Land Acquisition – Administration of Justice – Abuse of process of law – Suppression of material facts – Appellants’ father was in possession of 1 acre 26 guntas of land in the two survey numbers in a village – The said land was notified for acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for public purpose – According to appellants, 8 guntas of land was left out from the acquisition – Appellants contended that they were not aware of the formation of the sites in this 8 guntas of the land by the BDA and the allotment of said sites in favour of respondent Nos.5 & 6 – They filed the writ petitions before the High Court for cancellation of allotment of the said sites – BDA filed statement of objections contending that the lands were acquired by the BDA in the year 1971 – Admittedly, the appellants received the award amount on 30.11.1971 – After lapse of 34 years from the completion of acquisition proceedings and receiving of award amount, the appellants have filed writ petitions before the High Court on false and frivolous grounds – Earlier, the appellants had also filed a suit for the permanent injunction against the BDA by contending that 8 guntas of land was not acquired by the BDA – The Trial Court had dismissed the suit – An appeal was dismissed by the High Court – The appellants have not disclosed the dismissal of the suit and the appeal in the writ petition – Thereafter, the writ petition was also dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court – Writ appeal challenging the order of the Single Judge, was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the review petitions were also dismissed by the High Court subsequently – On appeal, held: The parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subjectmatter of dispute which is within their knowledge – 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 in writ petition, 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 – That apart, notification in respect of the entire 5 acres 9 guntas (including the land of appellants) was issued and possession of the land was taken long back – Records produced by the BDA would disclose that 08 guntas of land is kharab-B land – As compensation cannot be granted in respect of kharab-B land, if acquired – 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 – Further, the findings 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.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. 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. 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. 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. [Para 11][366-B-E]
2. 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. [Para 12][366-E-G]
3. It is necessary to state here that in order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, this Court is of the view that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations was or is pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law. [Para 16][370-B-D]
4. 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. [Para 17][370-D-E]
5. Apart from the above, this Court has also examined the case on merits. As noticed above, 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 been taken long back. The contention of the appellants is that their father 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. 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. [Para 18][370-E-H]
6. The findings 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. [Para 20][371-F-G]
Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC
449 : [2007] 9 SCR 112; Udyami Evam Khadi
Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2008) 1 SCC 560 : [2007]
12 SCR 933; K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others (2008) 12 SCC 481 : [2008] 10 SCR 454 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.