Karnataka High Court
Smt Marlingamma vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13917 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MARILINGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
W/O. LATE LINGAIAH
2. SRI. PUTTARAJAIAH .L
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O. LATE LINGAIAH
DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS
2a SMT. MUNIRATHNA
W/O. LATE PUTTARAJAIAH.L
AGED 50 YEARS
2b. MAHENDRA
S/O. LATE PUTTARAJAIAH.L
AGED 27 YEARS,
VN BOTH ARE RESIDING AT:
BADIGER NO.12, GROUND FLOOR,
3RD MAIN, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANAPURA POST,
Digitally BENGALURU- 560 097.
signed by V N
BADIGER
Date: 3. SRI. PUTTASWAMY .L
2025.01.29 AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
15:13:13
+0530 S/O. LATE LINGAIAH
4. SRI. NARAYANA .L
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O. LATE LINGAIAH
5. SRI. KAMALAMMA .L
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
D/O. LATE LINGAIAH
6. SRI. SHIVALINGAIAH .L
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O. LATE LINGAIAH
7. SRI. L. RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O. LATE LINGAIAH
ALL ARE R/AT NO 296,
1ST BLOCK, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
PEENYA, BANGALORE-58.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.N.PHANIDRA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. B. RAMESH,
ADVOCATE FOR P1, P2(A&B), P3 TO P7)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B. R. AMBEDAKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
PODIUM BLOCK
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS,
BENGALURU.
4. RAILWAYMEN'S HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD.,
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT
HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT SOUTH
WESTERN RAILWAY INSTITUTE BUILDING
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
M.G. RAILWAY COLONY,
BENGALURU - 560023.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. SRI. B. S. LAKSHMAPPA
S/O. H. SANJEEVAPPA,
AGED YEARS
BUILDING CONTRACTOR
S N ESTATE,
GOKULA EXTENSION,
BANGALORE-560054.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R5 - DELETED)
------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDERS OR
DIRECTIONS, QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.LAQ(1)
SR10/88-89 DATED 05.08.1988 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA
GAZETTE DATED 25.08.1988 I.E., ANNEXURE-'C' AND THE FINAL
NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT BEARING NO.RD 170 AQB 84 (3) DATED
31.08.1989 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 31.08.1989 I.E.,
ANNEXURE-'G', INCLUDING THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER
SECTION 16(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT DATED 30.04.1999
PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETEE DATED 06.05.1999 I.E.,
ANNEXURE-'Q' AND THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 23.07.1999
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AT ANNEXURE-'Q-1' AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
THE LAND IN SY.NO.1062/2 OF MALLTHAHALLI VILLAGE I.E., THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND TO DECLARE THAT, THE ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING
SY NO.106 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 3-00 ACRES SITUATED AT
MALLATHAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BENGALURU
NORTH TALUK PURSUANT TO THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION
DATED 25.08.1988 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 31.08.1999 IS
LAPSED IN VIEW OF THE SECTION 24(2) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 13.01.2021 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
The petitioners are assailing the notification
dated 05.08.1988 (Annexure-C), Final Notification
dated 31.08.1989 (Annexure-G) and notification dated
30.04.1999 (Annexure-Q) published in the Karnataka
Gazette dated 06.05.1999 and Official Memorandum
dated 23.07.1999 (Annexure-Q1) and sought for
quashing of all further proceedings in respect of the
subject land interalia to declare that acquisition
proceedings being lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (for short, Act, 2013).
