Judgment :- Challenging the Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent in S.R.Rc.No.7/91/C-2/264/92 dated 30.1.1992 declaring 6000 Sq. metres as excess vacant land in S.No.145/3 of Korattur village, Ambattur taluk. 2. Case in hand an illustration as to how by suppression of material facts and without any semblance of right, interim orders could be obtained by invoking Art. 226 of Constitution of India. 3. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) As per revenue records the land in S.No.145/3 of Korattur village, Ambattur taluk stood in the name of Manickavelu as on 07. 1975. The said land was assessed to Urban land Tax in Urban Land Tax Case No.84/1385 Korattur on 09. 1979. Manickavelu has not filed return u/s.7(1) of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (for short Act). Hence, notice u/s.7(2) of the Act was issued by the then Competent Authority and Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Ambattur in SR. 14/88 Korattur on 12. 1988. Notice u/s.9(1) of the Act is said to have been served by way of affixture in the presence of VAO on 010. 1991. Alleging that no objections were received, Orders u/s.9(5) of the Act was passed in Rc.264/92 on 30.1.1992 declaring 6000 Sq. metres as excess vacant land and it was ordered to be acquired. Final statement u/s.10(1) of the Act was issued on 09. 1995 and served by way of affixture on 30.9.1995. Notification u/s.11(1) of the Act was issued on 22. 1996 and published in the Tamil Nadu Govt. Gazette Part VI Section 1, dated 04. 1996. Notification u/s.11(3) of the Act vesting the excess vacant land with Government w.e.f. 38. 1996 was issued on 27. 1996 and published in the Tamil Nadu Govt. Gazette, Part VI, Sec.1 No:33 on 18. 1996. .(ii) Challenging the orders of 3rd Respondent dated 30.1.1992, Petitioners who are represented by their power of attorney holder have filed this Writ Petition. Case of Petitioners is that land in S.No.145/3 an extent of 1.60 acres at Korattur village, Tiruvallur District belonged to the 1st Respondents grand father Moorthy Naicker. After the death of Moorthy Naicker, his sons Masilamani Naicker and Murugan Naicker were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. The said Murugan Naicker died intestate as a Bachelor. Case of Petitioners is that land in S.No.145/3 an extent of 1.60 acres at Korattur village, Tiruvallur District belonged to the 1st Respondents grand father Moorthy Naicker. After the death of Moorthy Naicker, his sons Masilamani Naicker and Murugan Naicker were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. The said Murugan Naicker died intestate as a Bachelor. According to the Petitioners, after the death of Murugan Naicker, property was owned and possessed by 1st Petitioners father Munusamy Naicker. Munusamy Naicker also died intestate on 08. 1983 leaving behind the Petitioners as his surviving legal heirs to inherit the property. (iii) According to the Petitioners, 3rd Respondent has passed the impugned order dated 30.1.1992 in the name of the 1st Respondent who is a fictitious person and no way connected with the property in S.No.145/3. According to the Petitioners, the impugned Proceedings were not communicated to the Petitioners and that the order was served to the fictitious owner viz., 1st Respondent and not the actual owner of the property. Stating that the 1st Respondent has no power to take possession or acquire excess vacant land possessed by the Petitioners, Petitioners seek Writ of Certiorified Mandamus to quash the impugned order. 4. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed counter stating that Petitioners have not given any details as to how Munusamy Naicker became owner of the property. According to the Respondents 2 and 3, as per the revenue records, land was registered in the name of Manickavelu and the land had been assessed to Urban Land Tax in his name w.e.f. 07. 1975 and action under the provisions of the Act was taken in his name based on revenue records. Petitioners have not disclosed any legal documents under which they became owner of the property. Since Petitioners were not the owners of the land, they cannot challenge the impugned Proceedings. 5. Fourth Respondent filed Petition WP.MP.No.17557/2006 to implead himself as party. As per the order dated 20.09.2006, 4th Respondent was ordered to be impleaded in the Writ Petition. 6. Fourth Respondent who is the main contesting Respondent has filed counter challenging the locus standi of the Petitioners to file Writ Petition. According to the 4th Respondent, as per the Judgment of the Civil Court in O.S.No.488/1958, right of his predecessors in title viz., Sivasubramania Mudaliar in S.No.145/3 was declared and the same was confirmed in the Appeal. 6. Fourth Respondent who is the main contesting Respondent has filed counter challenging the locus standi of the Petitioners to file Writ Petition. According to the 4th Respondent, as per the Judgment of the Civil Court in O.S.No.488/1958, right of his predecessors in title viz., Sivasubramania Mudaliar in S.No.145/3 was declared and the same was confirmed in the Appeal. According to the 4th Respondent, 1st Petitioner and his father Munusamy Naicker having been unsuccessful in the civil suit have no manner of right or title in S.No.145/3. It is the further case of the 4th Respondent that after effecting partition in the family of Sivasubramania Mudaliar, the property passed on to various purchasers and he is one of the purchaser of the land to an extent of 30 cents in S.No.145/3. Petitioners having suppressed all material facts are not entitled to the discretionary relief invoking Art. 226 of Constitution of India. 