A belated acquisition challenge fails where the petitioner suppresses prior proceedings admitting consent and receipt of compensation.

The petitioner challenged the preliminary and final notifications acquiring his lands in Sy. Nos. 9/1 and 9/2, Turahalli Village, for the benefit of respondent No. 3, a housing co-operative society.

He claimed that the acquisition had lapsed under Sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, alleging that he had not consented to the award, had not received proper notice, and remained in possession.

Respondent No. 3 relied on the petitioner’s earlier W.P. No. 42670/2002, in which he had sought allotment of four sites and, according to the record, acknowledged the acquisition, award and payment of compensation.

He withdrew that petition on 26 November 2002; the present petition was filed in 2015.

Whether the acquisition of the petitioner’s lands had lapsed under Sections 24(1) or 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief despite his earlier petition concerning the acquisition and the delay in bringing the present challenge.

The petitioner invoked Sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, seeking a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed.

The Court did not interpret or apply those provisions on their merits. It instead applied the principles that a litigant who suppresses material facts is not entitled to discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227, and that an unexplained, substantial delay in challenging acquisition proceedings may disentitle a petitioner to relief.

The Court examined the record of W.P. No. 42670/2002 and found that the petitioner had previously stated that he consented to the acquisition, that an award had fixed compensation at Rs. 1,25,000 per acre, and that the compensation had been paid.

That petition sought allotment of four sites and was withdrawn in 2002.

The Court concluded that the petitioner knew of and had participated in the acquisition, and had deliberately omitted the earlier proceedings from the present petition.

It also found that he had waited nearly 13 years after withdrawing the earlier petition before challenging the acquisition notifications.

Those findings were sufficient to deny relief, without deciding whether the acquisition had substantively lapsed under Section 24.

It dismissed the writ petition; no relief was granted.