Suppression of material facts barred SLP relief where undisclosed stay orders affected limitation under land acquisition law.

Special Leave Petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings were dismissed because the petitioners suppressed material facts about interim stay orders. The challenge had turned on whether the award was time-barred under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, but the period covered by judicial stays had to be excluded from the limitation computation. As the stay orders were not disclosed, the petitions lacked the frank and full disclosure required when invoking Article 136 discretionary relief. The non-disclosure amounted to suppression of material facts, making the petitions liable to rejection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Special Leave Petitions were liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts relating to interim stay orders, in a challenge to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and the Bangalore Development Act.

Analysis: The petitioners challenged the acquisition on the ground that the award had not been made within the period prescribed by Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The period for making the award was affected by interim orders passed by courts staying proceedings and dispossession. Those stay orders were material to the computation of time under the statutory scheme, because the period during which proceedings are stayed is excluded. The petitions did not disclose those orders. Relief under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is discretionary, and a party seeking such relief must make a frank and full disclosure of all material facts. Non-disclosure of the stay orders amounted to suppression of material facts.

Conclusion: The Special Leave Petitions were liable to be rejected for suppression of material facts and were dismissed.

---