JUDGMENT
1. Lured by the ruling of the Supreme Court in H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore v Syed Khader and Others, the appellants herein had filed Writ Petition Nos. 42784 to 42796 of 1995 on 6-12-1995 praying for quashing of Annexures-A and B by which the land measuring 153 acres was acquired vide notifications issued in the year 1985, in respect of which an award was passed on 29-2-1986. Out of total 83 land owners, 13 appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground of proceedings being violative of the judgment of the Supreme Court in H.M.T.’s case, supra. Appellants are owners to the extent of 37 acres out of the total land acquired.
2. The writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed by the learned Single Judge mainly on account of delay, laches and acquiescence attributable to them. It was found on facts that the notification proposing to acquire the lands for public purpose was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 30th January, 1985 which was published in the Official Gazette on 1st February, 1985. A
final notification was issued on 21st August, 1985 and a notice in terms of Section 6(1) of the Act came to be issued and published in the Official Gazette on 5th September, 1985. The award passed on 29th February, 1986 was approved by the Government on 27th September, 1986. Possession of the land was taken after the land owners including appellants received the awarded amounts in the year 1986-87. The respondent-Society thereafter formed a layout and allotted sites in favour of its members. A large number of members are stated to have raised constructions on the sites allotted to them and were found to be actually residing there. Counsel for the respondent-Society produced some photographs before the learned Single Judge which showed the structure of huge buildings on the sites allotted to its members. The learned Single Judge relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in S. Vasudeva v State of Karnataka, dismissed the writ petitions.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in H.M.T.’s case, supra, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petitions only on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence attributable to the appellants. Learned Counsel submits that in case the writ petitions filed by the appellants are decided against them, faith of the appellants and general public in the institution of judiciary would be shaken. Appellants have also gone to the extent of stating that dismissal of their writ petitions would change the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
4. We have not been impressed by the general submissions made on behalf of the appellants in support of his contentions without reference to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is not disputed that exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, except in cases where the violation of fundamental rights is alleged, is discretionary. Extraordinary discretionary powers cannot be invoked unless the person approaching the Court shows his bona fides. Persons invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are expected to come in the Court with clean hands, clean mind and clean image. Prayer made for exercise of writ jurisdiction can be refused by this Court upon consideration of circumstances which disentitle the petitioner to relief despite the fact that he may have a legal right alleged to have been infringed. Discretionary relief of writ jurisdiction shall normally be refused where it is proved that the person approaching the Court had an alternative remedy, his conduct is such which does not deserve the discretionary remedy particularly when the person approaching the Court is proved to be guilty of unexplained laches or unreasonable delay. No person is entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the enforcement of some alleged statutory rights when he is proved to have submitted to the jurisdiction and is shown to have acquiesced in actions. After submitting to the jurisdiction of the concerned authority taking a chance of favourable decision and enjoying the usufruct of his submission to the jurisdiction, no person can be allowed
to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. The institution of the judiciary cannot be permitted to be utilised by unscrupulous litigants for the purpose of blackmailing or for extracting money from persons upon whom some benefits are conferred in accordance with the prevalent law to which the alleged aggrieved person did not complain and rather acquiesced. For the fault or inaction or for being a passive party on account of acquiescence, the beneficiaries under law cannot be penalised in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. The case of the appellant is not different in any manner. Appellants are proved to have been satisfied with the acquisition proceedings. They received the compensation amount and allowed the position on the spot to change with the delivery of possession and raising of the construction by the allottees of the respondent-Society. They approached this Court only at a time when the acceptance of their prayer was likely to affect a large number of allottees of the sites in the area acquired vide impugned notification as Annexures-A and B. The acceptance of the prayer may result in dispossession of bona fide allottees and demolition of structures raised by them in accordance with law. Such harsh provisions of law cannot be resorted to at the instance of unscrupulous litigants like the appellants and against the bona fide allottees in possession of the sites.
7. We agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for appellants that law laid down by Supreme Court is binding on all Courts in the Country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is however equally true that in order to apply the law enacted by legislature or pronounced by Supreme Court the basic requirements for initiation of proposed actions are required to be fulfilled. If a person approaching the Court fails to point out the circumstance justifying the obligation of the law enacted or laid down, the question of applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution would not arise. Once the law is proposed to be applied, this Court has no option but to apply the law as laid down by the Supreme Court but before applying the law the prerequisite conditions as noted herein above are required to be complied with. The petitioners have failed to justify the existence of circumstance warranting the applicability of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is well-settled that laws are applied under the facts and circumstances of each case and not in a mechanical or a routine manner.
8. We do not find any merit in these appeals which are accordingly
dismissed.
9. After the order was dictated, learned Counsel for the appellants made an oral prayer for granting certificate of fitness to appeal to Supreme Court as, according to him, some questions of law are involved in the matter requiring consideration by the Supreme Court. In view of what has been stated herein above, we do not find any ground for granting this prayer. Prayer rejected.