Repeated filing for same cause of action with misleading facts constitutes abuse of process warranting dismissal with costs.

The petitioner’s land in Survey No. 412 (Part), Samiyala, Vadodara, was acquired for the Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway project under the National Highways Act, 1956.

An award was passed on 05.09.2017, which the petitioner contested for treating the land as "agricultural" despite a 1970 non-agricultural conversion order.

This is the petitioner’s fourth writ petition regarding the same cause of action.

Previous litigation included SCA No. 6910/2022 (disposed of with a direction to decide representation), MCA No. 1362/2022 (contempt closed as representation was decided), SCA No. 6247/2023 (withdrawn), and SCA No. 11176/2023.

In the third petition, the court directed the petitioner to seek remedy under Section 3G(5) of the Act for arbitration.

The petitioner filed the current petition seeking immediate release of revised compensation, relying on purported inter-departmental communications.

Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which provides the statutory mechanism for the determination of compensation by an Arbitrator if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either party.

The court also invoked the equitable principle of "Clean Hands," holding that a litigant who misleads the court or suppresses material facts is not entitled to extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court found that the petitioner had engaged in "forum shopping" by filing four petitions for the same cause of action.

The petitioner provided conflicting dates regarding the filing of the arbitration application, specifically claiming it was filed in July 2023 despite evidence showing receipt in January 2024.

The court viewed the petitioner's possession of internal government communications (letters between the Chitnis to Collector and NHAI) with high suspicion.

The court noted that these documents lacked specific references to official orders and suggested they might have been obtained or prepared through improper means to secure an undue advantage.

The court determined that the petitioner’s repeated filings and lack of transparency regarding the statutory arbitration process demonstrated bad faith.

The court refused the prayers for mandamus and directed the Collector, Vadodara, to conduct a formal inquiry into how the inter-departmental letters were issued and accessed.

The petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited within three weeks, failing which it would be realized as arrears of land revenue.