IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6424 of 2011 KAMAL NARAYAN JHA SON OF LATE SHYAM SUNDAR JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANHAULI, POLICE STATION-JHANJHARPUR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI 3. THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MADHUBANI …RESPONDENTS ----------- 02. 11.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for the respondents. Petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents for payment of arrears of compensation for the lands as set out in paragraph 4 which was/were acquired by the authorities for strengthening/widening of N.H.57. It is the submission of the petitioner that although the amount of compensation was paid to and received by him, but the same was not in accordance with annexure-1 which is the resolution of the government contained in letter no.395 dated 19.02.2007, issued in relation to acquisition to be made by the State-respondents in terms of Land Acquisition Act. Present application lacks relevant details inasmuch as the date on which the notification for acquisition was made has not been disclosed. The award prepared and issued in the present case is also not on record. Petitioner has also not disclosed as to whether he filed any objection in terms of section 3G of the National Highways Act,1956. This Court finds from 2 annexure-2 that payment of compensation for land(s) acquired by the National Highways Authority of India was made to and received by the petitioner way back in the year 2008 itself. Petitioner has approached this Court after expiry of three years with aforesaid grievance. In the case of Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Bareilly & Ors. since reported in 2010 (4) SCC 728, it has been held that a person who approaches the court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the materials/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. He owes a duty to bring all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing materials within his knowledge. The petitioner has not disclosed all the materials facts in the writ petition. In my view, he has not made out a case for invocation of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )