S. Karuppiah vs Veeraiah and Others

Prabha Sridevan, J.—The writ petition was filed by the Respondents 1 to 12 herein claiming that they are landless poor and they are eking out their livelihood from the little agricultural income and that they are in possession of the land in survey No. 171, Kothakottai Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District and that they are paying B memo to the Government and that the land in their occupation is classified as ''thoppu porompoke''. The Respondents 1 to 12 came to the Court alleging that all of a sudden, the Respondents 13 to 17 herein are trying to illegally evict them at the instigation of a disgruntled elements who are working against the welfare of the Petitioners and that there are other places conducive to start a middle school and that their lands should not be used for starting a school. The Government filed its counter. Thereafter, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition stating that the Petitioners are in possession of the land in question and whether it is permanent or temporary possession, they should be evicted only by observing due process of law. As against the same, the sixth Respondent has come forward with the above writ appeal.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the writ Petitioners/Respondents 1 to 12 are not in occupation of the places and all their allegations are false and NABARD has come forward to put up a school and the help lent to the poor children in the village is being stalled by these writ Petitioners. The learned Counsel also submitted that the writ Petitioners are not landless poor as alleged in the affidavit, they are landed people. They have suppressed the facts. Opportunity was given and only thereafter, the action is taken. The learned Counsel for Respondents 1 to 12/writ Petitioners also made his submissions. He submitted that all the writ Petitioners want is that due process of law should be followed. The writ Petitioners are landless poor and they should be offered alternative land atleast.

We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 13 to 17. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that the writ Petitioners deserve no interference and they had made false averment. The State''s action is neither illegal nor arbitrary. It is clear that the writ Petitioners viz. Respondents 1 to 12 are not landless poor as claimed by them. This is seen from the counter filed by the Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk. The following are the details given in the counter,

It is submitted that the SF. No. 171/3 was occupied by 12 Petitioners more than 60 years is completely wrong and they have not maintained any record for the enjoyment of porampoke land. There is no B-memo was also seen in the revenue record so far. They have also not obtained any tax receipt for the proposed land. Further, strongly denying the Petitioners are landless poor, the 12 Petitioners are landlords, all are holding very good land as well as they are in wealthy position.

1 Thiru. Veeraiah S/o Ramiah They are all co-brothers 0.95.5 hec. of dry and 0.18.5 hec of wet lands, also a bore-well with service connection owned by them, in the name of Thiru. Veeraiah in patta No. 1367 of Kothakkottai village. Thiru R. Thangasamy is working as sales man at Vamban Fair Price shop.

2 Thiru. Vethiappan S/o. Ramaiah

3 Thiru. Karuppaiah S/o. Ramaiah

4 Tmt Singammal W/o. Thangasamy

5 Thiru. Subbaiah S/o. Ramaiah

6 Tmt. Manimegalai W/o. Rajendran 0.71.5 hect. of dry lands owned in her husband name also she is sitting member in Kothakottai Panchayat. Thiru. Rajendran is now at Singapore for about 5 years.

7 Thiru. Ramaiah S/o. Chinnaiah 0.36.5 hec. of dry lands owned by him in patta No. 1195, also running a petty shop at Kothakkottai vattam. His son Ganesan is at Singapore for about 5 years

8 Tmt. Rajammal W/o. Vethiyappan Thiruvalaragal Vethiappan, Chidambaram and Srinivasan are brothers and they are having lands in patta No. 111, 1781 (pattas stand in the name of their father thiru. Athiappan) 0.05.0 hec. dry and 0.48.0 hec wet lands in patta No. 1535 stands in the name of Thiru. Chidambaram

9 Thiru. Chidambaram S/o. Athiappan

10 Thiru. Srinivasan S/o. Athiappan

11 Tmt. Veerammal W/o. Solaiyan 0.08.5 hec of wet 0.23.5 hec. of dry lands in patta No. 68 stands in the name of her father-in-law Thiru. Arangan

12 Thiru. Selvaraj S/o. Karuppiah 0.15.0 hec of dry land stands in the name of his father Karuppiah @ Chinnappan (patta No. 471)

0.16.0 hec. of dry land stand in patta No. 531 in the name of his mother seerangam.

It is also stated in the counter that the writ Petitioners are not paying B memo and the entire allegations in the writ petition is false. It is clearly stated therein that the writ Petitioners are not in poverty line or landless poor and they will not be thrown to the street. No rejoinder has been filed by the writ Petitioners to the counter and therefore, we will accept the counter affidavit filed by the fourth Respondent as correct. Even today, there is no denial to the allegations in the counter. The following extract from the counter is relevant,

...The writ Petitioners are enjoying the land only temporarily no B memo was booked in their names and after 2001 no B memo was given to the Petitioners and no amount collected.

The A1 notice was published on 8.6.2007 and no objections was received from the village.

There is a panchayat union middle school in Kothakottai where the High School classes are conducted temporarily. It is in these circumstances, the Respondents namely the State had decided to utilise the funds sanctioned by the NABARD for putting up a school. In this regard it is relevant to note the recommendations made by Justice Mr. Sampath committee which has fixed certain guidelines with regard to the construction of the school buildings. The counter also shows that the land in question was handed over to the Educational Department for construction of a High School building as per Pudukkottai Collector''s proceedings after absorbing Rules. At the time of initiating transfer proposal, the site was inspected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai and Chief Educational Officer, Pudukkotai and no objections were raised by the public, which includes the writ Petitioners 1 to 12 also. It is relevant to note that the panchayat resolution No. 84/2002-2003 dated 23.1.2003 had been passed for construction of High School in S.F. No. 171/4 and the first writ Petitioner Veeraiah has also accepted the resolution and signed in the resolution. The panchayat has also deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to establish the High School building in S. No. 171/4.

The above details would show that even in 2003, the writ Petitioners were aware of the proposed construction of school. Objections were called from the public. None raised a voice about the construction of a school. In the decision reported in Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the Supreme Court has held that,

It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the Appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief....

It has been repeatedly held by the Constitutional Courts that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and the court may refuse to grant relief if there are circumstances which disentitle the parties to such relief. So, it is seen that the notice had been given and objections had been called for. So on merits, the writ Petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The Petitioners have come to the Court with unclean hands falsely alleging that they are landless poor. Further from 2001, no B memo has been issued. The Petitioners have malafide tried to enlist the sympathy of the court. Notices were issued calling for objection for setting up the school. The writ Petitioners did not raise a voice. This is contrary to the pleadings. Atleast from 2001, no B memo has been issued and the statement that the Petitioners are in possession itself is in doubt.

In view of the elaborate materials produced by the Government, we are of the view that the writ Petitioners have come to court with unclean hands by making false averments and have invoked the writ jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 12 would submit that the writ Petitioners are atleast entitled to an opportunity of hearing. Apart from the fact. A1 notices were given to the rich landlords, who come to Court saying that they are landless and eking out their livelihood, are not entitled to any indulgence or discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For all these reasons, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the writ appeal is to be allowed.

In result, the writ petition filed by the writ Petitioners 1 to 12 in W.P. No. 9917 of 2007 stands dismissed and the W.A. stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P is closed.