Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009

[Cites 25, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009

Equivalent citations: 2009 (6) AIR KANT HCR 279, 2010 A I H C 507, AIR 2010 (NOC) (SUPP) 1253 (KAR.), (2010) 2 KANT LJ 397, (2010) 3 ICC 330, (2009) 3 KCCR 2199

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit

 

.. 1 ..
IN THE H1GH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE  Y OF MAY 2009

PRESENT

Ti-{E HONBLE MR. P.D. DENAKARAN, CHIEF   *' 

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE \/.~,Cr. SA$HAH1T..¢'   '

WRIT APPEAL NO. 19?9j_goo7"iL}x'BDA:)"  

BETWEEN:

I.

3.

. Sri M.Nagaraj, S/0 1at_e'S__ri  

Sri M.Maridev,S/0 late Sri Munivappia,  A  "
Aged about 58 years.    

Aged about 51 years.

Sri 2\/I.Ra1nar3vwrat1:1'V)V.r',*'S/oiiate  Muuiyappa,
Aged about 44 yea1'S;V..  .  .

. Sri KrishnapVt).a,'S_/ o late 'é:1'i.C:3}xi1_{t1{at11ayappa,

Aged about 60 years.

Appellants "1 to 4  reéivtiing at

 $39.22, v.::'si:.1\/Latin Road, Sm cross,
" AvHoSaha'll:?, B'anga1o.;'e~40.

SAM'. ,pi1ip::'<';u;:n;i;r;..s';:.o Sri Modi Ram,
Aged _about 39' ytea.t*s,."

.' Smt. vi:'na1a.1..'I'<im»;;::-1, W/0 Sri M.Di1ip Kumar

44Aged about 35; years.

sg1;m.ohar Lal, S/o Sri Modi Ram,

"Age.--¢1'abo.ut 52 years.

 f3hanthi1'.)evi, W/o Sri Manohar Lal, 

~ Aged' about 50 years.

 



-2-

9. Sri Ashok Kumar, S/o Sri Modi Ram,
Aged about 41 years.

10.Smt. Meera Bai, W/o Sri Ashok Kumar,
Aged about 39 years.

Appellants 5 to 10 are residing at

2nd cross, B.H.Road, Magadi Road,
Kernpapura Agrahara, Bar1galore-56O 023.
Appellants 5 to 10 are

represented by their duly

constituted Power of Attorney

Holder Sri T.N.Jayaraj Gowda,

'S/o Sri Nijagundaiah, Aged about 48 years;

Residing at No.49, Satyanarayana Layout, R' _ _
3rd Stage, 4"? Block, Basaveshwaranagara,--------- _ 
Bar1ga.lore--560 079. V j  'V _   V» 

 ~  ; APPELLANTS

(By Sri.Padrnanabha Mahaﬂe, Sr. Advocate  L;a'\fJ"Associates)

AND:

' 1. State of Karnataka " 

Representedivby i-ts A   

Principal Secretary to C':oir'c2f'nIIie~nt',"«. 

Urban Developrneyntl Department,

1VIulti- Storeyed Building, V liir.B';_R.Arnbedkar Veedi,
Ba11galore§56(}.0()1.  A.

2." The Bangalore 'Development Authority,
T.Chowdaiah._Rcra(}, Ku_mara Park West,
Bangalore 560 "020,  . V V 
Represented by  Commissioner.

R713. The Special Land'Acquisition Ofﬁcer,

i"~,.T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West,

4" it " Bangalore 560 020,

 Rep,resente,d by its Commissioner.

RESPONDENTS

 Sri, I-"iasavaraj Karreddy, GA for R1; Sri U Abdul Khader, Advocate for

h '  . _ __R2"8§R3) 

   



...3-

This writ appeal is ﬁled under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in the writ
petition No.85-340/2003 dated 21.03.2007.  

This writ appeal coming on for orders, having  
and reserved for pronouncement of judgment, this day;-. the"'C'ouif't----., ~

pronounced the following:

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by P.D.Dinakarain, Aggrieved by the order dated"-21.3.200'7 to it quash the preliminary notif1:cationi'da.tedii--982"Vand the final notification dated respondent herein, in so far which were acquired bjt Development Authority, of Nagarbavi 11 stage Housing Schiernje, the Writ petitioners in w.p.No.83g1o,'2oo3 i1.a_§ei ﬁled the above writ appeai.

2.:*--Ffo1'__the,_ipurpose of convenience the parties are referred ,to--.ias.Vpe"Ij ranking in the Writ Petition.

