K.N.Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 28TH MAGHA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO. 16820 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.N.KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. NEELAKANDAN NAIR, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 027.** **BY ADVS.** **K.V.JAYADEEP MENON SRI.T.P.RAMESH (THENGUMPILLIL) SMT.P.KRISHNAPRIYA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND (WEST), THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.** - **2 DEVASWOM OFFICER, SOUTH CHITTOOR SREE KRISHNA SWAMY TEMPLE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 027.** - **3 SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND (WEST), THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.** - **4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030.** 2 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 - **5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 001.** - **6 TAHASILDAR,** - **KANAYANNOOR TALUK OFFICE, NEAR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COURT COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 011.** **R1 TO R3 BY SRI K.P.SUDHEER, STANDING COUNSEL, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.** - **R4 TO R6 BY SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 07.02.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).21994/2022, THE COURT ON 17.02.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 28TH MAGHA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO. 21994 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **K.N.KRISHNAKUMAR** **AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE NEELAKANTAN NAIR, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 027.** **BY ADVS.** **VINU CHAND** **C.R.VINOD KUMAR GEEVARGHESE MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 030.** - **2 THE SECRETARY CHERANELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN - 683 544.** - **3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 554.** 4 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 - **4 RAMANATHAN,** **AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.LATE VENKITESH EMBRANTHIRI, CHENNAS MAD, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., COCHIN - 682 027.** - **5* THE DEVASWOM OFFICER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SOUTH CHITTUR, SREE KRISHNA SWAMY TEMPLE, SOUTH CHITTUR P.O., ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN - 682 027.** - **6* THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRIPUNITHURA GROUP, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN - 682 301.** ***ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R5 AND R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 27/9/2022 IN I.A.1/2022 IN WP(C)21994/2022.** **BY ADVS.** **R1 TO R3 BY SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** - **R4 BY C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)** **R4 BY C.Y.VINOD KUMAR** **R5 AND R6 BY SRI K.P.SUDHEER, STANDING COUNSEL, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 07.02.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).16820/2020, THE COURT ON 17.02.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 5 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## P.G.Ajithkumar, J. ## W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 The petitioner, who claims title to and possession of six cents of land comprised in old Sy.No.6639/3 and Re-survey No.292/5 of Cheranalloor Village, has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the ## following reliefs.- - (I) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction to call for the records relating to the issuance of Ext.P4 and P6 and quashing Ext.P4 and P6 proceedings initiated by the 3[rd] respondent herein against the petitioner finding that it is illegal in the interest of justice; - (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 5[th] respondent to consider the documents produced by the petitioner in the above Writ Petition and identify and separately demarcate the property of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P18 memorandum of area alteration and revised sketch issued by the 4[th] respondent within a time limit as directed by this Court.” 6 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 1.1 These are the latest of a slew of cases filed by the petitioner regarding the same subject matter. The petitioner claims that he purchased 2.5 Ares of land by virtue of sale deed No.1667/1967 of Sub Registry Office, Ernakulam. He obtained purchase certificate in S.M.No.5424/1976 from the Land Tribunal for this property. Exts.P1 and P2 are the said documents. Other sharers relinquished their right in the property in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 release deed and thus he now claims to be the sole owner and in possession of 6 cents of land. There arose disputes between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 1 and 2 on the other regarding 0.0019 Hectares of land comprised in Sy.No.640/4, corresponding to Re-survey No.292/5. The 3[rd] respondent initiated action for recovery of the said disputed land by issuing Ext.P4 proceedings dated 28.08.2014. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.28233 of 2014 challenging the said proceedings wherein Ext.P5 judgment was rendered by this Court. The 3[rd] respondent was directed to identify the property allegedly trespassed upon by the petitioner after 7 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 hearing both sides. A time limit of two months was fixed. Although the 3[rd] respondent considered the matter afresh, a similar order was issued as per Ext.P6. Therefore, the petitioner has filed appeal under Section 16 of the Land Conservancy Act, 1957 before the District Collector. Since the Collector did not take any timely action, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.4730 of 2015 before this Court, which was disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment. The District Collector pursuant to the direction in Ext.P7 considered the appeal, but instead of deciding by himself, directed the petitioner to file appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur. Accordingly, an appeal was filed, a copy of which is Ext.P8. 1.2 The petitioner was constrained to file W.P.(C) No.25271 of 2018 since no decision in Ext.P8 appeal was taken for about three years. This Court as per Ext.P9 judgment in W.P.(C) No.25271 of 2018 directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the matter expeditiously. However, without considering the appeal in its proper perspective, issued notice to the petitioner directing to 8 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 surrender possession of the disputed land. Since the Revenue Divisional Officer did not decide the appeal in a proper manner, he filed W.P.