SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS. versus BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. on 8 December 2021

[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 ofprocess of law – Suppression of material facts – Appellants’ fatherwas in possession of 1 acre 26 guntas of land in the two surveynumbers in a village – The said land was notified for acquisition bythe Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for public purpose –According to appellants, 8 guntas of land was left out from theacquisition – Appellants contended that they were not aware of theformation of the sites in this 8 guntas of the land by the BDA andthe allotment of said sites in favour of respondent Nos.5 & 6 – Theyfiled the writ petitions before the High Court for cancellation ofallotment of the said sites – BDA filed statement of objectionscontending that the lands were acquired by the BDA in the year1971 – Admittedly, the appellants received the award amount on30.11.1971 – After lapse of 34 years from the completion ofacquisition proceedings and receiving of award amount, theappellants have filed writ petitions before the High Court on falseand frivolous grounds – Earlier, the appellants had also filed a suitfor the permanent injunction against the BDA by contending that 8guntas of land was not acquired by the BDA – The Trial Court haddismissed the suit – An appeal was dismissed by the High Court –The appellants have not disclosed the dismissal of the suit and theappeal in the writ petition – Thereafter, the writ petition was alsodismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court – Writ appealchallenging the order of the Single Judge, was dismissed by theDivision Bench of the High Court and the review petitions werealso dismissed by the High Court subsequently – On appeal, held:The parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings andlitigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge – Since, theappellants have not disclosed the filing of the suit and its dismissal

359

A

B

CDEF

G

H

Aand also the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of thecivil court in writ petition, the appellants have to be non-suited onthe ground of suppression of material facts – They have not cometo the court with clean hands and they have also abused the processof law – Therefore, they are not entitled for the extraordinary,equitable and discretionary relief – That apart, notification in respectBof the entire 5 acres 9 guntas (including the land of appellants) wasissued and possession of the land was taken long back – Recordsproduced by the BDA would disclose that 08 guntas of land iskharab-B land – As compensation cannot be granted in respect ofkharab-B land, if acquired – Therefore, there is no question ofCpayment of compensation in respect of this land, though, the samewas included in the preliminary and final notification – Further, thefindings of the High Court has attained finality and the writ Courtcannot sit in an appeal over the judgment passed by the High Courtin the appeal – The conclusions reached by the Court in the appealare binding on the appellants.D

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The documents produced by the BDA wouldclearly disclose that the entire extent of 5 acres 9 guntas of landincluding 12 guntas of kharab-B land was notified for acquisition.EThe father of the appellants, claimed to be the owner of 1 acre 26guntas of lands in the said survey number and it was furthercontended that 1 acre and 18 guntas have been acquired and 8guntas was left out from the acquisition. It was further contendedthat BDA had formed the sites in the said 8 guntas of land left outfrom acquisition and allotted them to respondent nos.5 & 6.FAdmittedly, the appellants had filed O.S. No.3936/1999 beforethe Additional City Civil Court against the BDA seekingpermanent injunction while pleading identical facts and urgingsimilar grounds. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court.The appeal filed against the said judgment of the trial court wasGalso dismissed by the High Court. The appellants have notdisclosed the filing of the suit, its dismissal by the Civil Courtand the confirmation of the said judgment by the High Court inthe writ petition. It is clear that the appellants have suppressedthese material facts which are relevant for deciding the question H

involved in the writ petitions. Thus, the appellants have not cometo the court with clean hands. [Para 11][366-B-E]

2. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by theHigh Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India isextraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperativethat the petitioner approaching the writ court must come withclean hands and put forward all facts before the Court withoutconcealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to stateall facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds somevital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over theother side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the courtas well as with the opposite parties which cannot becountenanced. [Para 12][366-E-G]

3. It is necessary to state here that in order to checkmultiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matterand more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistentorders through different judicial forums by suppressing materialfacts either by remaining silent or by making misleadingstatements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability ofmaking a false statement, this Court is of the view that the partieshave to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigationseither past or present concerning any part of the subject-matterof dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according tothe parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigationswas or is pending, they have to mandatorily state so in theirpleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties inaccordance with law. [Para 16][370-B-D]

4. In the instant case, since the appellants have not disclosedthe filing of the suit and its dismissal and also the dismissal of theappeal against the judgment of the civil court, the appellants haveto be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts.They have not come to the court with clean hands and they havealso abused the process of law. Therefore, they are not entitledfor the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief.[Para 17][370-D-E]

