Pathiriyal Pothujana Vayanasala and Grandhalayam Pathiriyal v. District Collector, Malappuram District; Tahsildar, Nilambur Taluk; Village Officer, Thiruvali; Secretary, Thiruvali Grama Panchayat

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 1ST POUSHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.13512 OF 2020(L)** ## **PETITIONER:** **PATHIRIYAL POTHUJANA VAYANASALA AND GRANDHALAYAM PATHIRIYAL, PATHIRIYAL P. O., THIRUVALI VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 123, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. MUJEEB RAHMAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, RESIDING AT THEKKUMPURATH HOUSE, PATHIRIYAL, PATHIRIYAL P. O., THIRUVALI VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SHRI.P.M.JOSHI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR**| |---|---| ||**MALAPPURAM DISTIRCT, COLLECTRATE, MALAPPURAM,**| ||**PIN - 676 505.**| |**2**|**THE TAHSILDAR**| ||**NILAMBUR TALUK OFFICE, NILAMBUR, PIN - 679 329.**| |**3**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER**| ||**THIRUVALI VILLAGE, THIRUVALI P. O., NILAMBUR**| ||**TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 123.**| |**4**|**THE SECRETARY**| ||**THIRUVALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUVALI P. O.,**| ||**NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN - 676 123.**| **R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH SMT A.C.VIDHYA- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-12-2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, namely, Pathiriyil Pothujana Vayanasala and Grandhalayam, which is having affiliation with the Kerala State Library Council, with registration No.10END4130, vide Ext.P1 certificate of affiliation dated 04.08.1998, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent Village Officer, Thiruvali Village, to accept land tax and issue receipt in respect of 82 Ares of land in Sy.No.291/2A1 (new Sy.No.133/4) and 9.95 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.306/1 (new Sy.No.203/3) and Re.Sy.No.312/1A1 (new Sy.No.116/2) in Block No.74 of Thiruvali Village in Nilambur Taluk. 2. On 06.07.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to the 4[th] respondent, the Secretary of Thiruvali Grama Panchayat. The interim relief sought for in this writ petition is for an order directing the 3[rd] respondent Village Officer to accept land tax of the petitioner's property in Sy.No.133/4, 203/3 and 116/12 in Block No.74 of Thiruvali Village and issue receipt. On 06.07.2020, this Court granted an interim order directing the 3[rd] respondent Village Officer to accept land tax from the petitioner, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 3 3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.20 Ares of property in Re.Sy.No.312/1A1 (new Sy.No.116/2) in Thiruvali Village as per Ext.P2 purchase certificate No.69 dated 30.09.1980 issued by the Land Tribunal, Manjeri. The petitioner has also obtained another property having an extent of 9.95 Ares in Re.Sy.No.306/1 (new Sy.No.203/3) of Thiruvali Village as per Ext.P3 purchase certificate No.369 dated 16.05.1977 issued by the Land Tribunal, Manjeri. [Exts.P2 and P3 do not contain the schedule showing the description, survey number, extent, etc. of the property assigned]. Apart from that, as per Ext.P4 settlement deed No.2296/1991 dated 25.06.1991 of the Sub Registrar Office, Vandoor, the petitioner obtained 82 Ares of property in Re.Sy.No.291/2A1 (new Sy.No.133/4). Accordingly, the petitioner paid land tax for a property having an extent of 95.15 Ares, in the year 2013, for the period 2011-12, as evidenced by Ext.P5 land tax receipt dated 24.02.2012 issued from Thiruvali Village. The 3[rd] respondent Village Officer received land tax for the property in Sy.No.203/3 having an extent of 9.95 Ares, vide Ext.P6 tax receipt dated 20.07.2013, and that for the property in Sy.No.116/12 having an extent of 3.20 Ares, vide Ext.P7 tax receipt dated 20.07.2013, for the period 2013-14. But the 3[rd] respondent refused to accept land tax for the property in Sy.No.133/4 having an extent of 82 Ares of land, since the year 2013-14. The 3[rd] respondent refused to W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 4 accept the land tax for the properties in all the three survey numbers mentioned above, for the reason that, out of the aforesaid properties, an extent of 1.50 Acres of land is found to be in the asset register of the 4[th] respondent Thiruvali Grama Panchayat. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application dated 11.07.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the 4[th] respondent Grama Panchayat seeking copy of the documents to substantiate the claim of the Panchayat over the property in the ownership and possession of the petitioner. The Panchayat issued Ext.P9 reply dated 08.08.2014, wherein it is stated that they have no document other than Asset Register to substantiate their claim over the said property. Therefore, the petitioner would contend that 'Pathirian Ground' is liable to be removed from the Asset Register of the 4[th] respondent Grama Panchayat. