RAMJAS FOUNDATION AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 09-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(20101 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 364 
RAMJAS FOUNDATION AND ANOTHER 
~ 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 6662 of 2004) 
NOVEMBER 09, 2010 
[G.5. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6 - Notification 
and declaration under - For planned development of Delhi 
C - Challenged by land owners - Plea that the land was 
dedicated for charitable purpose, intending to create wakf 
property and was exempted from acquisition - Single Judge 
and the Division Bench of the High Court declined to nullify 
the acquisition of the land holding that land owner created a 
o public charitable trust and not a Wakf - Interference with -
Held: Not called for - No evidence produced before the High 
Court to prove that dedicator created a Wakf - Ceremonies 
performed shows that he did not intend to create a Wakf - Also 
1 
landowners deliberately refrained from mentioning details of 
E the cases instituted by them in respect of their other land and 
rejection of their claim for exemption in respect of such land 
by the High Court as also the Supreme Court - Wakf. 
Wakf - Creation of - Held: Non-Muslim can create a 
Wakf for any purpose which is religious under the 
F Mohammedan Law - However, the object of the Wakf must 
be lawful according to the religious creed of the maker as well 
- Mohammedan Law. 
Relief - Entitlement of, to party whose conduct is 
G blameworthy and does not approach court with clean hands 
- Held: Such person is not entitled to any relief. 
H 
One 'RS' started three schools in memory of his 
father. He purchased certain properties in villages 'CM' 
364 
RAMJAS FOUNDATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF 
365 
INDIA AND ORS. 
and 'SK' from his resources and recourses of other A 
philanthropists. Thereafter, in a public function 'RS' is 
said to have made an announcement that he had created 
a wakf and dedicated and donated al! his properties 
including the land in the said villages to th~ three schools 
for charitable purposes. Thereafter, 'RS' formed a 
B 
registered College Society and became the President of 
-the managing committee of the Society. Subsequently, he 
transferred the entire land to the society by executing a 
release deed. The name of the College Society was 
changed to 'R' Foundation and the sarne was regj~tered. c 
Thereafter, Notification dated 13.11.1959 was issued 
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 
proposing to acquire certain lands including .the 
appellant's land situated at villages 'CK' and 'SK' for 
planned development of Delhi. Three different D 
notifications were issued under Section 6 of the Act. 
Several petitions were filed challenging the acquisition of 
land by Notification dated 13.11.1959 which were 
dismissed by the High Court as also this Court. The 
appellant also filed several cases challenging the 
E 
acquisition of its land. As regards, the land in village 'CK', 
bo.tb the Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the 
· t-iigh Court declined to nullify the acquisition of the land. 
Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
. 
. 
. ·!i'ELD: 1.1 The principle that a person who does not 
J;·ome to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be 
heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, 
such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not G 
only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 
of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in 
othE;!.rs courts and judicial forums. The object underlying 
the principle is that every Court is not only entitled but is 
H 
.. 
366 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R 
A duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants 
who do not have any respect for truth and who try to 
pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or 
by making mis-statement or by suppressing facts which 
have bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the 
B case. [Para 14) [385-G-H; 386-A] 
Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558; Welcome 
Hotel v. Stateof A.P. (1983) 4 SCC 575; G. Narayanaswamy 
Reddy v. Governmentof Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261; S.P. 
Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 sec 1; A. v. 
C Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221; 
Prestige Lights Limited v. SB/ (2007) 8 SCC 449; Sunil 
Poddar v. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC 326; K.D. 
Sharma v. SAIL (2008) 12 SCC 481; G. Jayashree v. 
Bhagwandas S. Patel (2009) 3 SCC 141; Dalip Singh v. State 
D of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.