5. Apart from the above, this Court has also examined thecase on merits. As noticed above, Survey No.13 measures 5 acres AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A9 guntas, out of which 12 guntas were kharab-B land. Notificationin respect of the entire 5 acres 9 guntas had been issued andpossession of the land had been been taken long back. Thecontention of the appellants is that their father was the owner of1 acre 26 guntas of land in Survey Nos.13/2 and 13/4. Accordingto them, 08 guntas of land has not been acquired and compensationBhas not been paid in respect of this land. Records produced bythe BDA would disclose that 08 guntas of land is kharab-B land.Therefore, there is no question of payment of compensation inrespect of this land, though, the same was included in thepreliminary and final notification. The final notification was issuedCas early as in the year 1967. The appellants have claimed enhancedcompensation also for 1 acre 18 guntas of land and they haveraised this issue at a highly belated stage after lapse of about 34years. [Para 18][370-E-H]

6. The findings of the High Court has attained finality andDthe writ court cannot sit in an appeal over the judgment passedby the High Court in the appeal. The conclusions reached bythe court in the appeal are binding on the appellants.[Para 20][371-F-G]

Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCCE449 : [2007] 9 SCR 112; Udyami Evam KhadiGramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another v. State ofUttar Pradesh and Others (2008) 1 SCC 560 : [2007]12 SCR 933; K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of IndiaLimited and Others (2008) 12 SCC 481 : [2008] 10SCR 454 – relied on.F

Case Law Reference

From the Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2011 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos.2592-2593 of 2009 andHorder dated 11.01.2013 in Review Petition Nos.147 and 1361 of 2012.

Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, Sr. Adv., Subhash Chandra Sagar, E. C.Vidya Sagar, Yatish Mohan, Achintya Tiwari, Advs. for the Appellants.

S. K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Ms. UdithaChakravarthy, Soumyajit Pani, Vinodh Kanna B., Girish Ananthamoorthy,Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated11.01.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnatakain Review Petition Nos.147/2012 and 1361/2012 which were filed bythe appellants before the High Court pursuant to the liberty granted bythis Court vide Order dated 27.02.2012 while allowing the appellants towithdraw their Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.6125-6126 of 2012.However, the High Court declined to review its earlier order dated06.07.2011 passed in the Writ Appeal Nos.2592-93 of 2009.

3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are asunder:

4. The appellants herein are the sons of one M. Krishna Reddy.They filed Writ Petition No.26920 of 2005 before the High Court ofKarnataka at Bangalore for cancellation of allotment of Site Nos.1337and 1336 allotted in favour of respondent nos.5 and 6 respectively in thelayout known as Binnamangala 2[nd] Stage and for certain other reliefs.According to the appellants their father M. Krishna Reddy was the ownerand in possession of land bearing Survey No.13, measuring 1 acre 26guntas of Binnamangala Village, Kasaba Hobli, North Taluk, BangaloreDistrict, having acquired the same by virtue of an order passed by theDeputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams in proceedings bearingC.No.11/59-60 under Section 5 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous)Inam Abolition Act, 1954. It was further contented that the entries in theIndex 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 DevelopmentAuthority (for short ‘BDA’) for the formation of layout between OldMadras Road and Banaswadi Road (Binnamangala Layout). Apreliminary Notification came to be published in Mysore Gazette dated A

B

C

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A21.07.1960 followed by a final Notification published in the said Gazetteon 23.02.1967.

5. It was further contended that M. Krishna Reddy filed anapplication for enhancement of compensation pursuant to whichAdditional Land Acquisition Officer (Addl. LAO) referred the matter toBthe Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. TheCivil Court, after conducting an inquiry, accepted the Reference in partand increased the award amount payable in respect of 1 acre 18 guntasin Survey Nos.13/2 & 13/4. M. Krishna Reddy was in possession of 1acre 26 guntas of land in these two survey numbers. 8 guntas of landwas left out from the acquisition. In the suit for partition filed by the thirdCappellant, a portion of Survey No.13/2 measuring 8 guntas of land whichwas left out from acquisition, was divided amongst appellants by formingfour 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 ofthe sites in this 8 guntas of the land by the BDA and the allotment of saidDsites in favour of respondent Nos.5 & 6. Therefore, they filed theaforesaid writ petitions for cancellation of allotment of the said sites.

6. BDA filed statement of objections contending that SurveyNo.13 measuring 5 acres 9 guntas and certain other lands were acquiredby the BDA in the year 1971 and thereafter sites were formed andEallotted to the general public. Admittedly, the appellants received theaward amount on 30.11.1971. After lapse of 34 years from the completionof acquisition proceedings and receiving of award amount, the appellantshave filed writ petitions before the High Court on false and frivolousgrounds. It was further contended that Sy. No.13 of Binnamangala Villagemeasuring 5 acres 9 guntas and certain other lands were acquired forFpublic purpose for the formation of layout called ‘Banaswadi Layout’.The notified Khatedars in respect of Survey No.13 were ChannappaReddy, 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 permanentGinjunction against the BDA by contending that 8 guntas of land has notbeen acquired by the BDA. The Trial Court by its judgment dated29.01.2003 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the secondappellant filed an appeal bearing RFA No.516/2003 which was dismissedby the High Court on 01.07.2003. The appellants have not disclosed thedismissal of the suit and the appeal in the writ petition.H

7. Learned Single Judge, after considering the matter in detail,dismissed the writ petition on 01.04.2009. As noticed above, the WritAppeal Nos.2592-2593/2009, challenging the order of the learned SingleJudge, were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and thereview petitions were also dismissed by the High Court subsequently.

8. Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing forthe appellants, would contend that Survey Nos.13/2 and 13/4 compriseof 1 acre 26 guntas of land out of which the State Government hasacquired 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 wasnot acquired. Since the remaining 8 guntas of land has not been acquired,the appellants have partitioned the said property amongst themselvesand each of them is in possession of a site formed in this 8 guntas ofland. It was argued that when the said 8 guntas of land itself has notbeen acquired, question of formation of the sites by the BDA in this landand its allotment to respondent nos.5 and 6 is illegal.

9. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearingfor the respondent-BDA, has supported the impugned judgment and orderof the High Court. It was argued that Survey No.13 comprised of landstotally measuring 5 acres 9 guntas and out of which 12 guntas waskharab-Bland. This is evident from the final Notification published inthe Mysore Gazette dated 23.02.1967. Out of the said 5 acres 9 guntasof land, the appellants’ father was granted occupancy right of 1 acre 26guntas. A common Award was passed in respect of the land belongingto Krishna Reddy and his brother. Compensation was awarded in respectof 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 yieldingland and entire extent of 1 acre 26 guntas of land including kharab landwas acquired. Therefore, the appellants have no right, title and interestwhatsoever in respect of the so-called left out land. It is further contentedthat the appellants had filed O.S. No.3936 of 1999 before the Civil Courtagainst the BDA for permanent injunction. In the said Suit, the veryquestion involved in the writ petition was raised. The said Suit wasdismissed by the Civil Court and the said judgment was confirmed in theappeal by the High Court. The appellants have not disclosed the dismissalof the aforesaid Suit and the appeal in the writ petition. Therefore, theHigh Court has rightly dismissed the appeal even on the question ofsuppression of material facts. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

A

B

D

E

F

G

H

366SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A10. We have carefully considered the submissions made at theBar by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materialsplaced on record.

11. The documents produced by the BDA would clearly disclosethat the entire extent of 5 acres 9 guntas of land including 12 guntas ofBkharab-Bland was notified for acquisition. M. Krishna Reddy, the fatherof the appellants, claimed to be the owner of 1 acre 26 guntas of lands inthe said survey number and it was further contended that 1 acre and 18guntas 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 8guntas of land left out from acquisition and allotted them to respondentCnos.5 & 6. Admittedly, the appellants had filed O.S. No.3936/1999 beforethe Additional City Civil Court against the BDA seeking permanentinjunction while pleading identical facts and urging similar grounds. Thesaid suit was dismissed by the trial court. The appeal filed against thesaid judgment of the trial court was also dismissed by the High Court.DThe appellants have not disclosed the filing of the suit, its dismissal bythe Civil Court and the confirmation of the said judgment by the HighCourt in the writ petition. It is clear that the appellants have suppressedthese material facts which are relevant for deciding the question involvedin the writ petitions. Thus, the appellants have not come to the court withclean hands.E

12. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the HighCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary,equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitionerapproaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forwardall facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. AFlitigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If hewithholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage overthe other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court aswell as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced.

13. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India[1]Ghas held that a prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course.In exercising extraordinary power, a writ court would indeed bear inmind the conduct of the party which is invoking such jurisdiction. If theapplicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or 1 (2007) 8 SCC 449H

SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS. v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY & ORS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss theaction without adjudicating the matter. It was held thus:

“33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company hadapproached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The HighCourt is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court oflaw is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessitythat when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all thefacts before the Court without any reservation. If there issuppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twistedfacts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuseto entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into meritsof the matter.”

14. In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha andAnother v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others[2], this Court hasreiterated that the writ remedy is an equitable one and a personapproaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands.Such person should not suppress any material fact but also should nottake recourse to legal proceedings over and over again which amountsto abuse of the process of law.

15. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited andOthers[3], it was held thus:

“34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 andof the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution isextraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writsmentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is,therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching thewrit court must come with clean hands, put forward all the factsbefore the court without concealing or suppressing anything andseek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure ofrelevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleadingthe court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold withoutconsidering the merits of the claim.

2 (2008) 1 SCC 5603 (2008)12 SCC 481

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

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 followingwords: (KB p. 514)

A

“… it has been for many years the rule of the court, and onewhich it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that whenan applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex partestatement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all thematerial facts—it says facts, not law. He must not misstatethe law if he can help it—the court is supposed to know thelaw. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicantmust state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by whichthe court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that thefacts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court willset aside any action which it has taken on the faith of theimperfect statement.”

