Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 23979
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SANTHOSH K.B., – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WA/392/2021
A litigant seeking equitable relief must disclose all material facts; suppression results in dismissal of claims for lack of clean hands.
Headnote:
Equity - Writ Appeal - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 21 - The court emphasized the principle of 'clean hands' and affirmed non-disclosure of material facts affected the appellant's entitlement to relief, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's vehicle was seized under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, following the District Collector's order. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the seizure, which was dismissed for lacking merit and suppressing facts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appraisal of the appellant's context and actions demonstrated suppression of facts concerning a concurrently filed appeal, impacting the legal standing to seek relief. The court reaffirmed the necessity of clean hands in equitable relief.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant suppressed facts concerning the confiscation appeal and if the court had jurisdiction to grant relief despite the suppression.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that suppression of material facts by a party seeking equitable relief disqualifies them from obtaining judicial remedies, aligning with the established principle of 'clean hands.'
Final Decision: The writ appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000.
JUDGMENT
S. MANIKUMAR, CJ Instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 10.11.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 21515/2020, by which, a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition, ordering thus:
“6. Having regard to the lie of the paddy lands and the nature of the paddy cultivation undertaken in the State, I am of the view that fencing of a paddy land using concrete poles and iron net cannot be regarded as an activity undertaken for protecting the cultivation, for such an activity is never undertaken by any person in the State to protect paddy cultivation. On the other hand, I have no doubt that the activity undertaken by the owner of the land is part of the preparatory work for making use of the land for other purposes, and as such, the same would certainly amount to conversion, which is prohibited by statute. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, if acts not conducive for paddy cultivation are not regarded as acts of conversion in terms of the Act, the object of the Act, viz, to promote growth in the agricultural sector cannot be achieved. In the said view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the seizure of the vehicle of the petitioner.
The writ petition, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.”
2. On this day, when the matter came up for further hearing, on instructions, Mr. T. K. Aravinda Kumar Babu, learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents, submitted that the order of confiscation was passed by the District Collector, Thrissur, on 15.09.2020. As there was no male members in the house, the order of confiscation was affixed in the house of the appellant, on 16.09.2020, in the presence of independent witnesses. Being aggrieved, appellant has filed an appeal before the District Court, in December, 2020, with a delay.
3. Having filed an appeal before the District Court, in December, 2020, and suppressing the same, the appellant, in paragraph (3) of the appeal memorandum dated 17.02.2021, has merely stated that he was called for a personal hearing and heard.
4. On the above facts, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that there is total suppression of material facts in the writ appeal, and that, the appellant cannot contend that he was not aware of the order of confiscation.
5. Per contra, Mr. P. M. Ziraj, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that there is no willful suppression of facts and that, there is some communication gap.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. W.P.(C) No.21515/2020 has been filed for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit-P1 seizure mahassar and Exhibit-P2 report and quash the same as illegal.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the third respondent, to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No.KL- 48-M-5492 unconditionally forthwith, since the seizure itself is illegal.
8. By the impugned judgment, the said writ petition has been dismissed. Instant writ appeal has been filed on 23.02.2021. By the time, the order of confiscation has already been served on the appellant, by affixture, on 16.09.2020, by the Village Administrative Officer, Araghottukara, in the presence of the witnesses. Being aggrieved, exercising the right of appeal under Section 21 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, the appellant has filed appeal before the District Court, with a delay.
9. If that be so, while preferring an appeal, the appellant ought to have placed full facts before this Court, instead, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader, the appellant has only averred that in connection with the proceedings (Exhibit-P2), he was heard. 10. Having filed an appeal before the District Court against the confiscation order dated 15.09.2020,
