Karnataka High Court
Sri Chikkanna G vs State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2025
-1-
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 272 OF 2018 (LA-UDA)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.5917 OF 2021 (LA-UDA)
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 272 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI CHIKKANNA G
S/O LATE GIRIGOWDA,
PETITIONER NO.1 IS DEAD
PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF
DECEASED PETITIONER NO.1
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.12.2024
2. SRI.SULOCHANAMMA W/O G.CHIKKANNA,
R/AT #2664/A, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, K.G.KOPPAL,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU-570009
3. SRI.MOHAN KUMAR C
S/O CHIKKANNA,
Digitally
signed by V R/AT #2664/A, 2ND CROSS,
N BADIGER
Location:
2ND MAIN, K.G.KOPPAL,
HIGH SARASWATHIPURAM,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MYSURU-570009
DHARWAD
BENCH
DHARWAD 4. SRI.CHETHANA
W/O MOHAN KUMAR C,
R/AT #2664/A, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, K.G.KOPPAL,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU-570009.
-2-
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
5. SRI.JAGAN C
S/O CHIKKANNA G,
R/AT #2664/A, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, K.G.KOPPAL,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU-570009.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJARAMA SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570005,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANAND ADV., FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED
NIL BEARING NO.PRA.BHU.SWA/85-86 PUBLISHED IN THE
KARNATAKA OFFICIAL GAZETTE DATED 25.06.1987, BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION INSOFAR
AS SCHEDULE LANDS BELONGING TO THE PETITINOERS IS
CONCERNED; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
-3-
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING FINAL
ST
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT BEARING NO.VANA
E 274 MIB 88, BANGALORE, DATED 25.06.1988 PUBLISHED IN THE
KARNATAKA OFFICIAL GAZETTE DATED 25.06.1988 AT ANNEXURE-D
TO THE WRIT PETITION INSOFAR AS SCHEDULE LANDS BELONGING
TO THE PETITINOERS IS CONCERNED; DECLARE THAT THE SCHEME
AND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
PERTAINING TO BOGADI VILLAGE LAYOUT WHICH HAS RESULTED IN
ISSUANCE OF FINAL NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-D HAS LAPSED
INSOFAR AS SCHEDULE LANDS BELONGING TO THE PETITIOENRS IS
CONCERNED.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5917 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI. PUTTAIAH
S/O LATE GIRIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT:79 YEARS,
R/AT #2664/A, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, K.G.KOPPAL,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU-570009.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJARAMA SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570005,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
-4-
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANAND ADV., FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED
NIL BEARING NO.PRA BHU SWA/1985-86 PUBLISHED IN THE
KARNATAKA OFFICIAL GAZETTE DATED 25.06.1987, AT ANNEXURE-B
TO THE WRIT PETITION INSOFAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY
BELONGING TO THE PETITINOER IS CONCERNED; ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BEARING NO.VANA E 274 MIB 88, BANGALORE, DATED
25.06.1988 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA OFFICIAL GAZETTE
DATED 25.06.1988 AT ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION
INSOFAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITINOER
IS CONCERNED; DECLARE THAT THE SCHEME AND ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO BOGADI
3RD STAGE EXTENSION LAYOUT WHICH HAS RESULTED IN ISSUANCE
OF NOTIFICATIONS AT ANNEXURE-B AND C HAS LAPSED INSOFAR
AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIOENR IS
CONCERNED.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 07.01.2021 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In these writ petitions, petitioners are assailing the
Preliminary Notification dated 25.06.1987 and Final Notification
dated 25.06.1988 inter alia sought for relief that the acquisition
proceedings has become lapsed in respect of the subject lands.
2. Since common question of law and facts are
involved in these writ petitions, both the writ petitions were
heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. Facts in W.P.No.272/2018:
3.1. It is the case of the petitioners that the land
bearing Survey No.220, measuring 39 Guntas out of 01 Acre 33
Guntas and land bearing Survey No.221 measuring 2 Acre 26
guntas of Bogadi village, Mysore Taluk, are the joint family
properties of petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.1 is in
possession of the lands in question. It is further stated in the
petition that, as per the partition deed dated 20.03.2013 land
was divided amongst petitioner No.1, 2 and 5 and an extent of
39 Guntas was allotted to the share of the petitioner No.1.
Further it is stated that as per partition deed dated 28.10.2013,
-6-
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
an extent of 1 Acre 10 Guntas out of 2 acres 10 Guntas in
Survey No.221/2 was divided amongst petitioners No.1 to 4. It
is also stated that as per partition deed dated 28.10.2013,
remaining extent of land measuring 1 Acre in Survey No.221/1
was partitioned amongst petitioners No.1, 2 and 5 and land
bearing Survey No.220 of Bogadi village, wherein 39 Guntas of
land was sub-divided as Survey No.220/2 and land bearing
Survey No.221, wherein land to an extent of 2 Acres 10 Guntas
was sub-divided as Survey No.221/1 and as such, the
petitioners have produced RTC extracts for the period from
1986-87 to 1990-91 as per Annexure-A series to substantiate
their rights in respect of subject land.
