9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1439 - SC - Indian LawsCancellation of allotment of Sites allotted in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 respectively in the layout known as Binnamangala 2nd Stage - enhancement of compensation pursuant to which Additional Land Acquisition Officer (Addl. LAO) referred the matter to the Civil Court Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 - HELD THAT - The documents produced by the BDA would clearly disclose that the entire extent of 5 acres 9 guntas of land including 12 guntas of kharab-B land was notified for acquisition. M. Krishna Reddy the father of the Appellants claimed to be the owner of 1 acre 26 guntas of lands in the said survey number and it was further contended that 1 acre and 18 guntas have been acquired and 8 guntas was left out from the acquisition - The appeal filed against the said judgment of the trial court was also dismissed by the High Court. The Appellants have not disclosed the filing of the suit its dismissal by the Civil Court and the confirmation of the said judgment by the High Court in the writ petition. It is clear that the Appellants have suppressed these material facts which are relevant for deciding the question involved in the writ petitions. Thus the Appellants have not come to the court with clean hands. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the Petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. This Court in PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD. VERSUS STATE BANK OF INDIA 2007 (8) TMI 446 - SUPREME COURT has held that a prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power a writ court would indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party which is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. In UDYAMI EVAM KHADI GRAMODYOG WELFARE SANSTHA ANR VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS 2007 (12) TMI 453 - SUPREME COURT this Court has reiterated that the writ remedy is an equitable one and a person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. Such person should not suppress any material fact but also should not take recourse to legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In the instant case since the Appellants have not disclosed the filing of the suit and its dismissal and also the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of the civil court the Appellants have to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts. They have not come to the court with clean hands and they have also abused the process of law. Therefore they are not entitled for the extraordinary equitable and discretionary relief. Survey No. 13 measures 5 acres 9 guntas out of which 12 guntas were kharab-B land. Notification in respect of the entire 5 acres 9 guntas had been issued and possession of the land had been taken long back. The contention of the Appellants is that their father M. Krishna Reddy was the owner of 1 acre 26 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 13/2 and 13/4. According to them 08 guntas of land has not been acquired and compensation has not been paid in respect of this land. Records produced by the BDA would disclose that 08 guntas of land is kharab-B land - there is no question of payment of compensation in respect of this land though the same was included in the preliminary and final notification. The final notification was issued as early as in the year 1967. The Appellants have claimed enhanced compensation also for 1 acre 18 guntas of land and they have raised this issue at a highly belated stage after lapse of about 34 years. This finding of the High Court has attained finality and the writ court cannot sit in an appeal over the judgment passed by the High Court in the appeal. The conclusions reached by the court in the appeal are binding on the Appellants. There are no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's refusal to review its earlier order. 2. Validity of the acquisition of land by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). 3. Alleged suppression of material facts by the Appellants. 4. Entitlement to the relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the High Court's Refusal to Review Its Earlier Order: The appeals arose from the High Court of Karnataka's refusal to review its order dated 06.07.2011, which dismissed the Appellants' writ petitions challenging the allotment of certain sites. The High Court had earlier dismissed the Appellants' review petitions filed pursuant to the Supreme Court's liberty granted to withdraw their Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 6125-6126 of 2012. 2. Validity of the Acquisition of Land by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA): The Appellants contended that their father, M. Krishna Reddy, owned 1 acre 26 guntas of land, out of which only 1 acre 18 guntas were acquired by the BDA, leaving 8 guntas unacquired. They argued that the BDA's formation of sites and their subsequent allotment in this 8 guntas was illegal. However, the BDA countered that the entire 5 acres 9 guntas, including the 12 guntas of kharab-B land, were acquired, and compensation was awarded only for the revenue-paying land. The Civil Court and the High Court had previously dismissed the Appellants' suit and appeal, respectively, challenging the acquisition and the formation of sites. 3. Alleged Suppression of Material Facts by the Appellants: The Supreme Court emphasized that the Appellants did not disclose the filing and dismissal of their earlier suit (O.S. No. 3936/1999) and the subsequent appeal (RFA No. 516/2003) in their writ petitions. This non-disclosure constituted suppression of material facts, which is impermissible when seeking relief under Article 226. The Court reiterated the principle that litigants must come with clean hands and disclose all relevant facts to the court. 4. Entitlement to the Relief Sought Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The Supreme Court underscored that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary. It is imperative for a petitioner to candidly state all facts. The Appellants' suppression of material facts led to their disqualification from seeking such relief. The Court cited precedents, including Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India and K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited, to highlight the necessity of full and fair disclosure by petitioners. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals, dismissing them on the grounds of suppression of material facts and abuse of the process of law. The Court also examined the merits and upheld the findings that the entire land, including the disputed 8 guntas, was acquired by the BDA, and compensation was appropriately awarded. The judgments of the Civil Court and the High Court in the earlier proceedings were binding and conclusive. The appeals were dismissed without costs.
|
