O R D E R

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-2 W.P. No.2427/2024 "7.1 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Collector-Rewa for taking recourse as per law within stipulated time on complain made by the Panchayat - Bahuri Bandh as well as similar complaints by the petitioner and other villagers against encroachment by the respondent No.2, in the interest of justice.

7.2 Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted to prevent injustice to the petitioner." 2. It is the case of petitioner that respondent No.2 is encroaching upon the private land of petitioner as well as public land of the village which is kept reserved for road access by raising his building.

3. During the course of arguments, counsel for petitioner was asked as to why petitioner has not approached Tehsildar under Sections 248and 250 of M.P.L.R. Code. Even while replying the said query, counsel for petitioner did not disclose that the petitioner had already approached the Tehsildar, Bankaiyan, Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa. On the contrary, he was trying to project that under the Land Management Scheme, Chairman is the Collector and since petitioner has already approached the Collector, therefore it is for the Collector to take action in the matter.

4. At this stage, counsel for the State provided a copy of order dated 21/11/2023 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Circle Bankaiyan, Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa, by which respondent was directed to maintain the status quo. 5. This order was passed on an application filed by petitioner, therefore it is clear that petitioner had already approached Naib Tehsildar in respect of his private land and this petition has been filed3 W.P. No.2427/2024 also in respect of the same land. When the Court was again and again asking the petitioner as to why he has not approached the competentAuthority under Section 250 of M.P.L.R. Code, then that question was avoided by counsel for petitioner and even then, in spite of query he did not disclose that petitioner has already approached Naib Tehsildar.

6. It is further submitted by counsel for the State that order dated 21/11/2023 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Circle Bankaiyan, Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa, has already been challenged and Additional Collector, Rewa by order dated 02/01/2024 has directed the parties to maintain status quo. 7. Thus, it is clear that petitioner in order to by-pass the remedy which was initiated at the instance of petitioner, has filed this petition by suppressing the material facts. Even when query was raised by the Court, counsel for petitioner did not reply to that.

8. Be that whatever it may be.

9. No one can be allowed to play fraud on the Court by suppressing material facts.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 120 has held as under: "10. On the one hand, judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, on the other, it provides for a discretionary remedy. Access to justice is a human right. (See Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [(2003) 6 SCC 230] and Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi v. State of Gujarat [(2007) 4 SCC 241 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 260 : (2007) 5 Scale 357].) A person who has a grievance against a State, a forum must be provided for redressal thereof.

(See Hatton v. United Kingdom [15 BHRC 259].4 W.P. No.2427/2024 For reference see also Zee TelefilmsLtd. v. Union of India [(2005) 4 SCC 649].)