3.2. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the
respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter
referred to as “MUDA”) proposed to acquire the land belonging
to the petitioners for the purpose of formation of Bogadi layout
at Mysore and as such, issued Preliminary Notification under
Section 16(1) of the City of Mysore Improvements Act, 1903
(for short “the 1903 Act”) on 25.06.1987. Thereafter, the
respondent-authorities have issued Final Notification under
Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities
-7-
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) on 25.06.1988. It is also stated
in the writ petition that the respondent-MUDA have not
proceeded with the acquisition proceedings, no compensation
has been paid to the petitioners and further, the possession of
the schedule land remains with the family of the petitioners.
The petitioners have also produced photographs of the schedule
land as per Annexure-E series. It is further stated in the writ
petition that the petitioner No.1 has made an application to the
respondent-MUDA with regard to seeking details about the
acquisition proceedings referred to above and as such, the
respondent-MUDA issued Endorsement dated 07.11.2017
(Annexure-F and G series) stating that the acquisition
proceedings was not continued and possession of the land in
question has not been taken. It is the contention of the
petitioners that the respondent-MUDA ought to have passed
award within two years from the date of Final Notification and
as such, the award has not been passed, and therefore, the
petitioners have sought for quashing the acquisition
proceedings. It is also stated in the writ petition that the
petitioners were served with notice under Section 12(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act on 10.01.2020 (Annexure-J and K) and
-8-
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
general award was passed accordingly. The petitioners have
produced Annexure-L series wherein the respondent-MUDA
have deposited the compensation under Section 31(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act before the Civil Court. It is the grievance
of the petitioners that as the respondent-MUDA have not taken
possession of the land in question and the petitioners herein
are in possession of the land in question and as no
compensation has been paid till date and further award notice
was served after 32 years from the date of acquisition
proceedings and therefore, the acquisition proceeding become
lapsed as the scheme was not implemented as the land
belonging to the petitioners has not been utilised by the
respondent-MUDA. Hence, the petitioners have presented this
writ petition.
4. Facts in W.P.No.5917/2021:
4.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is
the owner in possession of the land bearing Survey No.220 of
Bogadi village, Mysore Taluk to an extent of 33½ Guntas out of
1 acre 33 Guntas and the land has been phoded as Survey
No.220/1 measuring 17 Guntas, Survey No.220/5, measuring 8
-9-W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021Guntas and Survey No.220/6, measuring 8.08 Guntas and his
brother-Chikkanna got remaining 39½ Guntas of land. It is the
case of the petitioner that the revenue records stand in the
name of the petitioner and accordingly, produced RTC extracts
at Annexure-A series. It is stated in the petition that the
respondent-MUDA proposed to acquire the land for the purpose
of formation of Bogadi village layout and accordingly,
Preliminary Notification was issued on 25.06.1987 followed by
Final Notification dated 25.06.1988 produced at Annexure-B
and C respectively. It is further stated in the writ petition that,
no award was passed within the stipulated period nor
compensation has been paid to the petitioner. It is further
stated that petitioner is in lawful possession of the land in
question. When the things stood thus, the respondent-MUDA
have issued notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition
Act dated 10.01.2020 stating that the general award has been
passed. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the award
notice has been issued after more than three decades and
therefore, the impugned acquisition proceedings are liable to be
quashed in respect of the subject matter of the land in
question. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner has
– 10 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
received notice from the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division)
at Mysore in LAC No.16/2020 with regard to quantification of
the compensation to be payable to the petitioner. The
petitioner has presented this writ petition on the ground that
the award notice has been issued after three decades and there
is no implementation of the scheme by the respondent-MUDA
substantially and therefore, presented this writ petition
challenging the acquisition proceedings.
5. I have heard Sri.Rajarama Sooryambail appearing
for the petitioner and Sri. T. P. Vivekanand learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-MUDA. Sri. Manjunath K, learned
HCGP appearing for respondent-State.