(C) No.36645 of 2018 before this Court seeking to set aside the notice in B-Form, a copy of which is Ext.P11. This court after considering the rival contentions directed the 5[th] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, as per Ext.P12 judgment to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously. The said appeal is however not disposed of yet. 1.3 In fact the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is in respect of the property comprised in Sy.No.640/4 of Cheranalloor Village. In fact there is no such survey number and therefore the claim of the said respondents is without any basis. Ext.P19 is the reply received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from which the said fact is quite evident. However, the Taluk Surveyor has been taking steps for measuring out the properties for which a notice dated 13.03.2020 was issued to the petitioner. Although such a notice was issued no survey has so far been conducted. In 9 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 the said circumstances, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition claiming the aforesaid reliefs. 1.4 The Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondent Nos.4 to 6, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board took notice for respondent 1 to 3. W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 2. During the pendency of W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent, the Special Tahsildar, Cochin Devaswom Board to take immediate action on Ext.P4 representation submitted by him. The allegations in Ext.P4 representation are that the 4th respondent, who has property in Sy.No.639 of Cheranalloor Village has constructed a residential building trespassing upon the road on the northern side, which leads to Hanuman Temple that belongs to the Cochin Devaswom Board. The petitioner would contend that the said road has a width of three meters and clearly demarcated in the survey sketch Ext.P1 as a Devaswom property. On noticing the trespass, he submitted a complaint 10 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 before the 1st respondent-Deputy Director of Panchayat, a copy of which is Ext.P2, to take immediate action for avoiding the trespass. No action was taken and therefore he submitted Ext.P4 representation. Since the 3rd respondent the Special Tahsildar, Cochin Devaswom Board also is reluctant to take action, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. 2.1 When this matter came up for consideration on 6.7.2022, it was noticed that the Assistant Commissioner concerned of the Cochin Devaswom Board was not a party, the petitioner was directed to take action for impleadment. Accordingly, additional respondents 5 and 6 were impleaded. 2.2 The learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and additional respondents 5 and 6. Pursuant to notice, the 4 th respondent entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. 2.3 The 4th respondent would contend that this Writ Petition was filed without any bona fides. No road exists along the northern side of his property as alleged by the petitioner. The 4th respondent had 10 cents of property comprised in Re- 11 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 survey 292/16 of Cheranalloor Village. Later, in the year 1983 he purchased 21 cents of property, out of which 11 cents is now owned by his son. There has been a compound wall around this property. The petitioner is the owner of the property on the immediate northern side. When he constructed a compound wall, a portion of the property of this respondent was trespassed upon, regarding which there arose a dispute. Due to that enmity this Writ Petition has been filed. 2.4 In the year 2013 survey and demarcation of the property of Chittoor Sree Krishna Swamy Temple was done. Notices were issued to several persons, including the petitioner and this respondent for recovery of the Temple property allegedly trespassed upon. The proceedings against this respondent was dropped on finding that he did not trespass upon any Temple property. The proceedings against the petitioner is still pending. 2.5 When this matter came up for consideration on 07.12.2022, we noticed that the petitioner filed this Writ Petition without disclosing the proceedings initiated against 12 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 him for recovery of Temple property said to be in his possession, and also the writ petitions filed by him. Therefore, this Court passed the order with the following observations and directions. “3. Today, on a query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner culminated in an order passed by the Special Tahsildar, in which it was found that the petitioner has encroached upon the Devaswom land. The appeal filed by the petitioner is now pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not offer any satisfactory explanation for the conduct of the petitioner in not disclosing those facts in this writ petition, which is one filed invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to file a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, in which the petitioner shall explain his conduct in filing this writ petition, suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court. The reply affidavit shall be placed on record within two weeks. Along with the reply affidavit, the 13 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 petitioner shall also place on record the order issued by the Special Tahsildar and also the memorandum of appeal filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer.” 2.6 In terms of the said directions, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 20.01.2023. The petitioner explained about the proceedings initiated against him and the successive Writ Petitions filed by him. He explained the reasons for not disclosing about the said proceedings and the Writ Petitions as follows,- “6. I filed the above Writ Petition (Civil) on 05.07.2022 for directing the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action on the Ext.P4 submitted by me for taking action to repossess the allegedly trespassed land by the 4th respondent. During the month of April 2022, I was severely affected with Omicron Version of Covid-19 Virus. Due to the severity of the pandemic, even my life was under threat. Even after getting negative, I suffered post Covid issues in a severe manner and I am having symptoms of breathing issues, memory loss, sleeplessness etc. When I engaged my counsel to file this present Writ Petition, I could not apprise him of the facts mentioned above, which was not in my memory at that time. I am fighting with the Land Conservancy order passed by the 3rd respondent for the last 8 years. 