9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 06.07.2011 passed in the Writ Appeal Nos. 2592-93 of 2009. 3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as under: 4. The Appellants herein are the sons of one M. Krishna Reddy. They filed Writ Petition No. 26920 of 2005 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore for cancellation of allotment of Site Nos. 1337 and 1336 allotted in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 respectively in the layout known as Binnamangala 2nd Stage and for certain other reliefs. According to the Appellants their father M. Krishna Reddy was the owner and in possession of land bearing Survey No. 13, measuring 1 acre 26 guntas of Binnamangala Village, Kasaba Hobli, North Taluk, Bangalore District, having acquired the same by virtue of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams in proceedings bearing C. No. 11/59-60 Under Section 5 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954. It was further contented that the entries in the Index of Lands and Record of Rights were registered in the name of M. Krishna Reddy and he was paying land revenue to the State Government. The said land was notified for acquisition by the Bangalore Development Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmanent injunction against the BDA by contending that 8 guntas of land has not been acquired by the BDA. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 29.01.2003 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the second Appellant filed an appeal bearing RFA No. 516/2003 which was dismissed by the High Court on 01.07.2003. The Appellants have not disclosed the dismissal of the suit and the appeal in the writ petition. 7. Learned Single Judge, after considering the matter in detail, dismissed the writ petition on 01.04.2009. As noticed above, the Writ Appeal Nos. 2592-2593/2009, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the review petitions were also dismissed by the High Court subsequently. 8. Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants, would contend that Survey Nos. 13/2 and 13/4 comprise of 1 acre 26 guntas of land out of which the State Government has acquired only 1 acre 18 guntas of land for the formation of the layout. Remaining 8 guntas of land has not been vested with the BDA, as it was not acquired. Since the remaining 8 guntas of land has not been acquired, the Appellants have partiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... number and it was further contended that 1 acre and 18 guntas have been acquired and 8 guntas was left out from the acquisition. It was further contended that BDA had formed the sites in the said 8 guntas of land left out from acquisition and allotted them to Respondent Nos. 5 & 6. Admittedly, the Appellants had filed O.S. No. 3936/1999 before the Additional City Civil Court against the BDA seeking permanent injunction while pleading identical facts and urging similar grounds. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court. 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. 12. 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 imperat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the Petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the Petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs. (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) in the following words: (KB p. 514) ... it has been for many years the Rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts--it says facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it--the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The Petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because "the court knows law but not facts". 39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs.(supra) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of land is kharab-B land. Therefore, 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. 19. Identical contentions have been raised by the Appellants in the aforesaid suit. The said suit was dismissed and the judgment of the civil court was confirmed by the High Court in RFA No. 516/2003 on 01.07.2003, by observing as under: ..... Accordingly in the instant case, the trial Court adjudicated upon issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue which related to the maintainability of the suit and on the basis of the facts which could not be reasonably disputed and in respect of which there is presumption of correctness, it has found that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the entire extent of land in Sy. No. 13 having become final and conclusive, the suit of the Plaintiffs was impliedly barred Under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure and hence not maintainab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
