IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 26305 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, AGED 51 YEARS,SASTHAVILASOM HOUSE, PALLIVASAL POST IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SMT.SHERRY J THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM. 3. TAHZILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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