The petitioners must approach the court with clean hands and are barred from instituting a fresh suit without permission as per Order XXIII, Rule 1(4)(b) of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

R. Devdas, J. - This writ petition was filed on 06.02.2020 seeking the following reliefs:

a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or order or direction, in the nature of a writ, quashing the impugned Order dated 26/07/2017 and also that of the Order dated 30/08/2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon ble Court in W.P.No.47441-47442/2016 (LB-BMP) vide Annexure-T & T1 respectively to the Writ Petition;

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.3 and 4-Bangalore Development Authority not to include the land bearing Sy.No.34/1, measuring 1 acre 08 guntas, situated at Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in the proposed approved Layout plan, in the interest of justice and equity;

c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to cancel the sanctioned plan and license, if already issued in favour of 1st respondent, by virtue of the Order dated 26.07.2017 and 30.08.2017 in W.P.No.47441-47442/2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon ble Court, produced at Annexure-T & T1 respectively;

d) Pass such other orders, as the petitioners are entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of the proceedings in the interest of justice and equity.

2. However an application in I.A.No.2/2020 has been made seeking amendment of prayer (a) as follows:

Review the orders dated 26/07/2017 and 30/08/17 passed by this Hon ble Court in W.P.No.47441-47442/2016 (LB-BMP) vide Annexures T & T1 respectively by recalling/ setting aside the same in the interest of justice.

3. By order dated 24.08.2020 notice to the respondents was ordered. Learned Counsel Smt.Vaishali Hegde, has entered appearance for contesting respondent No.1. Though respondents No.2 to 4 are served, they have remained unrepresented. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N.Phanindra, appearing for respondent No.1 vehemently submitted that this writ petition is an abuse of the process of this Court. It was brought to the notice of this Court that W.P.No.22881/2019 was filed by the very same petitioners with the very same prayers. However, soon after respondent No.1 herein filed an impleading application bringing the true facts to the notice of this Court, the petitioners withdrew the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts and of not approaching this Court with clean hands. Consequently, the learned Counsels were asked and they have submitted their arguments regarding maintainability of the writ petition.

4. In order to understand the background in which the question of maintainability of the writ petition was raised a brief narration is required. The State Government issued final notification on 21.02.1986 under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the L.A. Act for short) acquiring an extent of about 164 acres of land comprised in various survey numbers in Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk, including an extent of 1 acre 08 guntas in Sy.No.34/1 which is the land in dispute in this writ petition, moreso two sites bearing No.411 and 416 said to have been carved out of Sy.No.34/1. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that on the same day i.e., 21.02.1986 another notification acquiring lands in Devarachikkanahalli, Kodichikkanahalli and other Villages were also notified. On a challenge raised, the entire acquisition of lands with respect to Devarachikkanahalli, Kodichikkanahalli and other Villages were set aside by this Court. The same was confirmed by the Apex Court by a judgment dated 21.02.1995 in the case of Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. Narayana Reddy and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 128 . Since certain other bits of land in Nagavara Village, measuring about 52 acres 17 guntas were either denotified or acquisition being set aside, the beneficiary Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society approached the State Government with a request to acquire the