Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition, Dismissing Claims of Concealment: Shri K. Jayaram & Ors. vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 08 December 2021
Citation: Not Available
Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Krishna Murari, J.
Can a litigant suppress facts in a writ petition and expect relief? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while dealing with a case pertaining to land acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The Court emphasized the importance of full disclosure of facts in writ petitions and upheld the High Court’s decision to dismiss the case due to the appellants’ concealment of prior legal proceedings. This case highlights the principle that those seeking justice must come with clean hands. The bench comprised of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari. The judgment was authored by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Case Background

The appellants, sons of M. Krishna Reddy, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking cancellation of the allotment of two sites in the Binnamangala 2nd Stage layout. These sites were allotted to respondents 5 and 6. The appellants claimed that their father owned land in Survey No. 13 of Binnamangala Village, which was acquired by the BDA for the formation of the Binnamangala Layout. According to the appellants, while most of their land was acquired, a portion measuring 8 guntas was left out. They contended that this 8 guntas was never legally acquired by the BDA, yet the BDA formed sites on it and allotted them to others. The appellants further stated that they were unaware of the formation of sites on the said 8 guntas of land by BDA and its subsequent allotment to the respondents.

The BDA countered that the entire Survey No. 13, measuring 5 acres and 9 guntas, was acquired in 1971, and the sites were formed and allotted to the public. The BDA stated that the appellants had received compensation for the acquired land on 30.11.1971. The BDA also pointed out that the appellants had previously filed a suit against the BDA, claiming that 8 guntas of land were not acquired, and this suit was dismissed by the trial court and subsequently by the High Court. The BDA stated that the appellants failed to disclose these facts in their writ petition.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking cancellation of the allotment of sites. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 01.04.2009. Subsequently, the appellants filed Writ Appeals Nos. 2592-2593/2009, which were also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 06.07.2011. The appellants then filed review petitions, which were also dismissed by the High Court on 11.01.2013. Before approaching the Supreme Court, the appellants had withdrawn their Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.6125-6126 of 2012 with liberty to file a review petition before the High Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 5 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954: This provision deals with the vesting of inam lands in the State Government. The appellants’ father acquired the land based on an order under this section.
• Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section allows for a reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. The appellants’ father had sought enhancement of compensation under this provision.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article confers the power on the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes. The appellants had approached the High Court under this article.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants contended that their father owned 1 acre 26 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 13/2 and 13/4.
• They argued that only 1 acre 18 guntas of land was acquired by the State Government for the formation of the layout.
• They submitted that the remaining 8 guntas of land was not acquired by the BDA and therefore, it was not vested with the BDA.
• They contended that since the 8 guntas of land was not acquired, the formation of sites by the BDA on this land and its allotment to respondents 5 and 6 was illegal.
• They argued that they were not aware of the formation of sites in the 8 guntas of land by the BDA and its allotment to respondent nos. 5 and 6.

Respondent-BDA’s Arguments:

• The BDA argued that Survey No. 13 comprised 5 acres 9 guntas of land, including 12 guntas of kharab-B land.
• They stated that the entire 5 acres 9 guntas of land was notified for acquisition.
• The BDA submitted that the appellants’ father was granted occupancy rights for 1 acre 26 guntas.
• They contended that compensation was awarded for 1 acre 18 guntas of revenue-paying land and that kharab land does not qualify for compensation.
• The BDA argued that the entire 1 acre 26 guntas, including kharab land, was acquired, and the appellants had no right over the so-called left-out land.
• The BDA also argued that the appellants had filed a suit against the BDA, which was dismissed, and that the appellants had not disclosed this in their writ petition.

