The main legal point established in the judgment is that filing a writ petition with mala fide intention, suppression of material facts, and approaching the court with fraudulent intentions can lead to dismissal of the petition and imposition of costs.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the Final Draft Statement under Section 9(6)(b) of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973, passed by the 2nd respondent in M.R.1/49 on 07.12.1976 as illegal, void and unenforceable against the petitioners.)

1. The petition in W.M.P.No.11404 of 2018 filed under Section 2-B Appendix V of AS Rules, is ordered.

2. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the Final Draft Statement under Section 9(6)(b) of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity), passed by the 2nd respondent, in M.R.1/49 on 07.12.1976, as illegal, void and unenforceable against the petitioners.

3. The writ petition is filed by one Ramachandra Naidu and four others, who are represented by their Power of Attorney Agent, namely M.Iyeappan. However, the deponent, who is the Power of Attorney Agent, has described himself as the petitioner and stated that he is the grandson of Ramachandra Naicker, who is the father of respondents 3 to 7.

4. The facts narrated in the affidavit are not cogent and are confusing. The affidavit filed in support of this petition are not to the understanding of anyone and the contentions in the affidavit cannot be reconciled by anyone with normal prudence. The affidavit itself would show the lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. Instead of narrating what the petitioners tried to convey, the contents of the affidavit from Para No.2 to 5 are reproduced hereunder, for convenience :

“2.  The petitioner is Power of Attorney of petitioner 1 to 5 and none other than grandson of one Ramachandra Naicker, who is the father of Respondents 3 to 7 and the Power of Attorney, is only document of convenience among the family. The said Ramachandra Naicker above suffered an order under the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 1973 declaring 13.70.31 standard hectares out of 18 standard hectares held by him by Gazette Notification No.200 dated 27.07.1973. The above said Power still in force.

3.  Originally the property belong to one Muthuswamy Naicker who had an total extent of 18 standard hectares, died in the year 1987 leaving behind his wife Rukmani Ammal, Son Ramakrishna Naicker and Daughter Ealwar Poonkhuzhali. The 2nd Respondent initiated proceedings declaring excess land under Section 4 of the Act treating the entire property as held by Ramakrishna Naicker and his family alone without considering the right and interest of the daughter in the property, which is now claim by her husband were 3rd Respondent and Son and Daughters namely the Respondents 4 to 6.

4. The petitioner states that the entire property was decided as the property of son alone without taking into account of the interest of daughter. The 2nd respondent considered only the male members of the family and allocated portions only in favour the said Ramakrishna Naicker and his family, which is inclusive of his Mother, Wife and 3 Sons.

5.  The petitioner states that the daughter''s family, namely the petitioners have no knowledge on the official proceedings under the act between the respondents and all the documents were obtained only by right to information and the petitioners are fit to understand the gazette was published in 1975and a final statement under Section 9(6)(b) of the act was passed on 07.02.1976 which was published in the gazette of Pondicherry on 13.02.1976. The petitioners are put to understand the said Ramakrishna Naicker also preferred an appeal in LTCMA No.18 of 1977 to the Land Tribunal, Karaikkal, which was also dismissed on 11.08.1977 against which statutory revision for also filed in CRP No.559 of 1979, which was also dismissed on 23.03.1978.”

5. Irrespective of what is state