6. Sri. Rajaram Sooryambail learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners contended that though the
acquisition proceedings has been initiated during 1987,
however, notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act
was issued on 10.01.2020 and therefore, since the award
notice has been issued beyond reasonable period that too, after
32 years from the date of issuance of Preliminary Notification
and further compensation has been deposited on 29.06.2020
– 11 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
before the Civil Court beletedly, and as such, it is argued that
the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed as has
become lapsed.
6.1. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners that the possession has not been taken by
the respondent-MUDA and petitioners are in possession of the
land in question as on today and therefore, referred to the
endorsement issued by the respondent-MUDA as per Annexure-
F that the respondent-MUDA have abandoned the scheme of
implementation of acquisition. Accordingly, sought for
interference by this Court.
6.2. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioners by referring to paragraph 8 of the statement of
objections filed by respondent-MUDA that the respondent-
MUDA themselves admits that award notice was issued
belatedly and compensation was deposited before the Civil
Court after 32 years and therefore, the acquisition proceedings
are liable to be quashed. It is the principal submission of the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the
respondent-MUDA have not utilised the land in question and
– 12 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
further no steps have been taken to take possession and
implement the scheme by allotting site and therefore, he refers
to the photographs attached to the petition and submitted that
the writ petitions are required to be allowed.
6.3. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners refers to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development
Authority v. Sukhbir Singh and others reported in AIR
2016 SC 4275 and in the case Pune Municipal Corporation
and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others
reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and in the case of Banagalore
Development Authority v. Anandarama Reddy and others
in W.A.No.1013/2016 disposed of on 04.02.2020 and argued
that the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed in
respect of the subject matter of the land in question.
7. Per contra, Sri. T. P. Vivekanand appearing for the
respondent-MUDA submitted that the writ petitions are liable to
be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and further
scheme has been implemented substantially by the
respondents and in this regard he refers to the judgment of this
– 13 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
Court in the case of the Mysore Urban Development
Authority and another v. Chikka Boraiah (Dead) by LRs in
W.A.No.5961/2003 disposed of on 12.01.2011 and in the case
of Bore Gowda v. Mysore Urban Development Authority in
W.P.No.32177/2002 disposed of on 03.02.2012 and contended
that a very same notification was called in question and this
Court has held that the scheme has been implemented
substantially and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ
petitions.
7.1. Further, it is contended by Sri. T. P. Vivekanand
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MUDA that delay
in passing award notice and to deposit the compensation was
on account of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “ULCAR Act”) by the
competent authority and therefore sought to substantiate the
action of the respondent-MUDA. It is also contended that as
some pockets of land in question was not taken possession on
account of the pending proceedings under different enactments
and therefore to substantiate the action of the respondents
about delay in passing the award. Accordingly, sought for
dismissal of the writ petitions.
– 14 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
7.2. Learned counsel also invited the attention of this
Court to the additional statement of objections filed in the writ
petitions and contended that the action of the respondent-
MUDA is just and proper and therefore, argued that no
interference is called for insofar as acquisition proceedings are
concerned.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the
Preliminary Notification was issued on 25.06.1987, proposed to
acquire the land for the purpose of formation of Bogadi layout
at Mysore and the Final Notification came to be issued on
25.06.1988. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners herein
are the owners of the lands in question and the award notice
has been issued on 10.01.2020 under section 12(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act and the compensation has been deposited
before the Civil Court at Mysore on 29.06.2020. It is the case of
the petitioners that the possession of the lands in question was
not taken and award notice was issued after more than three
decades.
– 15 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
9. On the other hand, it is the contention of the
respondent-MUDA that the scheme of acquisition was
implemented substantially and same was confirmed by this
Court in W.A.No.5961/2003 disposed of on 12.01.2011 and in
W.P.No.32177/2002 disposed of on 03.02.2012. In the
backdrop of these aspects, I have carefully examined the delay
in issuing of the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act. Though the proceedings were initiated under
the provisions of ULCAR Act, however there was no impediment
for the respondent-MUDA to issue notice under Section 12(2) of
the Land Acquisition Act and to deposit the compensation
before the competent Civil Court immediately after the
initiation of acquisition proceedings. The respondents ought to
have issued General award within the reasonable period and
not beyond three decades.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (supra) has held that delay
in deposit of compensation under Section 31(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act amounts to procedural lapse and in the present
case, the award notice was issued after inordinate delay of 32
years and compensation was deposited thereafter and
– 16 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners. In the case of Delhi
Development Authority (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court at
paragraph 22 held as follows:
“22. A cursory reading of these paragraphs will show
that it is only pursuant to judicial orders that the
State wakes up from its slumber. It is important to
note that a notice of award under Section 12(2) to
persons interested can only be issued after money is
received by the Land Acquisition Collector, and that
the said Collector shall not take possession of land
unless and until compensation amount is received by
him. Further, actual payment to land owners must be
made latest within a period of 60 days. It is high time
that the State realizes that persons whose property is
expropriated need to be paid immediately so as to
rehabilitate themselves. Also, it cannot be forgotten
that the amount usually offered by way of an award
of a Land Acquisition Collector under the 1894 Act is
way below the real market value, which is only
awarded and paid years later when the reference
proceedings culminate in judgments of the High
Courts and of this Court.”