2. It is the case of the petitioners that, the
petitioners are the absolute owners in possession of
the land bearing Sy. No.106/2, measuring 03 acres,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
situate at Mallathahalli village, Yashwanthpur
Bangalore North Taluk. It is stated that, the
petitioners are having a factory named as
"Navarathna Granites", and a portion of the land is
being cultivated in the schedule property. It is stated
in the petition that, husband of the petitioner No.1
and father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 7-late Lingaiah,
had purchased the schedule property as per registered
Sale Deed dated 12.11.1984 (Annexure-B) and
thereafter, the revenue records transferred into the
name of the father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 7. The
petitioners have produced the RTC extracts and tax
paid receipts as per Annexure-B series. When the
things stood thus, the respondent-authorities have
issued Preliminary Notification dated 04.08.1988
(Annexure-C) under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, and Final Notification dated 31.08.1989
(Annexure-D) under Section 6(1) of Land Acquisition
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
Act, proposing to acquire four items of the land in
favour of the respondent No.4-Society. It is stated
that, land bearing Sy.No.106 of Mallathahalli village,
which is a subject land in this writ petition belonging
to the petitioners and it is a part of the said land is
sought to be acquired by the respondent authorities as
per impugned notifications. It is stated in the petition
that, the respondent No.4-Society has indulged in real
estate business involving middlemen to grab the land
and also have agreement with the private contractors
and other unscrupulous persons to acquire the land
property illegally. It is stated in the writ petition that,
certain criminal cases have been filed against the
office bearers of the respondent No.4-Society, as per
Annexure-G1 and also it is reflected in G.V.K. Rao
Committee report that the respondent No.4-Society is
being acting illegally and in furtherance of the same,
the State Government has appointed Administrator as
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
per Annexure-H. It is also stated in the writ petition
that, an enquiry has been conducted insofar as
administration of the respondent No.4-Society and
therefore, it is contended that the impugned
acquisition proceedings has been issued by the
respondent-authorities to help the respondent No.4-
Society. It is further case of the petitioners that,
though the notifications have been issued for
acquisition of the land, however, respondent-
authorities have not taken possession of the land in
question and therefore, contended that, impugned
notifications have become lapsed due to efflux of time.
It is further stated in the writ petition that, the
petitioners have received notice dated 28.12.2007
(Annexure-N) issued by respondent No.4-Society
calling upon the petitioners to vacate the schedule
land and thereafter, respondent No.4-Society
threatened the petitioners for having not vacate the
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
schedule property and as such, the petitioners have
filed suit in OS No. 1274 of 2008, seeking relief of
declaration with consequential relief of injunction
against the respondent No.4. It is also stated in the
writ petition that, the possession of the schedule land
is with the petitioners only despite the same, the
respondent-authorities have issued Notification dated
30.04.1999 (Annexure-Q) issued under Section 16(2)
of Land Acquisition Act, to substantiate that they have
taken possession of the land in question. It is also
stated in the writ petition that, no enquiry has been
conducted under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition
Act, and the show-cause notice dated 29.10.2007
(Annexure-T) was issued by the Government of
Karnataka to the respondent No.4-Society for having
not taken possession of the land in question, would
establish that the possession is with the petitioners.
The Bangalore Development Authority (for short, BDA)
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
also addressed letter dated 28.07.2008 (Annexure-V)
to the Government to drop the acquisition proceedings
on the ground of not taking possession of the land in
question. Hence, it is the case of the petitioners that,
as the petitioners are in possession of the land in
question and acquisition proceedings has not reached
finality for having taken possession of the land in
question and also as the Government is willing to drop
the acquisition proceedings, the petitioners have
presented this petition challenging the impugned
notifications, as lapsed under Section 24(2) of Act,
2013.
3. I have heard Sri. K.N.Phanindra, learned
Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. B. Ramesh;
Sri. Guruswamy K., learned AGA appearing on behalf
of respondent-State and Sri. Saravana .S, learned
counsel for the appearing for the respondent No.4.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
4. Sri. K.N.Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners drew the attention of the
court to the Preliminary Notification issued by the
respondent-authorities, proposed for acquiring the
schedule property, bearing Sy.No.106, showing the
extent of land as 10 acres, however, land bearing
Sy.No.106 comprises only 03 acres of the land and
therefore, learned Senior Counsel submitted that, the
acquisition proceedings have been initiated to help the
respondent No.4-Society. He also refers to the Final
Notification, wherein, extent has been shown as 03
acres, in Sy. No.106/2 which makes it clear that the
intention of the respondent-authorities to help the
respondent No.4-Society. Referring to the
irregularities committed by the respondent No.4 in
connivance with the land grabbers in the vicinity,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that, the petitioners have filed OS No.1274
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
of 2008 against the respondent No.4-Soceity.
