caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Shri K. Jayaram vs Bangalore Development Authority … on 8 December, 2021Author: S. Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer, Krishna Murari
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7550-7553 of 2021
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No(s).26374-26377 of 2013)
SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nos.147/2012 and 1361/2012 which were filed by the appellants before the High
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2021.12.08
15:09:17 IST
Reason:
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 2 nd
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
2
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
3
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 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.
4
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 partitioned the said property amongst themselves and
each of them is in possession of a site formed in this 8 guntas of land. It was
argued that when the said 8 guntas of land itself has not been acquired, question of
formation of the sites by the BDA in this land and its allotment to respondent nos.5
and 6 is illegal.
9. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-BDA, has supported the impugned judgment and order of the High
Court. It was argued that Survey No.13 comprised of lands totally measuring 5
acres 9 guntas and out of which 12 guntas was kharab-B land. This is evident
from the final Notification published in the Mysore Gazette dated 23.02.1967. Out
of the said 5 acres 9 guntas of land, the appellants’ father was granted occupancy
right of 1 acre 26 guntas. A common Award was passed in respect of the land
belonging to Krishna Reddy and his brother. Compensation was awarded in
5
respect of 1 acre 18 guntas which is revenue paying land i.e. non-kharab land.
Compensation cannot be granted in respect of kharab-B land, if acquired. Kharab
land forms part and parcel of the acquired revenue yielding land and entire extent
of 1 acre 26 guntas of land including kharab land was acquired. Therefore, the
appellants have no right, title and interest whatsoever in respect of the so-called
left out land. It is further contented that the appellants had filed O.S. No.3936 of
1999 before the Civil Court against the BDA for 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
6
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 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.
7
13. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India 1 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 or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court,
the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. It was held thus:
“33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had
approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it
had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is
exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court
of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party
approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court
without any reservation. 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 Another v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others2, 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
1 (2007) 8 SCC 449
2 (2008) 1 SCC 560
8
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 Others 3, 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 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 the
facts; and the penalty by which the court enforces that
obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been
3 (2008)12 SCC 481
9
fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any
action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect
statement.”
(emphasis supplied)
36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising
extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the
conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the
applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or
attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that
ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by
stating, “We will not listen to your application because of what you
have done.” The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to
deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by
deceiving it.
37. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs.(supra), Viscount Reading,
C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96)
“… Where an ex parte application has been made to this
Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes
to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the
application was not candid and did not fairly state the
facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the
Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own
protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to
refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the
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
10
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 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 states them in a distorted manner and misleads the
court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to
prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to
proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the
court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be
failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with
for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.”
11
16. It is necessary for us 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, we are 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.
17. 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.
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
12
issued and possession of the land had been 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 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 CPC and
hence not maintainable. I find no perversity in the view taken by the
trial court. It is no doubt true that a contention was sought to be
advanced on behalf of the appellant that only an extent of 1 acre 18
guntas of land in Sy. Nos.13/2 and 13/4 had been acquired by the
BDA and the remaining extent of 8 guntas of land is continued to be
in possession of the plaintiff. But the materials placed on record
clearly indicated that the entire extent of land in Sy. No.13 had been
13
acquired by the BDA for public purposes and the compensation had
been paid thereon. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff’s father Shri
Krishna Reddy had participated in the acquisition proceedings before
the respondent/BDA and he was one of the notified khatedars. Under
the circumstances, therefore, when the entire extent of land has been
acquired, it is rather difficult to accept the claim of the
appellant/plaintiff. Hence, I find no merit in this appeal filed by the
appellant.”
20. This finding 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.
21. In view of above, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are
accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
….……………………………J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
….……………………………J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
New Delhi;
December 08, 2021
14
Comments