11. The Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.1013/2016 has held that if the scheme of acquisition is
not implemented substantially and the petitioner still continues
– 17 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
to be in possession of the land acquired therein and no action
has been taken by the respondents to take possession of the
land in question, hence, the acquisition proceedings would
become lapsed. Taking into account the aforementioned
judgments rendered in favour of the petitioners/claimants
therein, though the learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the scheme of acquisition has been upheld in
W.A.No.5961/2003 and in W.P.No.32177/2002, however, in
those cases, this Court allowed the plea made by the
respondent-MUDA that the layout has been formed and sites
have been formed in respect of the subject land in those cases
refers to the subject land in Writ Appeal and Writ Petition.
Admittedly, in the present petitions, no possession was taken
by the respondent-MUDA even according to them and that
apart, award notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition
Act was passed after 32 years and therefore, the submission
made by the learned counsel for the respondent-MUDA cannot
be accepted.
12. This Court in the case of Mrs. Poornima Girish vs.
Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka and
– 18 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
Others reported in ILR 2011 KAR 574, at paragraph 8 held
as follows:
“8. Having heard Sri. Krishnappa, Learned Counsel
for the petitioner and Sri.Abdul Khader, Learned for
the respondent – Authority on merits, it is found that
the situation is one which is irredeemable and
irretrievable for the Authorities as the Authority by its
own inaction and letharginess has allowed the
acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner is
concerned lapse. Therefore, the acquisition
proceedings in terms of the Preliminary Notification
under Section 17 of the Act and Final Notification
under Section 19 of the Act are hereby quashed only
insofar it relates to the land in possession of the
petitioner in terms of the report now placed before
the Court according to which the petitioner is in
possessions of site measuring 40 feet by 60 feet.”
13. The aforementioned judgment of the learned Single
Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeal No.4824 of 2010 disposed of on 01st March, 2014. It is
also relevant to cite the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority vs.
State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2018 KAR
2144, wherein at paragraphs 5 to 8 held as follows:
– 19 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
“5. It is no longer res-integra that power conferred on
any authority be exercised reasonably and reasonable
exercise of power includes exercise of the same within a
reasonable period. An acquisition proceeding once
initiated has to be completed by passing an award and
paying compensation followed by taking over possession
within a reasonable period. This has to be strictly
followed even in the absence of any statutory limit
prescribed for passing of award and completing the
acquisition proceedings. In this regard, reliance can be
placed on the judgment in the case of RAMCHAND &
OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS1. The Apex
Court has laid down in para 14 as under:
“14. The Parliament has recognised and taken
note of the inaction and non-exercise of the
statutory power on the part of the authorities,
enjoined by the provisions of the Act to
complete the acquisition proceedings within a
reasonable time and because of that now a
time-limit has been fixed for making of the
award, failing which the entire proceeding for
acquisition shall lapse. But, can it be said that
before the introduction of the aforesaid
amendment in the Act, the authorities were at
liberty to proceed with the acquisition
proceedings, irrespective of any schedule or
time-frame and to complete the same as and
when they desired? It is settled that in a
statute where for exercise of power no time-
1
1994 (1) SCC 44
– 20 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
limit is fixed, it has to be exercised within a
time which can be held to be reasonable. …”
6. In the case of TUKARAM KANA JOSHI & OTHERS
THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER vs. M.I.
D.C. AND OTHERS2, the Apex Court has, while dealing
with the issue of legal obligation on the part of the
authorities to complete such acquisition proceedings and
to make payment of requisite compensation has
observed in paras 17 & 18 as follows:
“17. The appellants have been seriously
discriminated against qua other persons,
whose land was also acquired. Some of them
were given the benefits of acquisition, including
compensation in the year 1966. This kind of
discrimination not only breeds corruption, but
also dis-respect for governance, as it leads to
frustration and to a certain extent, forces
persons to take the law into their own hands.