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 complaint dated 03.08.2017 before the 1[st] respondent District Collector, which was followed by Ext.P11 application dated 27.05.2020 before the 2[nd] respondent Tahsildar, Nilambur, to take necessary action to collect land tax of the petitioner’s property. Though the said application was acknowledged vide Ext.P12 receipt dated 27.05.2020, no action was taken. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the said respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 02.07.2020, with the aforesaid reliefs. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4[th] respondent W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 5 wherein it is stated that, as early as in the year 2017, with respect to 2 Acres of property situated in Sy.No.291/2A1 of Thiruvali Village, known as 'Pathiriyan Ground', with respect to which the relief sought for in this writ petition, the petitioner has filed a suit against Thiruvali Grama Panchayat as O.S.No.428 of 2017 before the Munsiff’s Court, Manjeri, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain Thiruvali Grama Panchayat from encroaching into the plaint schedule property or from obstructing the user of the plaint schedule property by the petitioner and for allied reliefs. The contention raised in the plaint in O.S.No.428 of 2017 was that the title of the property was conveyed in favour of the petitioner by registering a settlement deed of the year 1991 by the then owner of the property. When land tax of the property, for the period 2015-17, was attempted to be remitted before the 3[rd] respondent, the same was declined vide communication dated 20.12.2017 of the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar stating that the portion of the plaint schedule property is included in the asset register of Thiruvali Grama Panchayat. The document marked as Ext.R4(a) is the plaint in O.S.No.428 of 2017. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed Ext.R4(a) interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.No.3179 of 2017, seeking an interim injunction to retrain the Grama Panchayat from encroaching into the plaint schedule property, from obstructing the user of the property and for allied reliefs. In that suit, the Grama Panchayat filed Ext.R4(c) written statement W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 6 dated 23.02.2018, contending that the plaint schedule property was relinquished in favour of Block Panchayat, Vandoor by the erstwhile owners and it is included in the Asset Register of the Grama Panchayat. The property is in possession of Thiruvali Grama Panchayat and is being maintained by the Grama Panchayat. The Panchayat filed Ext.R4(d) counter affidavit dated 09.01.2018, in I.A.No.3179 of 2017, opposing the interim reliefs. O.S.No.428 of 2017 is still pending and the issue raised in this writ petition is sub judice before the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri. Till date, no orders are passed, interim or final, by the Munsiff's Court in that suit. It is suppressing all these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent Village Officer to accept land tax for the property in question. The document marked as Ext.R4(e) is the relevant pages of the Asset Register of Thiruvally Grama Panchayat, which evidences that the property in question is vested with the Grama Panchayat. The document marked as Ext.R4(f) is the proceedings dated 30.12.1995 of the Block Development Officer, Vandoor, which evidences that the property in question was handed over to the Grama Panchayat for future maintenance. The document marked as Ext.R4(g) is the copy of a communication dated 01.09.1995 issued by the then President of the petitioner Vayanasala, in the letter head of the Vayanasala, to Thiruvali Grama Panchayat, which evidences the fact that the property in W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 7 question was originally vested with the Block Panchayat, Vandoor. The property known as 'Pathiriyan Ground' in Re.Sy.No.291/2A1 of Thiruvali Village, belongs to Thiruvali Grama Panchayat. Exts.P6 and P7 basic tax receipts produced by the petitioner do not take the property in question in Sy.No.291/2A1. Ext.P9 reply was furnished to the petitioner since the details requested in Ext.P8 application were not available with the Grama Panchayat. Thereafter, on the application made by the petitioner, a copy of Ext.R4(f) proceedings dated 30.12.1995 was furnished to the petitioner. In fact, on 15.01.2018, the Grama Panchayat had addressed a letter to the Block Panchayat, Wandoor requesting to furnish all the details with respect to relinquishment of the property in question in favour of Block Panchayat, Wandoor. By Ext.R4(h) letter dated 16.01.2018, the Secretary of the Block Panchayat informed the 4[th] respondent that same could not be traced out, and on receipt of the same, the said information will be provided. The 4[th] respondent would point out that the property known as 'Pathiriyan Ground' in Sy.No.291/2A1 of Thiruvali Village is in the exclusive possession and ownership of Thiruvali Grama Panchayat. The said property is not liable to be removed from the Asset Register of the Grama Panchayat. 5. