Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for an extent of Ac.4.16 guntas of land comprised in Survey No.148 of Nustulapur village, Karimnagar District, by setting aside Memo No.D/2060/93, dated 24-11-1998 issued by respondent No.2. This case has got a chequered career. An extent of Ac.4.16 guntas in Survey No.148 of Nustulapur village, Karimnagar District, is claimed by the petitioner as belonging to his family and inherited by him from his mother Smt.Kethiri Gopamma W/o.Raghava Reddy. About thousand acres of land was acquired along with the land in Survey No.148 for the purpose of construction of Lower Maneru Dam. Notification dated 10-8-1979 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). The case of the petitioner is that in the said notification, an extent of Ac.3.28 guntas in Survey No.148 was notified for acquisition showing the name of the mother of the petitioner-Smt.K.Gopamma as pattadar. On 3-12-1983 the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award, wherein he, inter alia, stated that out of the extent of Ac.4.16 guntas in Survey No.148, only an extent of Ac.0.28 guntas was notified for acquisition; that during the Award enquiry Smt.Thalla Komaramma W/o.Narsaiah, claimed ownership of the temple along with Ac.0.05 guntas of land; and that there appeared to be an error either in the requisition or in the survey report in getting the correct area of this survey number adopted. It is further mentioned in the Award that for the remaining area Sri Kethiri Balreddy (petitioner herein) is the claimant and that as the area for which he claimed compensation has not been notified, passing of Award was deferred in respect of the said land along with the land claimed by Smt.Thalla Kumaramma. The petitioner lateron filed Writ Petition No.9070 of 1993 for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation for the land in respect of Survey No.148 admeasuring Ac.4.16 guntas. The petitioner lateron filed Writ Petition No.9070 of 1993 for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation for the land in respect of Survey No.148 admeasuring Ac.4.16 guntas. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 12-6-1997, disposed of the said Writ Petition with the direction that the petitioner shall file an application before the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and if such an application is filed for payment of compensation, they shall consider the same and pay the compensation for the land actually belonging to him and acquired, if he is otherwise eligible. Complaining that the said order has not been complied with, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.529 of 1998, which was disposed of on 25-6-1998 with the direction to the respondents to pass an Award within two months, failing which the petitioner is entitled to seek recalling of that order. After the petitioner filed an application for recalling the order on the ground that no order was passed by the respondents, respondent No.2 issued the impugned Memo, dated 24-11-1998. In view of the same, the Contempt Case was closed, giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said Memo. Thus, this Writ Petition came to be filed, wherein the legality and validity of the said Memo has been called in question. Heard Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In the impugned Memo, dated 24-11-1998, respondent No.2 stated that a perusal of the record shows that the initial notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued for an extent of Ac.3.38 guntas in Survey No.148 and the same was published in the A.P. Gazette on 10-8-1979; that due to variation in the area, passing of Award was deferred in respect of Survey No.148 in Award No.6/83-84 dated 3-12-1983; and that based on the survey report dated 2-8-1984 and on compilation of phodi work it was found that an extent of Ac.1.01 guntas existed in Survey No.148, out of which Ac.0-13 guntas was occupied by Z.P. road, Ac.0.27 guntas is the left over land in Survey No.148/1 and Ac.0.01 gunta is the left over land in Survey No.148/2. It is, therefore, stated that only an extent of Ac.0.28 guntas in Survey No.148 was required and that Errata Notification was issued, which was approved by the Government in its Memo No.1976/LAR(1)/83-1, Irrigation (PW) Department, dated 5-1-1984 and the same was published in A.P. Gazette No.64, dated 9-2-1984, which amounts to withdrawal of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of Survey No.148. It is further stated that after publication of Errata Notification, Award was passed on 3-1- 1985 in Award No.6/84-85 for an extent of Ac.0.28 guntas in Survey No.148, out of which Ac.0.26 guntas belonged to the petitioner; that the petitioner appeared in the Award enquiry and received compensation for Ac.0.26 guntas without raising any objection with respect to the extent of the land; and that after a lapse of eight years he filed Writ Petition No.9070 of 1993 for payment of compensation. It is also stated in the said Memo that after disposal of the Contempt Application, survey was again conducted on 23-10-1988 and the above mentioned extents were recorded in the survey report, which was confirmed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar; and that Supplementary Setwar for 1350F of Nustulapur village had shown the actual area of Survey No.148 as Ac.1.01 guntas instead of Ac.4.16 guntas. At the hearing, Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the statement in the Award dated 3-12-1983 that 4(1) notification dated 10-8-1979 notified only an extent of Ac.0.28 guntas is incorrect. He also submitted that no Errata Notification has been supplied to the petitioner. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is no doubt true that the Award passed in the year 1983 had not shown the correct extent notified in the Gazette notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 10-8-1979, but, in my considered view, this has no consequence, whatsoever, because of the fact, which is not denied by the petitioner, that an Errata Notification was issued subsequently, in pursuance of which Award was passed on 3-1-1985 for an extent of Ac.0.28 guntas. Though in the impugned Memo it is categorically stated that the compensation amount for Ac.0.26 guntas was received by the petitioner, he did not make a specific denial of the same in his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. Though in the impugned Memo it is categorically stated that the compensation amount for Ac.0.26 guntas was received by the petitioner, he did not make a specific denial of the same in his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner had already received compensation for Ac.0.26 guntas of land in the year 1985 and kept quiet till the year 1993 when he filed Writ Petition No.9070 of 1993. The petitioner has not raised a whisper about passing of the Award in the year 1985 and his receiving the compensation amount under the said Award. In my opinion, non-mentioning of the said fact cannot be taken as a inadvertent mistake because the petitioner filed Award dated 3-12-1983 in order to show that no amount has been awarded. Therefore, the petitioner deliberately did not file copy of the Award passed in the year 1985 and suppressing this material fact, he has been indulging in litigation since the year 1993 by coming out with misleading statement that no compensation was awarded to him. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558 , the Supreme Court upheld the objection raised on behalf of the respondents that the appellant was guilty of misstating the facts and revoked the leave by making the following observations: "It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Art.136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterizes as misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked." In Welcome Hotel and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. AIR 1983 SC 1015 , the Supreme Court held that a party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and others v. Governor of Karnataka and another AIR 1991 SC 1726 , the Supreme Court declined relief to the appellant who had concealed the fact that the award was not made by the Land Acquisition Officer within the time specified in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act on account of interim stay order passed in a writ petition. While dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed: "Curiously enough, there is no reference in the Special Leave Petitions to any of 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 Art.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. It is well settled in law that the relief under Art.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." In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others JT 1993 (6) SC 331, the Supreme Court held that where a preliminary decree was obtained by playing fraud on the Court in-as-much as a vital document was withheld in order to gain advantage on the other side, such party deserves to be thrown out at any stage of the litigation. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even if the conduct of the petitioner, as mentioned above, is ignored, when the petitioner has received the compensation under Award No.6/84-85 dated 3-1-1985, it would have been open to him to make an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference of the dispute relating to measurement of the land to the civil Court. For the reasons best known to him, he did not avail the said remedy. Having thus not invoked the appropriate remedy at appropriate time, the petitioner indulged in speculative litigation after lapse of considerable time. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.