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

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 563 · Decided: 29-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA, J.S. VERMA, V. RAMASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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.] 
Constitution of India: Article 136--Special leave petitions-Non-
disclosure of material fact having a direct bearing on the questions 
raised-Effect of. 
8 
·-<. 
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 
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 
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 
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. 
The petitioners preferred these special leave petitions and 
obtained interim stay of dispossession, 
Dismissing the special leave petitions, this Court, 
563 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1991) 2 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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. 
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 
F 
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. 
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-
viso to Section 11-A, "the period during which any action
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.