JUDGMENT : (Mauna M. Bhatt, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Chakwawala for learned advocate Mr. Kishan Chakwawala for the petitioner and Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondents. Mr. Chakwawala has filed draft amendment dated 29.10.2024. The same is allowed in terms of the draft and ordered to be carried out forthwith. 3. The question to be answered in the present petition is of great importance in matters involving challenge to demolition process. This is particularly since in such type of matters, this Court’s primary duty is to ascertain whether the petitioner has approached this Court with clean hands and is not guilty of suppression of material facts. The approach adopted by the petitioner in the present case, as enumerated hereinafter, is deprecatory and condemnable. Not only has the petitioner suppressed material facts but has conveniently sought to mask his breach by filing a draft amendment (without an accompanying affidavit) on the ground of “typographical error”. 4. Brief facts of the petition are to the effect that the petitioner claims to be owner and occupier of the subject premise (land and building) bearing block and survey no.380 (old survey no.281), Mouje Village: Adalaj, Taluka & District: Gandhinagar admeasuring 1-45-69 sq.mtrs. (hereinafter referred as “subject property”). 4.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Chakwawala submitted that the subject property was purchased by the petitioner from its original owner through registered sale deeds dated 26.09.2006 and 10.10.2006. In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Chakwawala relied upon registered sale deeds at Annexure “A” (Page-13 to 47). He further submitted that the subject property was developed and maintained by the present petitioner and for development of the property, he had built permanent structures and sheds which has all the amenities. He submits that the petitioner has spent substantial amount for development of subject property. 4.2 Thus, though the petitioner is the absolute owner of subject property, without any prior Notice, on Sunday morning at 07:00 AM on 06.10.2024, some 20 unknown persons dressed up as corporation officers came with Two JCB trucks and started threatening the Paggi and their family members to vacate the premises and to hand over the possession. They brutally thereafter, started demolishing the subject property. Learned Advocate relied upon the photographs at Annexure-D (page 55-59). They brutally thereafter, started demolishing the subject property. Learned Advocate relied upon the photographs at Annexure-D (page 55-59). 4.3 For this illegal action, the petitioner approached respondent No.2, but in vain and therefore the petitioner through his Advocate sent legal Notice dated 07.10.2024 at Annexure-E (page 60 to 62). A representation dated 07.10.2024 along with necessary documents was also made to respondent No.2 and other authorities (Annexure “E”, page 65 and page 80). Learned Advocate submitted that the action of respondent no.2, demolishing the property of the petitioner where he is absolute owner is illegal, because the same was done without prior Notice, and therefore, interference by this Court is required. 5. This petition was listed for hearing on 22.10.2024. During hearing on 22.10.2024, learned advocate Mr. Chakwawala for the petitioner advanced submissions on the aforesaid lines and prayed for issuance of notice as well as maintaining status quo. 6. Since advance copy was served to office of Government Pleader, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal appeared and pointed out that on account of advance copy being served, he has sought instructions and concerned officer is also present with relevant documents. 6.1. Inviting attention of this Court to the averments made in para-3 of the petition, Learned AGP submitted that the petitioner has stated that he is owner and occupier of the subject property admeasuring 1-45-69 sq. mtrs. and has placed reliance on registered sale deeds of the year 2006 to contend the same. However, perusal of the sale deeds dated 26.09.2006 and 10.10.2006 (Annexure -A, page 13 onwards), on which heavy reliance is placed to establish ownership of subject property, refers to 6190 sq. mtrs. of land and not for 1-45-69 sq. mtrs. (page 16 and page 33). Therefore, the petitioner is not owner and occupier of the subject land admeasuring 1-45- 69 sq.mtrs. but only owner of land admeasuring 6190 sq.mtrs. 6.2. Learned AGP further submitted that factually, several parcels of land were acquired in Land Acquisition proceedings in Land Acquisition Case No.14/78, which also includes the land bearing Survey No.380 admeasuring 8379 sq.mtrs. (1-45- 69 sq.mtrs. – 6190 sq.mtrs. = 8379 sq.mtrs.) of land. The said land was acquired for public purpose i.e. for the purpose of construction of Flouter Bridge. 6.3. Upon acquisition of land admeasuring 8379 sq. mtrs., the award under section 11 of the LAQ Act was passed on 24.03.1983. (1-45- 69 sq.mtrs. – 6190 sq.mtrs. = 8379 sq.mtrs.) of land. The said land was acquired for public purpose i.e. for the purpose of construction of Flouter Bridge. 6.3. Upon acquisition of land admeasuring 8379 sq. mtrs., the award under section 11 of the LAQ Act was passed on 24.03.1983. Moreover, original land owners after accepting the award, had also preferred reference application under section 18 of the Act, seeking enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the petitioner is not owner of the land admeasuring 1-45-69 sq. mtrs., as stated in the petition. Further, no demolition was done on 6190 sq mtrs. of land and building, where petitioner is the owner. 7. After submissions were advanced by the Learned AGP, learned advocate for the petitioner immediately submitted that the averment made in para-3 in relation to ownership of land is a “typographical error” and therefore, petitioner may be permitted to amend the petition. Learned AGP also requested to grant time so that correct facts can be brought on record by way of an affidavit. Considering the request of both sides, the matter was adjourned to 29.10.2024. 