Special Leave Petition Nos
823 24 of 1990
From the Judgement and Order dated 6101989 of the Karnataka High Court WA Nos
321  322 of 1989
SR Bhat for the Petitioners
RN Narasimha Murthy KH Nobin Singh M Veerappa and SN Bhatt for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered A few facts are necessary for the disposal of these petitions
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 acquisitions otherwise than by agreement 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 states provides that the Collector must make his award within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and that if no award is made within that period the entire proceedings for acqui 565 sition of the land shall lapse
Under the Explanation to the first proviso to Section 11 Athe period during which any action or proceeding 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 lapsed
That contention was repelled along with certain other contentions in the judgment of the High Court which is sought to be impugned 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 September 20 1977
On September 20 1984 Section 11 A which introduced into the Land Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 1984 was brought into force
Under the first proviso to Section 11 A it was prescribed that where the said declaration under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has been published 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 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 No294 of 1985 was dismissed on April 29 1987
On December 16 17 1987 two writ petitions were field by the respective petitioners in the Karnataka High Court challenging the acquisition on the ground that the awards 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 Division Bench of that High Court
The petitioners preferred these Special Leave Petitions namely SLP Nos 823 and 824 of 1990 against the decision of the Devision Bench of that High Court and obtained an interim stay of dispossession therein
Whatever the ultimate 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 566 earlier it is beyond dispute that the fact of the stay orders was highly material in the determination of these Special Leave Petitions
Curiously 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 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 so and suppresses material facts his application is liable to be dismissed
We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions
There will be no order as to costs of these petitions
RP SLPs dismissed


Summary:
Petitioners  lands were acquired by the respondents under sections 17 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 section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the lands in question was made on 2091977
On 2091984s
11 A was introduced and brought into force by the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 1984 prescribing that where the declaration under section 4 of the Land Acquisition ACt was published before the commencement of the Land Acquistion Amendment Act 1984 the award was to be made within two years from such commencement
The awards should have thus been made within two years from 2091984
On 1191985 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 29487
on December 16 171987 two writ petitions were filed by the petioners in the High Court Challenging the acquisition contending that as the awards were not made within two years of the notification making the declaration under section 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
Appeals therefrom were also dismissed by a Division Bench
The petitioners preferred these special leave petitions and obtained interim stay of dispossession
Dismissing the special leave petitions this Court 564 HELD 1
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 so and suppresses material facts his application is liable to be dismissed566B C 2Whatever the ultimate effect of the stay orders in view of the provisions of section 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 suppression of material facts
On this ground alone the special leave petitions were liable to be rejected
565G H 566A B