3. Tifieviiiundisputed factual matrix of the case are:

_ 4 -

(i) The petitioners-1 to 3, who are the legal heirs of Muniyappa, the erstwhile original owner oflhthe impugned land, did not question the acquisiti'on_jVof impugned lands viz., land measuring 3 acres" i total extent of 3 acres and 28 guntaa situated at Malagaiu vi11ag'e-,__ Yesl1yifanthap'iL1ura_v_i.I-Iogbli, Bangalore North Taluk, itheivpuifpose of formation of Nagarbhaizii.V:iI_ Scherne of the 2nd respondent. i_ herein H notiﬁcation dated 15.ofz.i:1 lriadvvlllliculrninated in final notificat'ion--.Tciaite:dfi.; award was also l i

(ii) On veriﬁ_cation_ deeds' original records produced by is "fo«u.n_d' that a notice was issued to the ori.ginaI;v..4o'wv1ier--Muniyappa and {he did not choose to acquisition proceedings and one S.M. izvho was the owner of Sy.No.55, filed a Writ "i:I_?etition chailenging the acquisition proceedings in wi.P.No.2272/1987, which came to be dismissed on

- 5 -

16.06.1995. Being aggrieved by the same, W.A.No.2055/1995 was filed and the same'.'p:.'"was dismissed on 10.01.1996 and therefore, the proceedings have become final. The been"

passed and possession of land h:asAfjvbeeri._'take'n__ on.' 12.7.2002 and handed me: t'd 'the f Department of BDA on 18.7.2009:.'

(iii) Petitioners-5 to purchasers of the impugned lands underfa isdle deed dated 13.3.1991 the legal heirs of erstizJhilc--.o:§:;rne:r:':.; of lands.

(iv) have chosen to challenge the prelimxiiiiary do.t1f1edden dated 15.07.1982 and ﬁnal " ~.notifi3catiAonv.._dated'3308,1986 after more than 20 years.

4, writ petitioners:

if The impugned acquisition proceedings are vitiated as it no. notice was served on the petitioners as Adicointemplated under Section 17 of the Bangalore

iii) V 'i*J)_ ... 5 ..

Development Authority Act (for short "the B.D.A. Act");

The impugned acquisition is bad in law _ Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act-'(foe "the W L.A. Act") as the award was piasseldon after 11 years, while the preliminary' notifica'ti.on was -. * passed on 15.7.1982 notificatifon was passed on 05.08.1'V98f>l§p.. _ it 1 The petitio;c=1e'r.s fare ¥contii'1u'ing to. Iqeflin possession of impugned Vhvsipetitioigers are still in actual possession land and no notification was issiied 16(2) of the L.A. Act; and Ei_:'mpiigne'ciA..l#i.ousing Scheme got lapsed, as the implemented within ﬁve years, as .'Ateo£uireeiti'jimVder Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act. The decaslioﬁnl in DJVARAYANAPPA vs. THE STATE or it » KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSING 85 . _. AN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, -7- BANGALORE & OTHERS (ILR 2005 KAR 295) is relied upon in this regard.

5. The writ petition was resisted by the respond_ent-- State and the authorities on the ground that:

(i)

(ii) the petition is not rnaintainable in_vieW:fofi"iachesi4 V 2 on the part of the petitioners';

Since the erstwhile ownezjs ofi despite service of ValidV_s:tat.1f:o_ry notice on them, had not chosen acquisition proceedings the Iegai representatiyeis erstwhile owners namely petitioriersérli lost the right to challenge pépgjthei. impiignedii acquisition proceedings and A therefofev, the contention that no notice was served per Section 17 of the B.D.A. Act fails. Coriseéiuently, the petitioners--5 to 10, who are " Vivdpsuijsequent purchasers, also have no right to i i "challenge the acquisition proceedings." -8- Even though the preliminary notiﬁcation was passed on 15.7.1982, the final notificationl,:iyvas_ passed on 05.08.1986 and the award _ on 27.05.1997, the same by itse1f~Vcannot.::beV ground to vitiate the proceedings as Section =]_._1 of applicable to the impugne-d_ procee'din_gis xiéirhich is governed under _pi-'_ov;i_siVonsfofthe B.D.A. Act, as per thew-decis:ion'» Court in the case __ 4' STATE or '66 "€5,f1'l'iVEl.R'S"i*2il()02(3) SUPREME 1]; Since the en'trievsl'rnade in the revenue records Vshowe§"~thatVthei'*vCi?¢"~'"respondent had already taken ?C9_s.session of""the impugned land, the same is V V' hold that the respondents had already A Jitaken"possession of the impugned lands; and AsV__Athe possession had already been taken by the V " -_ and that major portion of the land acquired for the Housing Scheme had already been laid into

6. After careful consideration ofv°the"riV'al c'o:r.litentVi'ons, the learned Single Judge by his order cialtec15[.21.3.g:2.§)AO:"/"

... 9 ...

several house sites and disposed off to the third parties, the same is substantial implementationgof the scheme and there is no violation of of the B.D.A. Act.

in the Writ Petition No.8340/2003 thusf'

(i) That as the original khatedarsg were not available at the addressesVV_{oL1nd'__l therevenue records, and on fencgtiijf i1or'3:».e'"'of 'th_e"-neighbours knew the addresses',_n_otices'Were [served on their respective lanicis anti» thereﬁyrel, the same is a proper .g..;jco1*z1pliaIi'ce:Vtlnder Section 17 of the B.D.A. Act and it zviheevrever the addresses of original khatedars V"Th...viwe1"e_"_vavai'lable, notices under Section 17 of B.D.A. served on them.

' '_ That despite official gazette notiﬁcation and

-- 'publication of preliminary and final notifications _ ..

dated 15.07.1982 and 05.08.1986 respectively, the original owner had not chosen to challengethe impugned acquisition proceedings at approplriaoei time. The failure on the part of the " i to challenge the preliminary notiii'ije3a:tion passed on 15.7.1982.'-and the'l"fina},"notiