SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS. versus BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 08-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
359
359
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 359
SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS.
v.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7550 – 7553 of 2021)
 DECEMBER 08, 2021
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Administration of Justice – Abuse of
process of law – Suppression of material facts – Appellants’ father
was in possession of 1 acre 26 guntas of land in the two survey
numbers in a village – The said land was notified for acquisition by
the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for public purpose –
According to appellants, 8 guntas of land was left out from the
acquisition – Appellants 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 – They
filed the writ petitions before the High Court for cancellation of
allotment of the said sites – BDA filed statement of objections
contending that the lands were acquired by the BDA in the year
1971 – 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 – Earlier, the appellants had also filed a suit
for the permanent injunction against the BDA by contending that 8
guntas of land was not acquired by the BDA – The Trial Court had
dismissed the suit – An appeal was dismissed by the High Court –
The appellants have not disclosed the dismissal of the suit and the
appeal in the writ petition – Thereafter, the writ petition was also
dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court – Writ appeal
challenging the order of the Single Judge, was dismissed by the
Division Bench of the High Court and the review petitions were
also dismissed by the High Court subsequently – On appeal, held:
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 – Since, the
appellants have not disclosed the filing of the suit and its dismissal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
and also the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of the
civil court in writ petition, 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 – That apart, notification in respect
of the entire 5 acres 9 guntas (including the land of appellants) was
issued and possession of the land was taken long back – Records
produced by the BDA would disclose that 08 guntas of land is
kharab-B land – As compensation cannot be granted in respect of
kharab-B land, if acquired – 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 – Further, the
findings 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.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. 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.
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 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

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