Emphasizing on these aspects, Sri. K.N.Phanindra,
learned Senior Counsel referred to Annexures-T and V,
and argued that, the Government has addressed letter
to the respondent No.4-Society along with the report
of spot inspection conducted by the Land Acquisition
Officer of BDA, wherein, respondent- Government has
abandoned the acquisition proceedings and as such,
sought for quashing the impugned notifications.
5. Per contra, Sri. Saravana .S, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 sought to
justify the impugned notifications and argued that,
award is passed on 05.09.1991 (Annexure-R4) and
possession was delivered to the respondent No.4-
Society on 20.11.1998 (Annexure-R5) and as such, he
contended that the land in question is in possession of
respondent No.4-Society and work for formation of
layout in the schedule land has been commenced and
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
therefore, contended that the writ petition deserves to
be dismissed.
6. Sri. Guruswamy, learned AGA appearing for
the respondent-State reiterates the averments made
in the statement of objections and contended that, as
the notification under Section 16(2) of Land
Acquisition Act is passed on 06.05.1999 in respect of
the subject land is concerned and accordingly, sought
for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that the petitioners are the owners in
possession of the schedule land as the father of the
petitioner Nos.2 to 7 had purchased the land bearing
Sy No.106 of Mallathahalli Village to an extent of 03
acres of land as per registered Sale Deed dated
12.11.1994 (Annexure-A). Revenue records stands in
the name of the petitioners after the demise of their
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
father. It is forthcoming from the writ petition that,
respondent-Government has issued Preliminary
Notification dated 25.08.1988 (Annexure-C) under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and sought to
acquire four items of the land in favour of respondent
No.4-Society. In the Preliminary Notification, the
extent of land in respect of Sy. No.106 was shown as
10 acres, and same was rectified in Final Notification
dated 31.08.1989 (Annexure-D) as to an extent of 03
acres. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that
an Administrator was appointed to look into the mal-
administration of the respondent No.4-Society. It is
also evident from Tripartite Agreement 25.06.1987
(Annexure-E), wherein the respondent No.4 has
entered into agreement with private persons in
respect of 65.32 acres of land of Malathahalli village.
It is also not in dispute that, the respondent-
Government has issued notifications under Section
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
16(2) of Land Acquisition Act on 06.05.1999
(Annexure-Q) in respect of land bearing Sy. No.106,
however, the nature and survey number of the
schedule land was changed and new survey number
was assigned as Sy. No.106/2. In the backdrop of the
argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners that the possession of
the land in question has not been taken, and as such,
I have carefully given my anxious consideration to the
RTC extracts produced at Annexure-W series, which
would establish the fact that the name of the
petitioners is entered in RTC Extracts. That apart, the
State Government has issued show-cause notice dated
29.10.2007 (Annexure-T) to the respondent No.4-
Society for utilization of the land in question in
furtherance of the impugned notifications and also the
letter dated 28.07.2008 (Annexure-V) addressed by
BDA to the Government expressing about non-taking
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
of possession of the schedule land by the respondent
No.4-Society. The observation made in the letter at
Annexure-V, demonstrates that the petitioners are in
possession of the land in question even as on
28.07.2008 and in that view of the matter, I am of the
opinion that, as the impugned notifications are issued
during the year 1988, however, possession of the land
in question has not been taken, as per Annexures-T
and V, till the year 2008. Though the learned counsel
respondents substantiate about taking possession by
the respondent No.4-Society, however, the said
arguments would run counter to Annexures-T, V and
W. and therefore, I am of the opinion that, the
impugned notifications are liable to be quashed in
respect of the land in question.
8. It is also pertinent to mention here that, this
Court by order dated 03.12.2024 and 10.12.2024
directed the learned AGA to secure the relevant
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
records pertaining to deposit of compensation in
respect of the subject land in the Civil Court and in
furtherance of the same, affidavit of the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru was filed wherein, it is
stated that, the compensation is deposited before the
State Treasury and not before the Civil Court. It is
also not forthcoming from the said affidavit as to
issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of Land
Acquisition Act to the land owners/claimants.
Therefore, I find force in the submission made by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
that possession of the schedule land has not been
taken in furtherance of the impugned notifications and
also no deposit has been made before the Civil Court
as required under Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act.