14 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 7. The Land Conservancy Order passed against me by the 3[rd] respondent is not maintainable either in law or on facts. I am herewith filing another petition to receive the additional documents, which would prove the above facts. I am still not recovered from the post Covid 19 issues. Even now, suffering instant memory loss some times. On 07.12.2022, my Counsel contacted me over phone and informed me that this Hon'ble Court directed me to file an affidavit, detailing the facts and circumstances, which led to the suppression of the above material facts including the pendency of notice under the Land Conservancy Act, for surrendering the land by the 3[rd] respondent. Then I met my counsel on 09.12.2022 and during the discussion with my counsel, I remembered the above-mentioned facts and I immediately contacted my other counsel, who filed the writ petitions mentioned above and collected all the documents by 15.12.2022. Immediately, my counsel, who filed the other writ petitions mentioned above, filed petition before this Hon'ble Court to post the W.P. (C) No.16820 of 2020, which is pending before this Hon'ble Court along with the present Writ Petition. Apprehending that the Writ Petition was filed by me as W.P. (C) No.16820 of 2020, it is now posted along with the present W.P. (C). A true copy of W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 along with all appended documents, which are already marked in this Writ Petition with a separate 15 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 petition to accept the same. 8. It is submitted that I have not willfully suppressed the above factum of pendency of the writ petitions and also the pendency of order under Land Conservancy Act issued by the 3[rd] respondent against me. But the same was happened due to the reasons mentioned above and I have no malafide intentions whatsoever to mislead this Hon'ble Court and to harass the respondents, particularly the 4[th] respondent herein, even in my dreams. My only intention was to repossess the land belonging to the temple for the ingress and egress of the local people to the Hanuman Kovil Temple, without hurting the custom of the temple.” 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in W.P(C) No.21994 of 2022. 4. Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 is a copy of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Sub Collector (Revenue Divisional Officer) on 12.10.2015. The petitioner, alleging that the Revenue Divisional Officer did not take any action for years together in the appeal, has filed W.P.(C) No.25271 of 2018. That Writ Petition was disposed of vide 16 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 Ext.P9 wherein the Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to dispose of that appeal within a period of two months. 5. The petitioner would allege that following directions contained in Ext.P9 judgment, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued B-Form notice reiterating the earlier stand that the petitioner encroached upon a portion of the Temple property. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.36645 of 2018 with the allegation that the said order was erroneous. That Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P12 judgment in wherein it was specifically directed that the properties in dispute shall be demarcated by holding survey in an appropriate way. The further allegation of the petitioner is that no action has been taken by the Special Tahsidlar so far, who is bestowed with the responsibility of survey and demarcation of the properties and to locate encroachment, if any. 6. From the above, it emerges that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 5th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is yet to be disposed of. The 1st respondent Devaswom Board has a specific claim that the petitioner has trespassed 17 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 upon a portion of the property of Chittoor Sree Krishna Swamy Temple and the Board is entitled to recover the same by removing the encroachmmen. It is the obligation of the 5 th respondent to take a decision on Ext. P8 which is pending before him for quite a long period. 7. Section 4 of the Land Conservancy Act defines poramboke land. The 3rd respondent has initiated action for removing encroachment on the premises that the property comprised in Sy.No.640/4 belongs to the Temple and portions of the said land was trespassed upon by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore contends that the Devaswom Board lays claim on the property comprised in survey No.640/4, but in reality there is no such survey demarcation. In the light of such rival contentions, it is necessary for the 3rd respondent and the survey authorities to identify the Temple property so as to conclude whether the property in dispute is puraboke, that is to say, the Temple property for the purpose of the proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act. If it is found, in such enquiry, that there is encroachment, it is obligatory on 18 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 the part of the 3rd and 4th respondents to remove encroachment following the procedure contemplated in Sections 11 and 12 of the Land Conservancy Act and also the Rules made thereunder. In the said circumstances, we find that the 5th respondent shall take a decision in Ext.P8 appeal within a period of six months. 8. W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner suppressing material facts. He did not disclose about the proceedings initiated against him under the Land Conservancy Act. He did not also disclose about the successive writ petitions filed by him before this Court. He has offered explanations for such suppression, which has been extracted above. We are not satisfied with the explanation. We deprecate the said approach of the petitioner. 9. In **Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449]** the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such 19 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. 10. In **Prestige Lights' case (supra)** the Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the court, the writ court 20 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the said judgment read thus: “33. It is thus clear that though the appellant-Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 34. The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in **R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)]** , in the following words: - "It has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an 21 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 exparte statement he should made a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts - facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it - _the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts_ , and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement." (Emphasis supplied) ## 11. In **K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.** **[(2008) 12 SCC 481]** , the Apex Court held that the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure 22 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, "the Court knows law but not facts". 