The findings of the High Court, that requisite
records were not available, or that the
appellants approached the authorities at a
belated stage are contrary to the evidence
available on record and thus, cannot be
accepted and excused as it remains a slur on
the system of governance and justice alike,
and an anathema to the doctrine of equality,
which is the soul of our Constitution. Even
under valid acquisition proceedings, there is a2
AIR 2013 SC 565
– 21 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
legal obligation on the part of the authorities to
complete such acquisition proceedings at the
earliest, and to make payment of requisite
compensation. The appeals etc. are required to
be decided expeditiously, for the sole reason
that, if a person is not paid compensation in
time, he will be unable to purchase any land or
other immovable property, for the amount of
compensation that is likely to be paid to him at
a belated stage.
18. While dealing with the similar issue, this
Court in K. Krishna Reddy & Ors. v. The
Special Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition
Unit II, LMD Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh,
AIR 1988 SC 2123, held as under:
“….After all money is what money buys.
What the claimants could have bought
with the compensation in 1977 cannot
do in 1988. Perhaps, not even one half
of it. It is a common experience that the
purchasing power of rupee is dwindling.
With rising inflation, the delayed
payment may lose all charm and utility
of the compensation. In some cases, the
delay may be detrimental to the
interests of claimants. The Indian
agriculturists generally have no
avocation. They totally depend upon
land. If uprooted, they will find
themselves nowhere. They are left high
– 22 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
and dry. They have no savings to draw.
They have nothing to fall back upon.
They know no other work. They may
even face starvation unless rehabilitated.
In all such cases, it is of utmost
importance that the award should be
made without delay. The enhanced
compensation must be determined
without loss of time...."
7. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
SRI.H.N SHIVANNA AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE
OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER3, has held as follows:
“39 ………….As held by the Apex Court in Ram
Chand‘s case, two years is held to be a
reasonable time within which a final declaration
has to be issued, if there are no hurdles placed
in the acquisition by the land owners or if there
are no hurdles in law. …………………… Even in
the absence of any such prescriptions
expressly under the statute, having regard to
the fact that the right to property is a
constitutional right and the person whose land
is sought to be acquired is entitled to
compensation at the market rate, such a
compensation has to be paid to him at the
earliest and therefore, the power of acquisition
should be exercised within a reasonable time3
2013 (4) KCCR 2793 (DB)
– 23 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
so that the person who lost the land is duly
compensated at the earliest point of time.”
8. In the present cases, though final notification was
issued in the year 1971 so far, neither award has been
passed nor possession has been taken over by paying
compensation. Therefore, the acquiring body has
neither exercised its powers in a reasonable manner nor
has it completed the acquisition proceeding within a
reasonable period. Hence, acquisition having been
abandoned stands lapsed on account of omission and
commission on the part of the CITB/BDA in respect of
writ petitioners/respondents’ herein in so far as the land
is concerned.”
14. Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of
Jayalakshmamma and others v. The State of Karnataka
and others in Civil Appeal No.13785/2024 (arising out of SLP
(C) No.12362/2022) at paragraph 10 to 13 has held as follows:
“10. In our considered view mere passing of an
award on 21.04.1986 did not absolve the
respondents of their statutory obligation to offer
fair and just compensation to the expropriated
land owners. Denial thereof is directly in the teeth
of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
11. That apart, the respondents have miserably
failed to show any provision either under the CITB
Act or under the 1894 Act, which can enable them
to withhold the payment of compensation
– 24 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
endlessly, which would comprise of over 34-35
years in the instant case. Non-payment of
compensation, in the given facts and
circumstances of this case, in our considered
opinion, has vitiated the subject acquisition and
the same is liable to be quashed. Ordered
accordingly.
15. Though the above judgment is passed under Article
142 of the Constitution of India, however, the said judgment is
passed against the very same respondent herein-MUDA and
therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is also to be noted that
this Court in W.P.No.38509/2017 disposed of on 14.11.2017
under similar circumstances quashed the acquisition
proceedings as against the very same respondents herein on
the ground that the possession of the land in question has not
been taken and compensation has not been paid thereunder.
16. Taking into consideration the factual aspects on
record, as no document has been produced by the respondent-
MUDA for having taken possession of the land in question and
therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. In the
result, I pass the following
– 25 –
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
ORDER
i) The writ petitions are allowed.
ii) The Preliminary Notification dated
25.06.1987 and Final Notification dated
25.06.1988 and all further proceedings with
regard to the petition schedule properties
are hereby quashed.
iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
[ad_1]
Source link