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit contending that, when there was an attempt from the side of the 4[th] respondent to trespass into the property, the petitioner filed O.S.No.428 of 2017 W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 8 before the Munsiff’s Court, Manjeri, for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 4[th] respondent from trespassing into the property. In Ext. P13 plaint in O.S.No.428 of 2017, the plaint schedule property is described as 2 Acres of land in Sy.No.291/2A1 (new Sy.No.133/4). The said suit is a simple suit for injection and there was no prayer for remitting the land tax. The question of remitting the land tax was not an issue in that suit, as evident from Ext.P14 issues framed by the Munsiff’s Court. In Ext.P13 plaint though it is stated that the petitioner obtained ownership of the property as per Ext.P4 settlement deed, the petitioner omitted to mention Exts.P2 and P3 sale certificates. There was some technical defects also in the construction of the plaint. As there was threat of trespass at present, the petitioner was about to withdraw the suit, with liberty to file a fresh suit. Hence, the petitioner felt that it is not necessary to mention about the pendency of the suit in this writ petition, which is one filed to direct the Village Officer to collect land tax and issue receipt. Therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P15 interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.No.1 of 2020 to withdraw O.S.No.428 of 2017, with liberty to file a fresh suit. The Panchayat filed Ext.R4(c) written statement in O.S.No.428 of 2017 raising untenable contentions. In paragraph 7 of the written statement, the Panchayat attacked the integrity of the President of the Vayanasala, accusing that he is a retired Deputy Tahsildar and on his undue influence he has created the land tax W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 9 receipts and possession certificate. The petitioner would contend that Ext.R4(e) Asset Register is a document created by the 4[th] respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. Ext.R4(f) proceedings of the Block Development Officer and Ext.R4(g) letter dated 01.09.1992 of the President of the Vayanasala, are manipulated by the 4[th] respondent, which cannot be relied upon without any supporting documents. The petitioner submitted Ext.P16 request dated 28.07.2020 before the Block Panchayat seeking information and documents as to whether the property is included in the Asset Register of the Block Panchayat. The petitioner received Ext.A17 reply dated 19.08.2020, in which it is stated that the property is not included in the Asset Register of the Block Panchayat. The document marked as Ext.P18, along with the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, is a power of attorney dated 02.06.2020, executed by the President and the Secretary of the Vayanasala, whereby Sri.Mujeeb Rahman is appointed as the power of attorney. The petitioner would point out that the property in Sy.No.291/2A1 (new Sy.No.133/4) is included in Ext.P5 tax receipt dated 24.02.2012. The Grama Panchayat has no title or possession over ‘Pathiriyan Ground’, at any point of time. The Panchayat can acquire property only under Section 178 of the Kerala panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and it cannot acquire property through land relinquishment. Therefore, the property in question is liable to be removed from the Asset Register of the Grama W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 10 Panchayat, as the same was included without any basis. 6. The 4[th] respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit, pointing out that the only reason stated in I.A.No.1 of 2020 filed before the Munsiff’s Court, Manjeri is that the cause of action does not survive. The petitioner has chosen to file the said application to withdraw O.S.No.428 of 2017 under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking liberty to file a fresh suit, if necessary, without disclosing the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. The said application is one dated 28.07.2020. The interim order of this Court directing the 3[rd] respondent Village Officer to accept land tax from the petitioner is one dated 06.07.2020, pursuant to which the petitioner paid land tax on 13.07.2020. The petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition suppressing the fact that the dispute with respect to its right over two acres of property known as ‘Pathiriyan Ground’ is at large before the Munsiff’s Court, Manjeri in O.S.No.428 of 2017. The 4[th] respondent has filed Ext.R4(i) counter affidavit dated 30.07.2020 in in I.A.No.1 of 2020 filed by the petitioner to withdraw O.S.No.428 of 2017. The 4[th] respondent would point out that, in the reply affidavit, the petitioner has not disputed the W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 11 genuineness of Ext.R4(f) is proceedings of the Block Development Officer and Ext.R4(g) communication issued by the then President of the Vayanasala to the Grama Panchayat. Instead, there is a vague averment that Exts.R4(f) and R4(g) may be manipulated by the 4[th] respondent, which cannot be relied at all without supporting documents. Likewise, the petitioner has also made a vague averment in the reply affidavit that Ext.R4(e) Asset Register is a document created by the 4[th] respondent. Ext.R4(e) evidences the fact that the property in question is included in the Asset Register of the Grama Panchayat. The said property is not liable to be removed from the Asset register, as contended by the petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent Grama Panchayat, representing the Grama Panchayat. 8. The Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 is enacted to provide for the levy of a basic tax on lands in the State of Kerala. Clause (1) of Section 3 of the Act define 'basic tax' to mean the tax imposed under the provisions of this Act. Clause (3) of Section 3 define 'land holder' to mean (a) in relation to any land held by a cultivating tenant as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, such cultivating W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 12 tenant; (b) in relation to any land in the possession of a kanam tenant as defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955, such kanam tenant; (c) in relation to any land which has not been surveyed and is not held by a cultivating tenant referred to in sub-clause (a), the proprietor of such land; (d) in relation to any other land, the registered holder for the time being of such land, and includes his legal representatives and assigns and any person who under any law for the time being in force is liable for the payment of public revenue due in respect of the land held by him. 9. Section 5 of the Act deals with charge of land tax. As per sub-section (1) of Section 5, subject to the provisions of this Act there shall be charged and levied a tax called 'basic tax' on all lands, of whatever description and held under whatever tenure (i) situated in the area comprising the former State of Travancore-Cochin for every financial year commencing on and from the 1[st] day of April, 1956; (ii) situated in the Malabar area for the period commencing on and from the first day of September, 1957, and ending on the 31[st] day of March, 1958, and thereafter for every financial year commencing on and from the 1[st] day of April, 1958. As per subsection (2) of Section 5, the basic tax charged on any land shall be W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 13 paid by the land holder of that land before such date as may be prescribed. As per the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 5, where (i) the landholder in respect of any land is a person referred to in sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) of clause (3) of Section 3; (ii) such land is in the possession of a tenant or other person not being the landholder; and (iii) the income obtained by the landholder from that land is less than the basic tax payable thereon, the excess of the basic tax over such income shall be paid by the tenant or other persons in possession. As per sub-section (2A) of Section 5, where the basic tax charged under this Act for any period before the 1[st] day of April, 1998, is in arrears, the same shall be paid before such date as may be specified by the Government in that behalf. As per sub-section (3) of Section 5, the basic tax charged and levied under this Act shall be deemed to be public revenue due on land within the meaning of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force and shall be recoverable under the provisions of that Act. 10. Section 6 of the Act deals with rate of basic tax and Section 6A deals with assessment of basic tax. As per sub-section (1) of Section 6A, the basic tax payable in respect of any land shall be assessed W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 14 in the manner provided in sub-section (2) to (4). As per subsection (2) of Section 6A, the prescribed authority shall serve on the land holder concerned and any other person liable to pay the basic tax in respect of any land, a provisional notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the extent of the land, the rate and amount of basic tax payable in respect thereof and the person or persons liable to pay the basic tax and requiring the land-holder and such other person to prefer objections, if any, to the particulars contained in the notice or to the rate or amount of basic tax, within such period as may be specified in the notice, which shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of the notice by the land holder or such other person. 