SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS.versusBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

                          [2021] 9 S.C.R. 359                            359


                   SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS.                                A
                                  v.
     BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal Nos. 7550 – 7553 of 2021)
                       DECEMBER 08, 2021                                 B
     [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
                                                                         C
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     D
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
                                                                         E
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 –         F
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
                                                                         G
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
                                                                         H
                                 359
360            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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.
D
            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.
E     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.
F     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
G     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

H
SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS. v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT                          361
                AUTHORITY & ORS.

involved in the writ petitions. Thus, the appellants have not come       A
to the court with clean hands. [Para 11][366-B-E]
       2. 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            B
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                     C
countenanced. [Para 12][366-E-G]
      3. It is necessary 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         D
facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading
statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of
making a false statement, this Court is 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         E
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. [Para 16][370-B-D]
                                                                         F
       4. 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         G
for the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief.
[Para 17][370-D-E]
      5. Apart from the above, this Court has also examined the
case on merits. As noticed above, Survey No.13 measures 5 acres
                                                                         H
362            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     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 been taken long back. The
      contention of the appellants is that their father 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
B
      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
C     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. [Para 18][370-E-H]
           6. The findings of the High Court has attained finality and
D     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.
      [Para 20][371-F-G]
            Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC
E           449 : [2007] 9 SCR 112; Udyami Evam Khadi
            Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another v. State of
            Uttar Pradesh and Others (2008) 1 SCC 560 : [2007]
            12 SCR 933; K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India
            Limited and Others (2008) 12 SCC 481 : [2008] 10
            SCR 454 – relied on.
F
                             Case Law Reference
      [2007] 9 SCR 112               relied on               Para 13
      [2007] 12 SCR 933              relied on               Para 14
      [2008] 10 SCR 454              relied on               Para 15
G
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7550-
      7553 of 2021.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2011 of the High Court
      of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos.2592-2593 of 2009 and
H     order dated 11.01.2013 in Review Petition Nos.147 and 1361 of 2012.
SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS. v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT                              363
                AUTHORITY & ORS.

      Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, Sr. Adv., Subhash Chandra Sagar, E. C.          A
Vidya Sagar, Yatish Mohan, Achintya Tiwari, Advs. for the Appellants.
      S. K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Ms. Uditha
Chakravarthy, Soumyajit Pani, Vinodh Kanna B., Girish Ananthamoorthy,
Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Advs. for the Respondents.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                          B

         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       C
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           D
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           E
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 2nd 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
                                                                             F
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.        G
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
preliminary Notification came to be published in Mysore Gazette dated
                                                                             H
364             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C     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
D     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
E     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
F     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
G     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.
H
SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS. v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT                                 365
       AUTHORITY & ORS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

      7. Learned Single Judge, after considering the matter in detail,          A
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.
       8. Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for           B
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            C
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       D
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-Bland. This is evident from the final Notification published in
the Mysore Gazette dated 23.02.1967. Out of the said 5 acres 9 guntas           E
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 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              F
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            G
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.            H
366                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A           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
B     kharab-Bland 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 respondent
C     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.
D     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.
E
              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
F     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.
            13. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India1
G     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
      1
          (2007) 8 SCC 449
H
    SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS. v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT                              367
           AUTHORITY & ORS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the           A
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        B
         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      C
         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                 D
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                  E
Others3, 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,      F
         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   G
         the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without
         considering the merits of the claim.

2
    (2008) 1 SCC 560
3
    (2008)12 SCC 481
                                                                                 H
368      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     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
B        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
C        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.”
D                                                     (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
E     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
F     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
G        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,
H
SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS. v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT                               369
       AUTHORITY & ORS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

      but one which should only be used in cases which bring                  A
      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
                                                                              B
      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)       C

   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                  D
   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                E
   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              F
   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       G
   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        H
370             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A           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.”
             16. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check
      multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and
B     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-
C     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
D     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
E     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-Bland. Notification in respect of the
      entire 5 acres 9 guntas had been issued and possession of the land had
F     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
G     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.
H
SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS. v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT                                 371
       AUTHORITY & ORS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

      19. Identical contentions have been raised by the appellants in the       A
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              B
       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                    C
       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        D
       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 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             E
       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.”
                                                                                F
       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,           G
shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.


Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeals dismissed.

                                                                                H