B

C

D

B

C

D

(emphasis supplied)

36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Whileexercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bearin mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction ofthe court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppressesEmaterial fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismissthe action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into themerits of the case by stating, “We will not listen to yourapplication because of what you have done.” The rule hasbeen evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulousFlitigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it.

E

37. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs.(supra), ViscountReading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96)

“… Where an ex parte application has been made to this Courtfor a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to theconclusion that the affidavit in support of the application wasnot candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them insuch a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, theCourt ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse ofits process, to refuse to proceed any further with theexamination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, G

H

but one which should only be used in cases which bringconviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived.Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will bemade of the facts as they are and as they have been stated inthe applicant’s affidavit, and everything will be heard that canbe urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads theaffidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of thisexamination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Courthas been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anythingfurther from the applicant in a proceeding which has onlybeen set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit.”

38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal systemalso. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinaryjurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frankand open. He must disclose all material facts without anyreservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed toplay “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes todisclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal)other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosureof true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts aresuppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts andexercise would become impossible. The petitioner must discloseall the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without anyqualification. This is because “the court knows law but not facts”.

39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington IncomeTax Commrs.(supra) is kept in mind, an applicant who does notcome with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ ofthe court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment ofmaterial facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation,manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitableand prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose allthe material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distortedmanner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power inorder to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process todischarge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with theexamination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apetition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. Infact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt ofcourt for abusing the process of the court.”

16. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to checkmultiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter andBmore importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent ordersthrough different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either byremaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings inorder to escape the liability of making a false statement, we are of theview that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedingsand litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-Cmatter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according tothe parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations was oris pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order toresolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.

17. In the instant case, since the appellants have not disclosed theDfiling of the suit and its dismissal and also the dismissal of the appealagainst the judgment of the civil court, the appellants have to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts. They have notcome to the court with clean hands and they have also abused the processof law. Therefore, they are not entitled for the extraordinary, equitableEand discretionary relief.

18. Apart from the above, we have also examined the case onmerits. As noticed above, Survey No.13 measures 5 acres 9 guntas, outof which 12 guntas were kharab-Bland. Notification in respect of theentire 5 acres 9 guntas had been issued and possession of the land hadFbeen been taken long back. The contention of the appellants is that theirfather, M. Krishna Reddy, was the owner of 1 acre 26 guntas of land inSurvey Nos.13/2 and 13/4. According to them, 08 guntas of land has notbeen acquired and compensation has not been paid in respect of thisland. Records produced by the BDA would disclose that 08 guntas ofland is kharab-B land. Therefore, there is no question of payment ofGcompensation in respect of this land, though, the same was included inthe preliminary and final notification. The final notification was issued asearly as in the year 1967. The appellants have claimed enhancedcompensation also for 1 acre 18 guntas of land and they have raised thisissue at a highly belated stage after lapse of about 34 years.

H

19. Identical contentions have been raised by the appellants in theaforesaid suit. The said suit was dismissed and the judgment of the civilcourt was confirmed by the High Court in RFA NO.516/2003 on01.07.2003, by observing as under:

“….. Accordingly in the instant case, the trial Court adjudicatedupon issue No.3 as a preliminary issue which related to themaintainability of the suit and on the basis of the facts whichcould not be reasonably disputed and in respect of which there ispresumption of correctness, it has found that the acquisitionproceedings in respect of the entire extent of land in Sy.No.13having become final and conclusive, the suit of the plaintiffs wasimpliedly barred under Section 9 of CPC and hence notmaintainable. I find no perversity in the view taken by the trialcourt. It is no doubt true that a contention was sought to beadvanced on behalf of the appellant that only an extent of 1 acre18 guntas of land in Sy. Nos.13/2 and 13/4 had been acquired bythe BDA and the remaining extent of 8 guntas of land is continuedto be in possession of the plaintiff. But the materials placed onrecord clearly indicated that the entire extent of land in Sy. No.13had been acquired by the BDA for public purposes and thecompensation had been paid thereon. It is not in dispute that theplaintiff’s father Shri Krishna Reddy had participated in theacquisition proceedings before the respondent/BDA and he wasone of the notified khatedars. Under the circumstances, therefore,when the entire extent of land has been acquired, it is ratherdifficult to accept the claim of the appellant/plaintiff. Hence, Ifind no merit in this appeal filed by the appellant.”

20. This finding of the High Court has attained finality and thewrit court cannot sit in an appeal over the judgment passed by the HighCourt in the appeal. The conclusions reached by the court in the appealare binding on the appellants.

21. In view of above, we do not find any merit in these appealsand the same are accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H