G. NARAYANASWAMYREDDY (DEAD)BYL.RS. ANDANR.versusGOVT. OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

       G. NARAYANASWAMYREDDY (DEAD)BYL.RS. ANDANR.                                  A
                                           v.
                     GOVT. OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

                                   APRIL 29, 1991

          [M.H. KANIA, J.S. VERMA AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]                            8

             Constitution of India: Article 136--Special leave petitions-Non-
       disclosure of material fact having a direct bearing on the questions
       raised-Effect of.

·-<.        Petitioners' lands were acquired by the respondents under ss. 17        C
       and 19 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976. Section 36 of the said Act.
       made applicable the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where
       acquisition is otherwise than by agreement.

             The notification making the declaration under S. 4 of the Land
       Acquisition Act in respect of the lands in question was made on D
       20.9.1977. On 20.9.1984 s. 11-A was introduced and brought into force
       by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 prescribing that where'
       the declaration under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published
       before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,
       1984, the award was to be made within two years from such commence-
       ment. The awards should have thus been made within two years from E
       20.9.1984.

             On 11.9.1985 the petitioners obtained an interim order from this
       Court directing status-quo with regard to the possession of the lands in
       question in a special leave petition which was dismissed on 29.4.87. On
       December 16-17, 1987 two writ petitions were filed by the petitioners in     F
       the High Court challenging the acquisition, contending that as the
       awards were not made within two years of the notification making the
       declaration under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the entire acquisition
       proceedings had lapsed. The High Court granted interim stay in respect
       of the acquisition of the lands. The petitions were later dismissed. Ap-
       peals therefrom were also dismissed by a Division Bench.                     G

             The petitioners preferred these special leave petitions and
       obtained interim stay of dispossession,

             Dismissing the special leave petitions, this Court,
                                                                                    H


                                          563
    564                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [ 1991) 2 S.C.R.

A
          HELD: 1. The relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is dis-
    cretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief
    must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and
    suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. [566B-C)
                                                                                     +
           2. Whatever the ultimate effect of the stay orders, in view of the
B   provisions of s. 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the fact of the stay
    orders was highly material in the determination of these special leave
    petitions. There was no reference in the special leave petitions to any of
    the stay orders and the Court could know about these orders only when
    the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their
    counter affidavit. The said interim orders had a direct bearing on the
    question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to
c   suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the special leave
    petitions were liable to be rejected. [56SG-H; 566A-B]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
    Nos. 823-24 of 1990.
D
         From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.1989 of the Karnataka
    High Court W.A. Nos. 321 & 322 of 1989.

          S.R. Bhat for the Petitioners.

E         R.N. Narasimha Murthy, K.H. Nobin Singh, M. Veerappa and
    S. N. Bhat for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered:

          A few facts are necessary for the disposal of these petitions.
F
           The petitioners were the owners of certain lands which were
    acquired by the respondents under the provisions of Sections 17 and 19
    of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as
    "the Bangalore Act"). Under the provisions of Section 36 of the
    Bangalore Act, where the acquisition is otherwise than by agreement,
G   it will be regulated by the provisions, as far they are.applicable, of the
    Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Land
    Acquisition Act"). Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which
    section was included in the said Act in 1984 as set out hereinafter, very
    briefly stated, provides that the Collector must make his award within
    two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and that if
H   no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for acqui-
                   G. NARAYANASWAMY v. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA                   565

         sition of the land shall lapse. Under the Explanation to the first pro-
                                                                                    A
         viso to Section 11-A, "the period during which any action or proceed-
         ing to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an
         order of a Court shall be excluded". It was, inter alia contended by the
         petitioners that as the awards in these cases has not been made within
         two years of the notification making the declaration under Section 4 of
         the Land Acquisition Act, the entire acquisition proceedings had           B
         lapsed. That contention was repelled along with certain other conten-
         tions in the judgment of the High Court which is sought to be im-
         pugned before us. The relevant dates which have to be borne in mind
~- --<. ·in this connection, are as follows:


              The notification making the declaration under Section 4 of the
        Land Acquisition Act in respect of the lands in question was made on c
         September 20, 1977. On September 20, 1984 Section 11-A which intro-
        duced into the Land Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition
         (Amendment) Act, 1984, was brought into force. Under the first pro-
        viso to Section 11-A it was prescribed that where the said declaration
         (under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act) has been published D
     ~ before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)
        Act, 1984, the award must be made within a period of two years from
        such commencement. Thus, the award should have been made within
        two years from September 20,, 1984. On September 11, 1985, the
        petitioners obtained an interim order from this Court directing status
        quo with regard to the possession of the lands in question in Special E
        Leave Petition No. 294 of 1985 preferred against the order of the
        Karnataka High Court dated August 14, 1984, with which we are not
        directly concerned here. The said Special Leave Petition No. 294 of
        1985 was dismissed on April 29, 1987. On December 16-17, 1987, two
        writ petitions were filed by the respective petitioners in the Karnataka
        High Court challenging the acquisition on the ground that the awards F
        were not made within the stipulated time. In these two writ petitions,
        the Karnataka High Court granted interim stay of further proceedings
        in respect of the acquisition of the said lands. These _petitions were
        dismissed by a learned Single Judge of that High Court on November
        29, 1988. Appeals against the decision of a learned Single Judge were
     -{ dismissed by the Karnataka High Court on October 6, 1989, by a G
        Division Bench of that High Court. The petitioners preferred these
        Special Leave .Petitions, namely S.L.P. Nos. 823 and 824 of 1990
        against the decision of the Division Bench of that High Court, and
        obtained an interim stay of dispossession therein. Whatever the ulti-
        mate effect of the stay orders, in view of the provisions of Section 11-A
        of the Land Acquisition Act, to which we have already referred H
    566                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS·             [ 1991] 2 S.C.R.

A   earlier, it is beyond dispute that the fact of the stay orders was highly
    material in the determination of these Special Leave Petitions. Curi-
    ously enough, there is no reference in the Special Leave Petitions to
    any to the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only            +-"
    when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed
    their counter affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a
B
    direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of the
    same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this
    ground alone, the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be rejected. It is
    well-settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution
    is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such           _)..--
    relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do
C   so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismis-
    sed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions.

           There will be no order as to costs of these petitions.

    R.P.                                                       SLPs dismissed.