Keerthi Kumar Jain vs The District Collector, West Godavari and Others

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notification Roc. No. 92/2007/G2(SW) , dated 18-5-2007 and proceedings Roc. No. G2/292/2007(SW) dated 24-12-2008 and the consequential declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short "the Act") vide proceedings Roc. No. G2/292/2007/SW, dated 5-1-2009.

The Petitioner is the owner of Ac. 5-43 cents of land in Sy. Nos. 463/1B, 463/1C, 463/1D, 463/2A, 463/2B, 463/2C, 463/2D, 463/2E, 463/2F, 463/2G, 463/3A, 463/3B1 and 463/3C1. Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was issued on 18-5-2007 for acquiring the said land along with other extents belonging to third parties for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Petitioner filed W.P. No. 12091/2007 questioning the said notification. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 18-1-2008 with liberty to the Petitioner to file objections u/s 5-A of the Act. The Petitioner has accordingly submitted his objections. However, by the impugned proceedings, declaration u/s 6 of the Act was published. Assailing these proceedings, the present Writ Petition is filed.

At the hearing, the only contention raised by Sri. K. Chidambaram, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that his client was denied the opportunity of personal hearing by Respondent No. 1 before approving the proposal for declaration u/s 6 of the Act.

In the order dated 24-12-2008, Respondent No. 1 stated that on receipt of objections from the Petitioner, a notice was issued vide office reference Roc. No. 998/2007/P, dated 25-3-2008 informing the Petitioner to attend enquiry along with available record on 21-4-2008, that a notice was served on one Praveen Kumar on behalf of the Petitioner and that the Petitioner has not turned up for enquiry scheduled on 21-4-2008. In his affidavit, the Petitioner has stated that he has nothing to do with the said Praveen Kumar and that he never authorized him to receive notice on his behalf. In the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District, he has inter alia stated that Praveen Kumar who received the notice is no other than the brother of the Petitioner. No reply affidavit is filed by the Petitioner controverting this averment. The failure of the Petitioner to deny this averment would prove that the person who received the notice is his own brother and despite the said fact, the Petitioner raised a false plea that he has nothing to do with the said Praveen Kumar. This averment is not only misleading but the same constitutes suppression of a material fact. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed not only on the ground that the notice has been received by the Petitioner''s own brother and therefore it is reasonable to presume that the Petitioner had knowledge of the proposed enquiry, but also on the ground of suppression of a material fact. The law is well settled that the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are discretionary in nature and this Court will not extend its jurisdiction in favour of a person who comes before it with unclean hands.

For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable to the Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District. If costs are not paid, the Land Acquisition Officer is entitled to recover the same under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, treating the same as arrears of land revenue.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 28-1-2009 stands vacated; WPMP No. 1045/2009 is dismissed and WVMP No. 3275/2010 is disposed of as infructuous.