The bench of Chief Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy ordered it after noting that the petition was not genuine and that the petitioner had willfully failed to disclose important information.

“Only two conclusions can be drawn in this regard. Either the petitioner lied in court or was used as a front by someone to orchestrate the petition. In both cases, it is just and necessary to impose fees on the petitioner in order to deter the filing of petitions, particularly through PILs, distorting or suppressing facts for devious reasons.“, the court observed.

The court was hearing a petition by TH Rajmohan challenging a government order issued by the Finance Ministry allowing alienation of 40.97 acres of land. The petitioner requested the authorities to mark a 13-acre stretch of land as reserved forest land in all revenue records and install signage indicating this and prevent any person from breaking into the property.

The State, however, opposed this claim and contended that the entire extent of the land was denotified in 1962. It contended, relying on the untruths filed by the Principal Secretary to the Government and the Joint Secretary to the Government, Environment, Climate Change and Forestry Department that the specified lands have ceased to be reserved forest land in accordance with a GO Ms. No 3676. The respondents also questioned the correctness faith of the petitioner and contended that he had been prosecuted for encroaching on government land.

The court noted that although the government order was issued in 2007, the petition was only filed in July 2024, after a delay of 17 years, without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for the delay. The court also noted that even though the affidavit mentioned the age of the petitioner as 67 years, he had stated before the court that he was 63 years old and according to his PAN card he was 62 years old. The court further noted that there was a discrepancy between the petitioner’s affidavit and the documents produced by him regarding his income.

More importantly, the court noted that in his 35-page affidavit, which contained 34 paragraphs, the petitioner failed to disclose that the lands had been denotified in 1962. Although the petitioner argued that the denotification did not cover the land on the entire extent of the land, the court wondered why the petitioner had remained completely silent on the de-notification. This omission of a material fact, in the court’s opinion, was intentional.

The court also noted that although the petitioner stated that he could read but did not understand English, most of the documents he relied on were in English.

Thus, considering the facts, the court held that the petition was filed with a circuitous motive. The court therefore ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 10 Lakh to Vishal Developers, whose development projects were hampered due to the petitions. The court also directed the petitioner to approach the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and file an affidavit as per the order.

Petitioner’s advice: Mr. Samir S. Shah for Ms. S.John Josh, Mr.TVKamalanathan and M.P.Saravanan

Defendant’s lawyer: Mr. J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. A. Edwin Prabhakar, State Government Pleader, assisted by Mr. M. Habeeb Rahman, Government Counsel, Mr. Dr. R. Seenivasan, Special Government Pleader (Forest), Mr. RAGopinath, Standing (Company), Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan, Standing Counsel (CMDA), Ms. V.Sudha, Government Counsel, Mr. Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel for M/s. Ganesh & Ganesh, MP Wilson, Senior Counsel Mr. Kuberan for M/s.Rank Associates, MR Tholgappian

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 470

Case Title: TH Rajmohan v Secretary to Government & Others

Case No: WPNo.18846 of 2024