JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21 s t day of January , 202 2 .

This case has a history behind it.

2. An extent of land was acquired from the mother of the petitioner – Smt.Devayani; and to come to the point directly, shorn of unnecessary details, the Government directed the Trivandrum Development Authority (TRIDA) to allot 14 cents of land to the legal heirs of Smt.Devayani and this was communicated to them, through Ext.P3, on 12.08.1992.

3. Thereupon, one of the legal heirs of Smt.Devayani who is the brother of the petitioner herein – approached this Court to obtain Ext.P4 judgment, whereby, a direction was given to the TRIDA to inform the market value of the property to the petitioner and other legal heirs, with a consequential direction to them to remit the same, thus leading to the registration of the property in their favour.

4. It is uncontested that the petitioner and other legal heirs of Smt.Devayani did nothing thereafter, even though there were favoured with Ext.P5 order, dated 07.06.1996, informing them of the market value of the property in question.

5. Nearly 23 years later, apparently on the application of the petitioner, the Director of SC/ST Tribe, issued Ext.P6 proceedings, dated 21.06.2019, to the Secretary of the TRIDA, recommending that certain other extent which is available with them, be allotted to the petitioner. This led to Ext.P7 order of the Government, rejecting the afore recommendations and recording that the petitioner and the other legal heirs of Smt.Devayani had not acted in terms of Ext.P4 and that they have not remitted the land value of the earlier extent, in spite of the fact that they were so intimated. The petitioner impugns Ext.P7 on various grounds.

6. I have heard Sri.R.T.Pradeep – learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.G.Biju – learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent TRIDA and the learned Special Government Pleader – Latha Thankappan appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

7. Sri.R.T.Pradeep – learned counsel for the petitioner, began his submissions conceding that his client had not remitted the value of the land as ordered in Ext.P4 judgment and as was intimated to him through Ext.P5 communication. He, however, added that, subsequently, his client came to be aware that Ext.P10 order had been issued in favour of similarly placed persons and that, pursuant thereto, Ext.P6 recommendations were made by the “Director” in favour of his client, noticing that merely 15 cents of land was available with the TRIDA. He argued that even though, in Ext.P4, the TRIDA was allowed to use the property acquired from Smt.Devayani for public purposes, what have they done is to virtually sell the same by making constructions thereon in favour of afÒuent sections of the society; and therefore, that his client is not foreclosed from seeking an allotment of land in spite of the fact that he had not abided by Ext.P5 request. He therefore, reiterately prayed that this writ petition be allowed and Ext.P7 be set aside.

8. Sri.G.Biju – learned Standing Counsel for the TRIDA, submitted that, as is recorded in Ext.P7, the recommendations of the “Director” as made in Ext.P6, were issued without being aware of the specific directions in Ext.P4 judgment. He submitted that, to the best information which he has received from TRIDA, it has no vacant land with them at all and therefore that the request of the petitioner, made nearly four decades after the acquisition, may not be accepted by this Court in any manner whatsoever.

9. Smt. Latha Thankappan – learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that she would not have stood in the way had the petitioner come to this Court with clean hands. She pointed that, as is evident from Ext.P4 judgment, this Court had directed the competent Authority to grant an opportunity to the petitioner and his siblings to purchase the land offered to them at the market place, but that, instead of doing so, they refused to abide by Ext.P5 request made, thus forfeiting their right to make any furth