9. It is also to be noted that, though the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued
on delay and laches on the part of the petitioners,
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
however, same cannot be accepted in the
circumstances of the case as the possession has not
been taken and compensation is not deposited before
the Civil Court. In the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of the
Dharnidher Mishra (D) and another vs. State of
Bihar and others reported in 2024 10 SCC 605, the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondents relating to delay and laches in filing the
petition cannot be accepted. It is also relevant to cite
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another vs.
Bimal Kumar Shah and Others reported in AIR
2024 SC 2819. Paragraphs 28 to 31 reads as under.
28. These seven rights are foundational components of
a law that is tune with Article 300A, and the absence of
one of these or some of them would render the law
susceptible to challenge. The judgment of this Court
in K.T. Plantations (supra)13 declares that the law
envisaged under Article 300A must be in line with the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
overarching principles of rule of law, and must be just,
fair, and reasonable. It is, of course, precedentially
sound to describe some of these sub-rights as
'procedural', a nomenclature that often tends to
undermine the inherent worth of these safeguards.
These seven sub-rights may be procedures, but they do
constitute the real content of the right to property
under Article 300A, non- compliance of these will
amount to violation of the right, being without the
authority of law.
29. These sub-rights of procedure have been
synchronously incorporated in laws concerning
compulsory acquisition and are also recognised by our
constitutional courts while reviewing administrative
actions for compulsory acquisition of private property.
The following will demonstrate how these seven
principles have seamlessly become an integral part of
our Union and State statutes concerning acquisition and
also the constitutional and administrative law culture
that our courts have evolved from time to time.
30. Following are the seven principles:
30.1. The Right to notice: (i) A prior notice informing
the bearer of the right that the State intends to deprive
them of the right to property is a right in itself; a linear
extension of the right to know embedded in Article
19(1)(a). The Constitution does not contemplate
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
acquisition by ambush. The notice to acquire must be
clear, cogent and meaningful. Some of the statutes
reflect this right.
(ii) Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section
3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
Property Act, 1952, Section 11 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section
3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 are examples of
such statutory incorporation of the right to notice
before initiation of the land acquisition proceedings.
(iii) In a large number of decisions, our constitutional
courts have independently recognised the right to
notice before any process of acquisition is commenced
14.
30.2. The Right to be heard: (i) Following the right to a
meaningful and effective prior notice of acquisition, is
the right of the property-bearer to communicate his
objections and concerns to the authority acquiring the
property. This right to be heard against the proposed
acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham.
(ii) Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition
of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 15 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
and Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956, are
some statutory embodiments of this right.
(iii) Judicial opinions recognizing the importance of this
right are far too many to reproduce. Suffice to say that
that the enquiry in which a land holder would raise his
objection is not a mere formality.
30.3. The Right to a reasoned decision: i) That the
authorities have heard and considered the objections is
evidenced only through a reasoned order. It is
incumbent upon the authority to take an informed
decision and communicate the same to the objector.
(ii) Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section
3(2) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
Property Act, 1952, Section 19 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section
3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, are the
statutory incorporations of this principle.
(iii) Highlighting the importance of the declaration of
the decision to acquire, the Courts have held that the
declaration is mandatory, failing which, the acquisition
proceedings will cease to have effect.
30.4. The Duty to acquire only for public purpose: (i)
That the acquisition must be for a public purpose is
inherent and an important fetter on the discretion of
the authorities to acquire. This requirement, which
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
conditions the purpose of acquisition must stand to
reason with the larger constitutional goals of a welfare
state and distributive justice.
(ii) Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Sections 3(1) and 7(1) of the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections
2(1), 11(1),15(1)(b) and 19(1) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section
3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 depict the
statutory incorporation of the public purpose
requirement of compulsory acquisition.
(iii) The decision of compulsory acquisition of land is
subject to judicial review and the Court will examine
and determine whether the acquisition is related to
public purpose. If the court arrives at a conclusion that
that there is no public purpose involved in the
acquisition, the entire process can be set-aside. This
Court has time and again reiterated the importance of
the underlying objective of acquisition of land by the
State to be for a public purpose.
