B. Govindan vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 3323 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

      FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.11085 OF 2015(I)


PETITIONER:

               B. GOVINDAN
               AGED 51 YEARS
               S/O.BAJU CHETTIAR,
               RESIDING AT CHOONDAL, PANNIYAR POST,
               PANNIYAR P.O., POOPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

               BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE

RESPONDENTS:

      1        UNION OF INDIA
               TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
               MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY),
               WEST BLOCK IV, WING-5, R.K.PURAM,
               NEW DELHI.

      2        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
               DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

      3        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
               IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE,
               KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685 621.

      4        THE TAHSILDAR
               UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,
               TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMKANDAM.

      5        THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ASSIGNMENT)
               NIRMITHY KENDRA BUILDING,
               DEVIKULAM, PIN - 685 613.

               R1 BY SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC
               R1 BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA CGC
               K J MOHAMED ANZAR SPLGP REVENUE

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
29.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.11085 OF 2015(I)

                                           2


                                    JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Call for the records from the respondents pertaining to Exhibits.P2 and P3 produced and issue raised in the W.P.(C);

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders in Exhibit.P3 application of the petitioner for land assignment under the Special Scheme for Ex- serviceman, after notice and hearing;

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in his possession extending 5 acres comprised in Survey No.34/1 of Chinnakkanal Village, mentioned in Exhibit.P3;

(iv) Grant such other relief this Honourable court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case or as may be urged later."

2. The petitioner is an ex-service man. He claims priority for

assignment of land on the basis of his status as an ex-serviceman. When

this writ petition came up for consideration today, the learned Special

Government Pleader for the Revenue submits that the petitioner's

application for assignment of land was rejected by the Revenue

Authorities nearly three months prior to the filing of the writ petition and

the order of rejection was duly communicated to the petitioner. When

land is identified for assignment a priority is provided for ex-servicemen

under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules 1964. It is also pointed out that

in Udumbanchola Taluk, where the petitioner has sought assignment of

land, the Rules applicable are not the 1964 Rules but the Kerala Land

Assignment (Regularization of Occupation of Forest Lands Prior to WP(C).No.11085 OF 2015(I)

1.1.1977) Special Rules, 1993 where no special consideration is

extended to ex-servicemen.

3. The petitioner did not disclose the communication issued to

him by the District Collector on 20.12.2014. It is seen issued at the same

address that is shown as the address of the Writ Petitioner, in the Writ

Petition. There is a presumption in favour of regularity of official acts.

(See Ishwarlal Girdharlal Joshi v. State of Gujarat, (1968) 2 SCR

267 and Radha Ballabh v. State of U.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 119).

Therefore it is difficult to presume that the petitioner was not aware of

the communication dated 20.12.2004. The petitioner having not stated

that his application for assignment had been rejected at least three

months prior to filing of the writ petition is clearly guilty of suppression

of material facts and therefore this writ petition should have been

dismissed with exemplary costs for suppression of material facts.

However, considering the fact that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman, I

refrain from imposing any costs on the petitioner. The writ petition fails

and is accordingly dismissed.

4. If the petitioner is found in illegal occupation of any

Government land, District Collector, Idukki shall, forthwith, take

appropriate action in accordance with law to evict the petitioner from

such illegal occupation.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

SCS JUDGE WP(C).No.11085 OF 2015(I)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE NO. 983/2011 DATED 23/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 A PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 A PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 02/12/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 A PHOTOCOPY OF COMMUNICATION NO. 23173-

1430936-186 DATED 26/12/2014.