11. As per sub-section (3) of Section 6A of the Act, any person aggrieved by any of the particulars contained in the provisional notice of demand or the rate or amount of basic tax specified therein may, within the period specified therein, prefer, his objections in writing to the prescribed authority, and thereupon the prescribed authority shall, after making due inquiries and after giving the objector and any other person whom it considers necessary, an opportunity of being heard, pass orders on the W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 15 objections. As per sub-section (4) of Section 6A, the prescribed authority shall prepare or cause to be prepared the final notice of demand in conformity with its orders under sub-section (3) and shall communicate such order and final notice of demand to the land-holder concerned and any person liable to pay the basic tax in respect of the land. 12. Section 7 of the Act deals with provisional assessment of basic tax in the case of unsurveyed lands. As per sub-section (1) of Section 7, notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 6 and 6A in the case of lands which have not been surveyed, the prescribed authority may make a provisional assessment of the basic tax payable on such lands. For the purpose of making the provisional assessment the prescribed authority shall, by notice, call upon the land-holder concerned and any other person in possession of the lands to furnish such particulars relating to the lands as the prescribed authority considers necessary within such time as may be specified in the notice. As per sub-section (2) of Section 7, if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the particulars furnished by the land-holder or other person are correct and complete he shall make a provisional assessment of the basic tax payable on W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 16 such lands at the rate specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 6, as the case may be, on the basis of the particulars so furnished. 13. In **Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner [(2007) 6 SCC 186]** the Apex Court reiterated that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in 'record of rights'. The entries in revenue records or jamabandi have only 'fiscal purpose', i.e., payment of land revenue and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as the title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court [vide **Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh (1993) 4 SCC 403** ]. 14. In **Sudan K.K. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2013 (4) KHC 201]** the pendency of civil suit can ever be a bar with regard to the acceptance of land tax, unless specifically restrained from accepting the tax by virtue of any order passed by the court. 15. Going by the averments in paragraph 2 of the plaint in O.S.No.428 of 2017, the plaint schedule property having an extent of 2 Acres comprised in Sy.No.291/2A1 (new Sy.No.133/4 Block No.74) of Thiruvali Village in Nilambur Taluk is a public playground owned and possessed by the petitioner. Since a portion of that property W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 17 is included in the Asset Register of Thiruvali Grama Panchayat, the 3[rd] respondent Village Officer refused to accept land tax for the period 2015-17. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that the property in dispute is a public playground. In O.S.No.428 of 2017, the Grama Panchayat filed Ext.R4(c) written statement, contending that much prior to Ext.P4 settlement deed, the plaint schedule property was relinquished in favour of Vandoor Block Panchayat. 16. The document placed on record as Ext.R4(e) along with the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition is the relevant extract of the Asset Register maintained by Thiruvali Grama Panchayat, as per which the plaint schedule property is vested in the Grama Panchayat. As per Ext.R4(f) proceedings dated 30.12.1995 of the Block Development Officer, Vandoor, the plaint schedule property was handed over to the Grama Panchayat for future maintenance. In Ext.R4(g) communication dated 01.09.1995 issued by the then President of the petitioner Vayanasala, in the letter-head of the Vayanasala, addressed to Thiruvali Grama Panchayat, it has been stated that, for constructing the retaining wall, utilising the amount sanctioned by the Grama Panchayat, the ownership of the playground has to be transferred from Vandoor Block Panchayat to Thiruvali Grama Panchayat. 17. Though the dispute raised in O.S.No.428 of 2017 on the file W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 18 of the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri is not a bar in the 3[rd] respondent Village Officer accepting land tax in respect of the plaint schedule property, the petitioner, while invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus to commanding the 3[rd] respondent to accept land tax, ought to have disclosed the pendency of O.S.No.428 of 2017 in this writ petition and also the fact that the said property is a public playground in which certain development activities were undertaken utilising the funds sanctioned by the Grama Panchayat. 18. 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 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. W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 19 19. In **Prestige Lights** 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 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. W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 20 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 ex parte statement he should make 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." 