30.5. The Right of restitution or fair compensation: (i)
A person's right to hold and enjoy property is an
integral part to the constitutional right under Article
300A. Deprivation or extinguishment of that right is
permissible only upon restitution, be it in the form of
monetary compensation, rehabilitation or other similar
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
means. Compensation has always been considered to
be an integral part of the process of acquisition.
(ii) Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Sections 8 and 9 of the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section
23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013, and Sections 3G and 3H of the National
Highways Act, 1956 are the statutory incorporations of
the right to restitute a person whose land has been
compulsorily acquired.
(iii) Our courts have not only considered that
compensation is necessary, but have also held that a
fair and reasonable compensation is the sine qua non
for any acquisition process
30.6. The Right to an efficient and expeditious
process: (i) The acquisition process is traumatic for
more than one reason. The administrative delays in
identifying the land, conducting the enquiry and
evaluating the objections, leading to a final declaration,
consume time and energy. Further, passing of the
award, payment of compensation and taking over the
possession are equally time consuming. It is necessary
for the administration to be efficient in concluding the
process and within a reasonable time. This obligation
must necessarily form part of Article 300A.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
(ii) Sections 5A(1), 6, 11A, and 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 6(1A) and 9 of the
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property
Act,1952, Sections 4(2), 7(4), 7(5), 11(5), 14,
15(1), 16(1), 19(2), 25, 38(1), 60(4), 64 and 80 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
and Sections 3C(1), 3D(3) and 3E(1) of the National
Highways Act, 1956, prescribe for statutory frameworks
for the completion of individual steps in the process of
acquisition of land within stipulated timelines.
(iii) On multiple occasions, upon failure to adhere to the
timelines specified in law, the courts have set aside the
acquisition proceedings.
30.7. The Right of conclusion: (i) Upon conclusion of
process of acquisition and payment of compensation,
the State takes possession of the property in normal
circumstances. The culmination of an acquisition
process is not in the payment of compensation, but also
in taking over the actual physical possession of the
land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not
complete. With the taking over of actual possession
after the normal procedures of acquisition, the private
holding is divested and the right, title and interest in
the property, along-with possession is vested in the
State. Without final vesting, the State's, or its
beneficiary's right, title and interest in the property is
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
inconclusive and causes lot of difficulties. The obligation
to conclude and complete the process of acquisition is
also part of Article 300A.
ii) Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Sections 4 and 5 of the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections
37 and 38 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, and Sections 3D and 3E of the
National Highways Act, 1956, statutorily recognise this
right of the acquirer.
iii) This step of taking over of possession has been a
matter of great judicial scrutiny and this Court has
endeavoured to construe the relevant provisions in a
way which ensures non-arbitrariness in this action of
the acquirer 20. For that matter, after taking over
possession, the process of land acquisition concludes
with the vesting of the land with the concerned
authority. The culmination of an acquisition process by
vesting has been a matter of great importance. On this
aspect, the courts have given a large number of
decisions as to the time, method and manner by which
vesting takes place.
31. The seven principles which we have discussed are
integral to the authority of law enabling compulsory
acquisition of private property. Union and State
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
statutes have adopted these principles and
incorporated them in different forms in the statutes
provisioning compulsory acquisition of immovable
property. The importance of these principles,
independent of the statutory prescription have been
recognised by our constitutional courts and they have
become part of our administrative law jurisprudence.
10. Following the declaration of law made by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, I am of
the opinion that, though the impugned notifications
have been issued during the year 1988, however,
same has not been given effect to and not
implemented the same by the respondent authorities
and as such the respondent-authorities have
abandoned a scheme of acquisition in respect of the
subject land and accordingly, the acquisition
proceedings have become lapsed for the reasons
stated above. In the result, I pass the following:
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3964
WP No. 13917 of 2008
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) Preliminary Notification dated 05.08.1988
(Annexure-C), Final Notification dated
31.08.1989 (Annexure-G) and Notification dated
30.04.1999, published in the Karnataka Gazette
dated 06.05.1999 (Annexure-Q) and Official
Memorandum dated 23.07.1999 (Annexure-Q1)
are hereby quashed as the acquisition
proceedings has lapsed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1
[ad_1]
Source link