w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Help Age India An NGO, Rep. by its State Head V. Sivakumar, Chennai v/s The District Collector, Chennai & Others

    W.P. No. 21317 of 2022

    Decided On, 18 August 2022

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N. MALA

    For the Petitioner: B. Harikrishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents: A. Selvendran, Special Government Pleader.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith hand over possession of the land measuring 800 sq.mtrs. comprised in Survey No.269/4B, Maduravoyal Village & Taluk, Chennai District, previously Tiruvallore District, allotted to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.251/Rev. Department dated 24.03.1994, after removing the encroachments in pursuance of and consequent upon the fourth respondent The Tahsildar, Maduravoyal, letter ref.no. Na.Ka.10079/1994/A1 dated 10.07.2018, calling upon the Inspector of Police, T4 - Maduravoyal Police Station, to provide police protection for removal of encroachments.)

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ.

1. The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction on the respondents to forthwith hand over possession of the land measuring 800 sq.mtrs. comprised in Survey No.269/4B, Maduravoyal Village & Taluk, Chennai District, previously Tiruvallore District, allotted to the petitioner by G.O. dated 24.03.1994 after removing the encroachment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allotment of land was made to the petitioner by order dated 24.03.1994 and accordingly, the land in question belongs to the petitioner. At one stage, a direction was given by the respondents to hand over the possession of the land. However, on account of the litigation, the possession of the land could not be given. While going through the affidavit, this Court found that the alleged encroacher has not been impleaded as party respondent. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to justify the filing of writ petition without impleadment of necessary party. Otherwise, the writ petition would suffer from non-joinder of necessary party.

3. Learned counsel states that the petitioner is not aware of the name and whereabouts of the encroacher and therefore, he could not be impleaded as party respondent. However, he submits that the writ petition would not be affected by non-joinder of necessary party. To test the said statement, this Court had taken into consideration certain orders passed in reference to the encroacher and even the proceedings as a consequence thereupon. The documents aforesaid have been filed by none else than the petitioner. Thus in reference to the documents, the petitioner is aware of the person said to have encroached the land.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even a civil suit has been filed by the encroacher impleading the petitioner as party respondent. But, even thereupon, he has not been impleaded as party respondent in this petition. Hence, this petition not only suffers from non-joinder of parties, but exposes the conduct of the petitioner for making false statement before the Court when he was specifically asked as to why the encroacher has not been impleaded as a party respondent and a statement was made that he is not aware of the encroacher, despite the documents on record and knowing well about them.

5. The conduct of the petitioner is writ large and has to be non-suited on that count alone because platform of the Court is not for making false statement of the fact and that too, when the petitioner was asked to justify non-impleadment of the encroacher as the party respondent.

6. In the light of the aforesaid, when a person is not approaching this Court with clean hands, he has to be non-suited on that ground itself and that too with imposition of costs. Otherwise, the litigants would make a endeavour to use the platform of the Court by making false statement of fact either in the petition or during the course of oral submission before the Court. The practice aforesaid needs to be curbed and deprecated.

7. A perusal of paragraph 20 of the affidavit would further reveal the conduct of the petitioner and the same is quoted below:

"20. One person viz: G.Ponnazhagu by claiming to be physical possession of the lands, filed W.P.No.18278 of 2015 seeking protection under "Innocent Purchaser Scheme" contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.648, Revenue Department dated 29.07.1998, which was subsequently replaced by G.O.Ms.No.565 Revenue Department, dated 26.09.2008. This Hon'ble Court, on 11.08.2015, while ordering notice of motion returnable by 11.08.20, was pleased to order status quo as it existed on 25.06.2015 by making it clear that in the interregnum, he shall not create any third party rights in respect of the land and building in question. I am not aware of the final out-come in this writ petition and whether the interim order of status quo, which was granted on 25.06.2015, is still in force. The online status reveals that this writ petition, which was listed lastly on 10.08.2015, was adjourned by two weeks."

8. The facts given above reveals that a writ petition bearing No.18278 of 2015 is pending, wherein an interim order to maintain status quo was passed on 25.06.2015. Though the petitioner is not aware of the fate of the said writ petition, he knows about the pendency of the writ petition and the order of status quo passed therein on 25.06.2015. Despite an interim order of status quo, this petition has been filed to seek a direction offending the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18278 of 2015. It is more so when petitioner himself has disclosed the fact about the pendency of the writ petition giving details of the stay order, but would not be knowing status of the writ petition.

9. Despite knowing that the direction sought in this writ petition would affect the petitioner in W.P.No.18278 of 2015, yet only to avoid contest by him, the petitioner has not impleaded him as party respondent deliberately. Nothing prevented the petitioner to seek vacation of the said order. Instead of doing that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to seek a direction on the official responden

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ts to remove the encroachment going against the status quo order passed by the Court. 10. In view of the above and taking overall facts into consideration, we do not consider this petition to be bona fide and accordingly, the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within fifteen days. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court, Madras is directed to see the compliance of payment of cost within the stipulated time and if payment of cost is not made, the disposed of writ petition may be listed again before this court to take appropriate proceedings in the matter.
O R