20. In **Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India [(2010) 14** **SCC 38]** , a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent, the Apex Court held that, the principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Article 32, Article 226 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India but W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 21 also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have bearing on adjudication of the issues arising in the case. 21. 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 to any reliefs. 22. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the conclusion is irresistible that the petitioner, who has approached this Court with unclean hands, without disclosing full facts, is not entitled for any relief under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 22 Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed, imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable by the petitioner to Thiruvali Grama Panchayat, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In case of default, Thiruvali Grama Panchayat will be entitled to recover the said amount from the office bearers of the petitioner, by initiating revenue recovery proceedings. Since mere payment of land tax will not confer any title or possession of the property, the payment of land tax by the petitioner on the strength of the interim order of this Court dated 06.07.2020 is not interfered with. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** yd W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 23 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AFFILIATION DATED 4.8.1998 ISSUED FROM THE KERALA STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL.** **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.69 DATED 30.09.1980.** **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.369 DATED 16.5.1977.** **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2296/1991 DATED 25.06.1991 OF VANDOOR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE (SRO)** **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.02.2012 ISSUED FROM THIRUVALI VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.07.2013 ISSUED FROM THIRUVALI VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.07.2013 ISSUED FROM THIRUVALI VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.07.2014 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 08.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 03.08.2017. EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.05.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 27.05.2020.** W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 24 **EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S NO.428/2017 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI.** **EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUES FRAMED IN O.S NO.428/2017 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, M ANJERI.** **EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION, I.A NO.1/2020 IN O.S NO.428/2017 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI.** **EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 2807-2020 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005.** **EXHIBIT P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19-82020 RECEIVED FROM THE VANDOOR BLOCK PANCHAYAT.** **EXHIBIT P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY NO.45/IV/2020 DATED 2-6-2020 EXECUTED AND BEFORE SRO, NILAMBOOR.** ## **4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 20.12.2017 IN O.S.NO.428 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF MANJERI.** **EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.3179 OF 2017 ALONG WITH THE ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.12.2017 IN O.S.NO.428 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF MANJERI.** **EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 23.02.2018 FILED BY THIRUVALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN O.S.NO.428 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF MANJERI.** W.P.(C)No.13512 of 2020 25 **EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER DATED 09.01.2018 FILED BY THIRUVALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO I.A.NO.3179 OF 2017, THE INTERIM INJUNCTION APPLICATION IN THE SUIT. EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE DATED NIL OF THE ASSET REGISTER OF THIRUVALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.12.1995 OF THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, WANDOOR.** **EXHIBIT R4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01.09.1995 ISSUED BY THE THEN PRESIDENT OF THE PETITIONER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THIRUVALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT R4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, BLOCK PANCHAYATH, WANDOOR, TO THE SECRETARY, THIRUVALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT.** **EXHIBIT R4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER DATED 30.07.2020 FILED TO I.A.NO.1 OF 2020 IN O.S.NO.428 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF MANJERI.** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE**