Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
S. Abdul Nazeer, Krishna Murari, JJ.
Shri K. Jayaram and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 7550-7553 of 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No(s).26374-26377 of 2013)
Decided On : 08-12-2021
(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise of – Parameters – Writ Court cannot sit in an appeal over judgment passed by High Court in appeal – Jurisdiction exercised by High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary – It is imperative that petitioner approaching writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before Court without concealing or suppressing anything – A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to litigation – If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with court as well as with opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. (Paras 12 and 20)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 6 Rules 1 and 2 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Disclosure of material facts in pleadings – In order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to same subject-matter and more importantly to stop menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in pleadings in order to escape liability of making a false statement, parties have to disclose details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge – In case, according to parties to dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations was or is pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve dispute between parties in accordance with law – Since appellants have not disclosed filing of suit and its dismissal and also dismissal of appeal against judgment of civil court, appellants have to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts – They have not come to court with clean hands and they have also abused process of law – They are not entitled for extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Review Petition Nos.147/2012 and 1361/2012 which were filed by the appellants before the High Court pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court vide Order dated 27.02.2012 while allowing the appellants to withdraw their Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.6125-6126 of 2012. However, the High Court declined to review its earlier order dated 06.07.2011 passed in Writ Appeal Nos.2592-93 of 2009.
Findings of Court:
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.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Review Petition Nos.147/2012 and 1361/2012 which were filed by the appellants before the High Court pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court vide Order dated 27.02.2012 while allowing the appellants to withdraw their Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.6125-6126 of 2012. However, the High Court declined to review its earlier order 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 Authority (for short ‘BDA’) for the formation of layout between Old Madras Road and Banaswadi Road (Binnamangala Layout). A preliminary Notification came to be published in Mysore Gazette dated 21.07.1960 followed by a final Notification published in the said Gazette on 23.02.1967.
5. It was further contended that M. Krishna Reddy filed an application for 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. The Civil Court, after conducting an inquiry, accepted the Reference in part and increased the award amount payable in respect of 1 acre 18 guntas in Survey Nos.13/2 & 13/4. M. Krishna Reddy was in possession of 1 acre 26 guntas of land in these two survey numbers. 8 guntas of land was left out from the acquisition. In the suit for partition filed by the third appellant, a portion of Survey No.13/2 measuring 8 guntas of land which was left out from acquisition, was divided amongst appellants by forming four sites and final decree for partition came to be passed on 30.07.1982. It was further 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. Therefore, they filed the aforesaid writ petitions for cancellation of allotment of the said sites.
6. BDA filed statement of objections contending that Survey No.13 measuring 5 acres 9 guntas and certain other lands were acquired by the BDA in the year 1971 and thereafter sites were formed and allotted to the general public. 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. It was further contended that Sy. No.13 of Binnamangala Village measuring 5 acres 9 guntas and certain other lands were acquired for public purpose for the formation of layout called ‘Banaswadi Layout’. The notified Khatedars in respect of Survey No.13 were Channappa Reddy, Ramakrishna Reddy, N. Papaiah Reddy and M. Krishna Reddy. None of them have questioned the legality of the acquisition procee
(1) A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands.(2) Writ Court cannot sit in an appeal over judgment passed by High Court in appeal.
Failure to demonstrate legal possession invalidates land acquisition; lapse of the acquisition scheme confirmed by statutory mandates.
Land ownership claims based on unidentifiable sale deeds were dismissed, upholding the committee's findings due to lack of clear identification.
Point of Law : In exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not just a Court of law but is also a Court of Equity and a person who invokes the High Court’s ju....
The court affirmed the validity of the land acquisition process by the Bangalore Development Authority, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions and the necessity of balancing public interest....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
