TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13) - - - Dated:- 8-12-2021 - S. Abdul Nazeer And Krishna Murari, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, Adv., Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR, Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv., Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Adv., Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR, Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Adv., Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR. 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 proceedings. The Appellants have filed a suit i.e. O.S. No. 3936/1999 for the permanent 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or permanent injunction. In the said Suit, the very question involved in the writ petition was raised. The said Suit was dismissed by the Civil Court and the said judgment was confirmed in the appeal by the High Court. The Appellants have not disclosed the dismissal of the aforesaid Suit and the appeal in the writ petition. Therefore, the High Court has rightly dismissed the appeal even on the question of suppression of material facts. He prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 11. 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. 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 Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 14. In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 560, 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. 15. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. (2008)12 SCC 481, it was held thus: 34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Under Article 32 and of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. 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 supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit. (emphasis supplied) 38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court Under Article 32 or of a High Court Under Article 226 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 disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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. 18. Apart from the above, we have 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 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
