ORDER : 1. Since the review application in W.P. No. 8330 of 2007 and W.P. No. 13401 of 2008 are inter related and as the fate of W.P. No. 13401 of 2008 depends upon the outcome of the review application, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these two cases by way of this common order. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the review petitioners, Sri Ravi Cheemalapati for the respondents (writ petitioners in W.P. No. 8330 of 2007), Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.I.I.C. and Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the Baba Atomic Research Centre and Sri K. Aravinda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 13401 of 2008 apart from perusing the material available on record. 3. The review application is filed by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam District and the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), A.P.I.I.C. Visakhapatnam District, seeking review of the judgment dated 27.04.2007 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8330 of 2007 and W.P. No. 13401 of 2008 is filed, questioning the draft notification issued by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) vide Rc. No. 1691/06/G2 dated 27.05.2006, proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner, admeasuring Ac. 1-60 cents in Sy. No. 373 (Part) situated in Nagavaram Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District for Baba Atomic Research Centre through A.P.I.I.C. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the review petition are as follows: 5. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam issued a draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act vide proceedings in Rc. No. 1691/06/G2 dated 27.05.2006, proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners situated in Sy. Nos. 378 and 379 of Nagavaram village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam district for Baba Atomic Research Centre through APIIC. By invoking the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act, the enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with. Assailing the same, the respondents in the review filed W.P. No. 8330 of 2008, principally contending that the authorities grossly erred in dispensing with 5-A enquiry by invoking Section 17 (4) of the Act. This Court, by way of an order dated 27.04.2007, set aside the draft declaration dated 03.04.2007 while directing to hold 5-A enquiry. Assailing the same, the respondents in the review filed W.P. No. 8330 of 2008, principally contending that the authorities grossly erred in dispensing with 5-A enquiry by invoking Section 17 (4) of the Act. This Court, by way of an order dated 27.04.2007, set aside the draft declaration dated 03.04.2007 while directing to hold 5-A enquiry. Seeking review of the said order dated 27.04.2007 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8330 of 2007, the present review application has been filed. 6. In present review, it is vehemently contended by the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.I.I.C. and Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for Baba Atomic Research Centre that the authorities conducted 5-A enquiry after issuing notices to the petitioners much prior to the filing of the writ petition and they also participated in the enquiry on 11.09.2006 and submitted objections also, and having done so, the writ petitioners suppressed the same and filed W.P. No. 8330 of 2007 on 19.04.2007. It is also submitted that as the writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission, this factual aspect could not be brought to the notice of this Court and as a result of the same this Court passed the order under Review, as such, the order is liable to be reviewed. It is also contended that the said aspect is an error apparent on the face of the record. 7. It is the settled principle of law that the Courts are meant for the persons who bona fidely prosecute their cases with clean hands. The person approaching the Courts by suppressing the material realities and pleads fallacies are not entitled for any relief and the case based on such iniquitous foundations are liable to be rejected. In order to ascertain the ground realities, this Court asked the learned Government Pleader to produce the records and the learned Government Pleader produced the records and the record so made available clearly and manifestly show that in pursuance of notices dated 07.08.2006 issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the writ petitioners participated in the enquiry on 11.09.2006 and filed objections also and this Court has also noticed the signatures of the petitioners on the objections which are tallying with their signatures on the Vakalath filed before this Court. These facts noticed by this Court are sufficient to order review of the order in W.P. No. 8330 of 2007. 8. Coming to W.P. No. 13401 of 2008, where the same draft notification is under challenge, the principal contention advanced in this case is that in view of non-issuance of the draft declaration within two years from the draft notification dated 27.05.2006, the entire proceedings have lapsed. In this writ petition, this Court granted status quo order on 26.06.2008. As this Court is inclined to review the order in W.P. No. 8330 of 2007, the draft declaration dated 03.04.2007 stands revived, as such, the very foundational contention in this writ petition does not merit consideration and it is accordingly rejected. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the review W.P.M.P. (SR) No. 64023 of 2007 in W.P. No. 8330 of 2007 is allowed and W.P. No. 8330 of 2007 is dismissed and consequently W.P. No. 13401 of 2008 is also dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.