12. In **K.D. Sharma's case (supra)** , the Apex Court held further that, if the primary object as highlighted in **R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [1917 (1) KB** **486]** is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and 'clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the Court with 'soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to 23 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for Contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. 13. Therefore, it is well settled that, a litigant who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands and clean objects. The judicial proceedings are sacrosanct, and no person would be allowed to abuse the judicial process, particularly, in public law remedy. In writ proceedings, the Court places implicit faith on the parties and their pleadings, as it does not indulge in any fact finding or roving enquiry of what has been asserted. Since Article 226 of the Constitution of India espouses equity jurisprudence, a litigant who has approached the Court with unclean hands, without disclosing full facts, is not entitled for any reliefs. For that reasons itself this petitioner is not entitled to get any reliefs claimed in these Writ Petitions. 24 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 14. Although the petitioner alleged that there existed a pathway on the northern side of the property of the 4th respondent, no material to substantiate that contention is produced before the court. On the other hand, proceedings against the petitioner under the Land Conservancy Act on the allegation that he has trespassed upon the Temple property is pending consideration before the designated authorities. In view of those facts , the petitioner is not entitled to get the reliefs claimed in this Writ Petition. 15. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 is dismissed and W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 is disposed of directing the 5 th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose Ext.P8 appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 25 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16820/2020** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** - **EXHIBIT P1 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1667/1967 OF SRO ERNAKULAM IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2 IS THE TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA/ PURCHASE CERTIFICATE IN SM NO. 5424/1976 FROM THE LAND TRIBUNAL.** - **EXHIBIT P3 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 3857/2012 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM DATED 26/09/2012.** - **EXHIBIT P4 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENTS DATED 28.08.2014.** - **EXHIBIT P5 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 28233 OF 2014 DATED 28.10.2014 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P6 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.12.2014.** - **EXHIBIT P7 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2015 IN WPC NO. 4730 OF 2015 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** - **EXHIBIT P8 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION C NO. 25271/2018 DATED 27.07.2018 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** 26 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 **EXHIBIT P10** **IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE B FORM NOTICE DATED 27.09.218 ISSUED BY R3** - **EXHIBIT P11** - **IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE B FORM NOTICE DATED 29.10.2018 ISSUED BY R3** - **EXHIBIT P12** - **IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION C NO. 36645/2018 DATED 22.11.2018 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **EXHIBIT P13** **IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OLD FIELD MEASUREMENT PLAN REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITION IN OLD SURVEY NO. 639/3 OF CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE.** **EXHIBIT P14** - **IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OLD FIELD MEASUREMENT PLAN REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF THE DEVASWAM IN OLD SURVEY NO. 640 OF CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE.** **EXHIBIT P15** **IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OLD THANDAPER ACCOUNT OF THE PROPERTY IN OLD SURVEY NO. 639/3 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE DATED 15.12.2014.** **EXHIBIT P16** **IS THE OLD BASIC TAX REGISTER OF THE PROPERTY IN OLD SURVEY NO. 639/3 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, DT. 15.12.2014.** **EXHIBIT P17** **IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE PRESENT BASIC TAX REGISTER AFTER THE AREA ALTERATION PROCEEDINGS AFTER RE-SURVEY ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, CHERANELLOOR ON APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER ON 12.03.2020.** 27 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 ## **EXHIBIT P18** **IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AREA ALTERATION AND THE REVISED SKETCH SHOWING THE AREA ALTERATION ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.** **EXHIBIT P19** **IS THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06.03.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE VILLAGE OFFICE, CHERANELLOOR AND THE REPLY TO THE SAID APPLICATION ISSEUD UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.** **EXHIBIT P20** **IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR KANAYANNOOR TALUK DATED 09.03.2020.** 28 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21994/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM DATED 10/10/2014.** **EXHIBIT P2** - **THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4/1/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD.** - **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P2 COMPLAINT DATED 4/1/2022.** - **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6/6/2022.** - **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15/6/2022 EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P4 REPRESENTATION.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.8.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.28233/2014,** - **EXHIBIT P8** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2014 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** 29 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022 ## **EXHIBIT P9** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.2.2015 IN W.P. (C) NO.4730/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT** **EXHIBIT P10** **TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BEARING NO. F 8774/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI** **EXHIBIT P11** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.7.2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.25271/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT** **EXHIBIT P12** **TRUE COPY OF THE B FORM NOTICE DATED 27.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P13** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2018 IN W.P. (C) NO.36645/2018, PASSED BY THIS COURT.** 30 W.P.(C) No.16820 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21994 of 2022