8. On 29.10.2024, learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Chakwawala for the petitioner tendered a draft amendment, which stands allowed as stated in para-2 hereinabove. It is important to note that amendment has been sought only in the prayer clauses of the petition, by correcting the area of land admeasuring 6190 sq.mtrs. instead of 1-45-69 sq.mtrs. Additionally, Learned AGP tendered affidavit-in-reply dated 28.10.2024, on behalf of respondents and the same is taken on record. 9. An Additional Affidavit dated 29.10.2024, was also filed, in which it was stated that the petitioner has filed this petition relying upon two different sale deeds executed on 26.09.2006 and 10.10.2006 in respect of land bearing original survey no.281 new survey no.380 of Village: Adalaj, District: Gandhinagar. Both these sale deeds are in respect of subject land admeasuring 6190 sq.mtrs. paiki ½ respectively. The land admeasuring 6190 sq.mtrs. was purchased by the present petitioner from Shri Naranbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel. After execution of above referred sale deeds, mutation entry in respect of both the sale transactions were recorded vide mutation entry no.10642. However, due to dispute in respect of mutation entry of original land owner and heirs, the said entry was cancelled. The land admeasuring 6190 sq.mtrs. was purchased by the present petitioner from Shri Naranbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel. After execution of above referred sale deeds, mutation entry in respect of both the sale transactions were recorded vide mutation entry no.10642. However, due to dispute in respect of mutation entry of original land owner and heirs, the said entry was cancelled. Against cancellation of said entry, the present petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No.13241 of 2020, which is pending. Copy of status of Special Civil Application No.13241 of 2020 is also annexed with additional affidavit. It is stated in additional affidavit in para-2 that due to some inadvertent mistake, the area of land has been referred as 1-45-69 sq.mtrs. instead of 6190 sq.mtrs. 10. It was further stated in the additional affidavit that the total area of land bearing Survey No.380 is admeasuring 1-45- 69 sq.mtrs. However, fact remains that the petitioner has purchased the land admeasuring 6190 sq.mtrs. There are small shops on ground floor on the land admeasuring 0-05-24 sq.mtrs. The said shops have been demolished without prior notice and therefore, this petition is filed. 11. On 29.10.2024, reiterating his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Chakwawala for the petitioner submitted that the action of respondent authorities being illegal and without following the procedure, petition deserves consideration and therefore, notice to the respondents may be issued and necessary orders restraining the respondents from taking further action in relation to demolition of subject property by maintaining status quo be passed. He reiterated his submission before this Court and submitted that till his representation gets decided, status quo needs to be maintained. 12. As against this, Learned AGP submitted that the petitioner is owner and occupier of land bearing survey no.380 admeasuring 6190 sq.mtrs. only of Mouje Village: Adalaj, Taluka & District: Gandhinagar. Out of total land of 14569 Sq. mtrs, the petitioner has purchased land admeasuring 6190 sq.mtrs. and therefore, he is owner and occupier of 6190 sq.mtrs of land. In spite of being fully aware about this fact, in the representation dated 07.10.2024 at page no.60, as done in the present petition, the petitioner has incorrectly mentioned that he purchased land admeasuring 14569 sq.mtrs in the year 2005-06. Thus, there are incorrect facts stated on oath. 12.1. Moreover, for the balance land admeasuring 8379 sq.mtrs. (1-45-69 sq.mtrs. – 6190 sq.mtrs. Thus, there are incorrect facts stated on oath. 12.1. Moreover, for the balance land admeasuring 8379 sq.mtrs. (1-45-69 sq.mtrs. – 6190 sq.mtrs. = 8379 sq.mtrs.); land Acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1983, to acquire land for public purpose. An award under section 11 of the LAQ Act was passed on 24.03.1983 [Annexure “R1” (Page-93)]. After accepting the award, owner of the said land has preferred reference application under section 18 of the Act, which is at Annexure “R2” (Page-116). Moreover, from the revenue record, it is evident that nowhere name of the petitioner is reflected qua 8379 sq.mtrs. of land. 12.2. In relation to demolition, learned AGP submitted that the drive was initiated to remove unauthorized encroachment from the land acquired for the purpose of construction of Flouter Bridge. The drive covered the land bearing Survey No.380 of 8379 sq.mtrs. of the land, acquired way back in the year 1983. In relation to 6190 sq.mtrs of land owned by the petitioner, no demolition activity has been carried out by the respondent authority. He reiterated that the authority has removed illegal encroachment made on the land admeasuring 8379 sq.mtrs. acquired earlier. Thus, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has suppressed the material fact of pending litigation and earlier proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, this petition may be rejected by imposing exemplary cost. 13. Considering the submissions, it would be apposite to refer to averments made in para -3 & 4 of the petition, which are as under: “3. The applicant is the owner, occupier of the subject premises bearing block and survey no. 380 (old survey no. 281), Mauje village Adalaj, Taluko Gandhinagar, District Gandhinagar admeasuring 1- 45-69 square meters by way of a registered sale deed in the year 2006. It is respectfully stated and submitted that, the Petitioner herein belongs to Maaldhari community and are semi-literate persons who had purchased subject land from its owners. The Copy of the Registered Sale deed is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A to this Petition. 