Village
Officer on 24.8.2009 directing him to stop the construction.
The third respondent contends that the petitioner who has
suppressed material facts is not entitled to the discretionary
relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
W.P.(C).26305/09
3
3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar
by the learned counsel appearing on both sides. This writ
petition was filed on 17.9.2009. By then, Ext.R3(a) stop
memo calling upon the petitioner to stop the construction on
Government land had been issued and the petitioner had
submitted Ext.P8 reply dated 28.8.2009. However the
petitioner did not refer to the said facts in the writ petition
which was filed one month thereafter. Going by the conduct
of the petitioner, it is evident that he is guilty of suppression
of material facts. Further the petitioner is not a landless
person. He owns 12.500 cents of land. The petitioner who
has suppressed the fact that a memo has been issued to him
even before the writ petition was filed calling upon him to
stop construction in the Government land alleged to have
been encroached upon by him, is not in my opinion entitled
to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I therefore decline
jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge
mrcs