7. Mr. A.Ramu, learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that when no notice was served upon the Petitioners, all the proceedings initiated under the Act are vitiated. Placing reliance upon 2007 (4) CTC 714 (Saraswathi and another vs. The Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai-5 and another), it was contended that possession of the land continues to remain with the Petitioners and with repeal of Principal Act and Petitioners being in possession, impugned order declaring the land as excess land is liable to be quashed. 8. Taking me through the earlier litigations, Mr.V.Sundararajan, learned counsel for the 4th Respondent contended that 1st Petitioners father Munusamy Naicker and 1st Petitioner (then minor) have unsuccessfully parted out the litigation in O.S.No.488/1958 and while so, it is not open to the Petitioners to challenge the Proceedings and the Petitioners have no semblance of right to challenge the Proceedings under the Act. 9. Drawing attention of Court to various sale deeds preceded under the impugned Proceedings, learned counsel for the 4th Respondent has further submitted that Petitioners are very well aware about the earlier litigations and various sale deeds and while so, Petitioners have suppressed all material facts and are not entitled to any relief. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the 4th Respondent placed reliance upon (K.D.Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & others). In support of his contention, learned counsel for the 4th Respondent placed reliance upon (K.D.Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & others). Learned counsel for the 4th Respondent further urged that Petitioners have not explained the reason for the delay and no relief could be granted on the ground of laches also. 10. Even at the out set, it is to be pointed out that Petitioners who assail the impugned order declaring 6000 Sq. metres as excess vacant land must prove their prima facie right and title in the property viz. S.No.145/3. 11. Earlier, Sivasubramania Mudaliar (father of the 1st Respondent) had filed O.S.No.488/1958 against Munusamy Naicker (father of the 1st Petitioner) and 1st Petitioner and his brother Seeyalan who were then minors. The suit O.S.No.488/1958 was filed for declaration of title of Sivasubramania Mudaliar to the suit property and for injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with Plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of S.No.145/3 or in the alternative for possession. After full trial, the suit was decreed declaring title of Sivasubramania Mudaliar and ordering delivery of possession to him. Judgment and decree in O.S.No.488/1958 was confirmed in A.S.No.69/1963 on the file of Sub-Court, Chingleput (A.S.No.103/1963 on the file of District Court, Chingleput). Decree in O.S.No.488/1958 declaring right and title of Sivasubramania Mudaliar in the property in S.No.145/3 – 1.60 acres has become final. 12. Pursuant to the decree, Patta was also issued in the name of 1st Respondents father Sivasubramania Mudaliar and Sivasubramania Mudaliar was having absolute right and title in S.No.145/3. The said land was also assessed under Urban Land Tax w.e.f. 7. 1975 in Urban Land Tax Case No.84/1985. By the deed of partition dated 210. 1980, property measuring an extent of 1.60 acres was partitioned amongst the family members Manickavelu (1); M.S.Arulvelu (2); Kumudavalli (3); M.S.Sivagnanam (4); M.T.Sundaramoorthy (5); Indrani Ammal (6); M.C.Thanikachalam (7); M.C.Shanmugam (8); Kasturi (9); M.C.Balasubramaniam (10); Nagendran (11) and Sukumaran (12) and partition deed was registered under Document No.4433/80 in SRO, Ambattur. As per the partition, property was divided in A schedule [ 50 cents ]; B schedule [ 60 cents ] and C schedule [ 50 cents ] of different extent in S.No.145/3 was allotted to the family members of Sivasubramania Mudaliar. 13. Family members of Sivasubramania Mudaliar who were allotted the property in the partition have sold the property to various persons under various sale deeds. 13. Family members of Sivasubramania Mudaliar who were allotted the property in the partition have sold the property to various persons under various sale deeds. It is pertinent to refer to those sale deeds to appreciate the contentious points. Even if a simple Encumbrance Certificate is taken to the property, the above Encumbrance in respect of the property will be clearly seen. 14. Revenue records are also in favour of the 4th Respondent and others who have purchased the property from the 1st Respondent and family members of Sivasubramania Mudaliar. Property in S.No.145/3 has been sub-divided and individual Pattas have been issued amongst others as noted below:- 15. Petitioners who invoked extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of Constitution are expected to disclose all material facts even if they are against them. Having lost the litigation in the civil suit and when the property had been conveyed to third parties including 4th Respondent by the family members of 1st Respondent, Petitioners have filed Writ Petition suppressing all material facts. Petitioners have distorted the true facts and filed Writ Petition under the guise as if they are the rightful owners. 