Innovation of Arguments:

The appellants’ argument was innovative in the sense that they claimed that the 8 guntas of land was not acquired by the BDA, and therefore, they were entitled to the land. This argument was based on the fact that compensation was not paid for the 8 guntas of land, which was classified as kharab land. The BDA’s argument was based on the fact that the entire land was notified for acquisition and that the appellants had received compensation for the acquired land.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the main issues that the Court dealt with can be summarized as follows:

1. Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of suppression of material facts.
2. Whether the entire extent of land in Survey No. 13 was acquired by the BDA.
3. Whether the appellants were entitled to any relief.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449]: The Supreme Court referred to this case to reiterate the principle that a writ court would bear in mind the conduct of the party invoking its jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter.
• Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2008) 1 SCC 560]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that a person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands and should not suppress any material fact.
• K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others [(2008) 12 SCC 481]: This case was cited to highlight that 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. The petitioner must come with clean hands and disclose all material facts.
• R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486]: The Court referred to this case to highlight the principle that an applicant must make a full and fair disclosure of all material facts when seeking relief on an ex parte statement.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 5 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954: This provision deals with the vesting of inam lands in the State Government.
• Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section allows for a reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article confers the power on the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449]*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize the importance of full disclosure in writ petitions.
• Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2008) 1 SCC 560]*: The Court relied on this authority to reiterate that a person approaching a superior court must come with clean hands.
• K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others [(2008) 12 SCC 481]*: The Court applied this authority to highlight that the writ jurisdiction is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary, and requires full disclosure of facts.
• R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486]*: The Court used this authority to underscore the principle that an applicant must make a full and fair disclosure of all material facts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the appellants’ suppression of material facts and the principle that a litigant must come to court with clean hands. The Court also emphasized that the entire extent of land was acquired by the BDA and that the appellants had received compensation for the acquired land. The Court held that the appellants were not entitled to any relief because they had suppressed material facts and had also failed to establish that the BDA had not acquired the entire extent of land in Survey No. 13.

The Court’s reasoning focused on the following points:

• The appellants failed to disclose the filing of the suit and its dismissal by the Civil Court, as well as the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of the civil court.
• The appellants did not come to the court with clean hands and abused the process of law.
• The entire extent of 5 acres 9 guntas of land, including 12 guntas of kharab-B land, was notified for acquisition.
• The appellants’ father, M. Krishna Reddy, was the owner of 1 acre 26 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 13/2 and 13/4, and that 8 guntas of land was kharab-B land.
• The appellants had claimed enhanced compensation for 1 acre 18 guntas of land at a highly belated stage.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the appellants’ case was dismissed on the grounds of suppression of material facts. The Court’s decision was based on the principle that a litigant must come to court with clean hands and disclose all relevant facts.

The Supreme Court held that the appellants were not entitled to any relief. The Court stated that the appellants had suppressed material facts and had also failed to establish that the BDA had not acquired the entire extent of land in Survey No. 13. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary, and that a petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything.

The Court quoted from the case of K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others [(2008)12 SCC 481]:
“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.”

The Court also quoted from the case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486]:
“… 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 fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.”

The Court also quoted from the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. V . State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449]:
“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.”

Key Takeaways

• Litigants must disclose all material facts in writ petitions. Suppression of facts can lead to dismissal of the case.
• The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary.
• The principle of “clean hands” is crucial for seeking relief in writ jurisdiction.
• Land acquisition proceedings, once finalized, cannot be challenged on flimsy grounds after a long lapse of time.
• Kharab land, even if not specifically compensated, is considered part of the acquired land.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a litigant must disclose all material facts in a writ petition, and failure to do so can lead to the dismissal of the petition. This case reinforces the principle that the writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy that should be exercised only when the petitioner comes to the court with clean hands. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to dismiss the writ petition due to the appellants’ suppression of material facts. The Court emphasized the importance of full disclosure in writ petitions and reiterated that the writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy that should be exercised only when the petitioner comes to the court with clean hands. The Court also held that the entire extent of land in Survey No. 13, including kharab land, was acquired by the BDA. This judgment serves as a reminder that litigants must be truthful and transparent when seeking relief from the courts.