BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 10 lakh on the legal representatives of the land that was acquired nearly four decades ago in 1986 for Gavipuram Extension HBCS Layout, for filing a petition for the ninth round, suppressing the previous rounds of litigation.
Justice M Nagaprasanna imposed the cost on Gangamma and four others, while dismissing the petition filed by them. “If the petition is now entertained on any score, it would amount to putting a premium on litigative persistence of the petitioners and rewarding abuse of the process and tacit fraud played on this court, as this forms the ninth petition on the same cause of action, seeking the very same prayer, differently worded, after the dismissal of eight rounds of litigation, all of which are suppressed in the subject petition”, the court observed. The petitioners are said to be the legal representatives of the late Venkata Bhovi and Hanuma Bhovi, who are said to have been granted 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 26 of Nagadevanahalli in Kengeri Hobli in 1979.
In 1986, a preliminary notification was issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire the said land along with other properties for the formation of a residential layout by Gavipuram Extension House Building Cooperative Society Limited. The final notification was issued in 1987.
Accordingly, compensation of Rs 65,000 per acre and Rs 15,000 per acre for solatium was awarded. However, considering the representations, the land was dropped from the acquisition in 1993. The petitioners filed this petition seeking directions declaring that the land question is deemed to be withdrawn from preliminary notification.
The counsel of Cooperative Society submitted that the petition has to be dismissed with exemplary costs, as it is on the face of it an abuse of the process of law, as the family of original grantees are before this court for the eighth time. The court observed that during eight rounds of litigation, this ground was not taken, and on a new plea, the entire acquisition process is challenged all over again, notwithstanding the challenge being rejected not once, but eight times. Therefore, the petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts and have approached this court with soiled hands.