16. Of course, 4th Respondent and other purchasers also challenges the impugned order on the ground that no notice were served upon them. In fact, challenging the impugned order, 4th Respondent and others have preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Reforms and the said Appellate Authority in his Proceedings No.RC/ J2/26211/98 dated 20.4.1998 had sought to cancel the order in the Writ proceedings and remitted the matter to the Original Authority/Assistant Commissioner for passing revised order. At any rate, the holdings of the respective sharers were within the Ceiling limits. Assistant Commissioner has addressed the Tahsildar, Ambattur taluk to cancel the notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. The said communication of the Assistant Commissioner addressed to the Tahsildar reads as under:- " Against the acquisition proceedings an appeal U/s 33 of the Act was filed before the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai – 600 005. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms in the proceedings 3rd cited has set aside the orders passed by the competent authority and Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Tax) Ambattur and the case has been remitted back for passing revised orders. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms in the proceedings 3rd cited has set aside the orders passed by the competent authority and Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Tax) Ambattur and the case has been remitted back for passing revised orders. The Notification in this regard U/s 11 (i) and 11 (3) of the Act were also published in the Tamil Nadu Govt. Gazette. The General Manager Govt. Press, Chennai has been addressed to cancel the notification in the Tamil Nadu Govt. Gazette." Of course, it is a matter to be agitated before the Competent Authority by the lawful owners viz., 4th Respondent and other purchasers having right and title and also Patta. 17. It passes one comprehension as to how Petitioners can claim right in S.No.145/3. Having lost in the civil litigation several decades ago, claim of the Petitioners that they continued to be in possession of the property is highly a misconceived one. If a simple Encumbrance Certificate is taken for the property, several Encumbrance Certificates in respect of the property will be clearly seen. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 4th Respondent, Petitioners have filed the Writ Petition suppressing material facts and distorted the true facts. 18. Petitioners have suppressed the earlier civil litigation wherein 1st Petitioner (then minor) and his father have lost. Petitioners have also deliberately suppressed the partition deed amongst the family of Sivasubramania Mudaliar and that the property passed to several persons who are the purchasers for valuable consideration. In my considered view, Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. 19. When the Petitioners invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of Constitution of India as held by the Supreme Court in (K.D.Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & others), Petitioners are expected to disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against them. Observing that prerogative writs issued for doing substantial justice, the Supreme Court has held as under :- "24. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary, Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. Observing that prerogative writs issued for doing substantial justice, the Supreme Court has held as under :- "24. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary, Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the Petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the Petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim." "25. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R.V.Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257:116 LT 136 in the following words: "[I]t 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 it says 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." "28. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 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. 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 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". "29. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commissioners 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 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." 20. In the case on hand, Petitioners have not come forward with relevant facts. Petitioners have chosen to state the facts in the manner suited to them by giving impression as if Petitioners are the owners of the property in S.No.145/3 and as if they are in possession of the property. Evidently, Petitioners cannot claim equitable relief. That apart, Petitioners having suppressed all the material facts are to be directed to pay cost to State Legal Services Authority. 21. For the foregoing reasons, Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed with cost and is accordingly dismissed. Writ Petitioners are directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand) to the State Legal Services Authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. 21. For the foregoing reasons, Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed with cost and is accordingly dismissed. Writ Petitioners are directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand) to the State Legal Services Authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. On failure to pay the cost, State Legal Services Authority is at liberty to recover the amount.