4. It is also submitted that there is a Civil/revenue proceedings between the Petitioner herein and one Naran Ranchodbhai, Nimisha Sunilbhai. Moreover, the Petitioner has been taking care of the subject property and has also developed the subject property and has owned the constructed premises since many years.” 14. 4. It is also submitted that there is a Civil/revenue proceedings between the Petitioner herein and one Naran Ranchodbhai, Nimisha Sunilbhai. Moreover, the Petitioner has been taking care of the subject property and has also developed the subject property and has owned the constructed premises since many years.” 14. This court is conscious of the fact that only after Learned AGP pointed out incorrect averments made on oath by the petitioner, that time was sought to amend the petition and a draft amendment was filed on 29.10.2024. As noted above, amendment is sought only in the prayer clauses. 15. For incorrect averment made in para-3 of the petition with regard to ownership of land admeasuring 1-45-69 sq.mtrs., additional affidavit dated 29.10.2024 is filed, the contents of which have been captured in Paragraph 9 above. At this juncture, the representation dated 07.10.2024, addressed to Respondent No.2 (Annexure- E page 65) with a copy to office of Hon’ble the Chief Minister, District Police Officer, Vigilance Commissioner Gandhinagar, on which heavy reliance is placed is also required to be scrutinized. Even in this representation, the petitioner has stated that in the land bearing survey No. 380 admeasuring 14569 sq. mtrs.; the construction is done after seeking permission from gram panchayat and that taxes have been paid. Despite this, without prior notice, demolition is done in the land owned by him, which has caused loss to him and for that appropriate compensation be paid. However, perusal of the documents attached with this representation will reveal that the petitioner’s name does not feature as owner in the revenue records being relied on. Therefore, in which capacity was this representation addressed is the first question that is required to be answered by the petitioner. 16. From a conspectus of the aforesaid pleadings and the manner in which the matter has progressed, this Court is of the opinion that correct facts in the form of draft amendment and additional affidavit came to be filed only after intervention of Learned AGP, who appeared on advance copy on 22.10.2024. In other words, an attempt was made by the petitioner to mislead the Court by submitting that illegal demolition has been carried out on his land without prior notice. Nowhere, even in additional affidavit, it was stated that demolition was done on the land and building of his ownership, i.e. 6190 sq. mtrs. In other words, an attempt was made by the petitioner to mislead the Court by submitting that illegal demolition has been carried out on his land without prior notice. Nowhere, even in additional affidavit, it was stated that demolition was done on the land and building of his ownership, i.e. 6190 sq. mtrs. Further, two more facts of pending dispute in relation to mutation entry before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13241 of 2020 and construction of shops on 0-05-24 sq.mtrs., of 6190 sq. mtrs. of land was disclosed in additional affidavit. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this is a classic case of deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to mislead this Court by misrepresentation of facts. 17. Notwithstanding the aspect of suppression of material fact, even in respect of demolition, perusal of the google map, forming part of affidavit-in-reply, justifies action of respondent authorities to demolish an area of 8379 sq.mtrs. (already acquired in 1983), which admittedly is not owned by the petitioner. For this, it would be apposite to the refer to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, which states that “the answering respondent most respectfully submits that the demolition drive initiated and completed qua survey no.380 from the acquired land i.e. 8379 sq.mtrs. of land and not from the area admeasuring 6190 sq.mtrs. of land which according to the petitioner, they have purchased in the year 2006. The authority had removed illegal encroachment made on the land admeasuring 8379 sq,mtrs.; acquired in the year 1983 and the petitioner has no right title or interest on the said land.’’ 18. While observing that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material fact, this Court is benefited from the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 , which holds as under: “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 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 Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] , 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 —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.” 35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, 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. 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.” 19. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has misused the process of law by filing this petition. The petitioner belongs to a category of persons who not only attempt, but would have also succeeded in polluting the course of justice had it not been for this Court’s intervention and strong opposition raised by the Learned AGP appearing on advance copy. There is justification in the submissions by Learned AGP that there is suppression of material facts as also incorrect submissions contrary to the evidence on record and that there is no illegal demolition carried out by the respondents. 20. In view of the above, the petition is rejected with cost of Rs. 50,000/-. The cost is directed be deposited to the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Authority of this Court within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is discharged.