The core of the dispute involves a property ownership claim and the history of litigation surrounding it, including proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and subsequent appeals related to mutation of property records. A significant point of contention highlighted is the condonation of a substantial delay in one of the related writ appeals, which the appellant argues complicated the overall case. The judgment ultimately reverses the decisions of the High Court in the aforementioned writ appeals and restores the prior judgments from the writ petitions.
Constitution of India, Article 226 – Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Section 136(2) –Condonation of delay – Non disclosure of fact – Failure to take into account the fact that pursuant to the earlier order of the learned Single Judge and connected matters consequential orders were passed by the special Tehsildar and the same was confirmed in an appeal at the instance of respondent No.1 – Application to condone the delay of 1378 days filed in Writ Appeal was passed – Respondent No.1 who suffered such orders of the authorities based on his action to allow the order and in connected matters to become final and thereby giving a quietus to the issues did not disclose the factum of passing such consequential orders either in the Writ Appeal or in the application filed for condoning the delay – The contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that the non-disclosure of the aforesaid aspects are inconsequential in view of the pendency of an appeal filed against the judgment repelled – Held that there can be no doubt that a ‘fact being in consequential’ and ‘non- disclosure of the said fact’ are different and distinct – The said submission itself would reveal the fact that respondent No.1 did not disclose the said fact which was very crucial while filing an appeal with an application to condone the inordinate delay of 1378 days – The respondent No.1 cannot feign ignorance about such orders as he was a party to the order of the Tehsildar passed in compliance with the direction in the earlier order of the Learned Single Judge and further on account of the fact that it was he who preferred an appeal against the said order of the special Tehsildar before the Asst. Commissioner – That apart, even after suffering such an adverse order he had not chosen to challenge the same and allowed that to become final – If a litigant did not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum – That apart on a careful scrutiny of the materials on record certain alarming situation found revealing the attempt of manipulation made by the first respondent – Judgments in Writ Appeal liable to be set aside and the judgment in the Writ Petitions from which the corresponding appeals arose restored.
(Para 10 to 14)
M/S Maxim India Integrated Circuit v. Andappa (D) By Lrs. And Ors.
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 17: (DoJ 02-01-2025)
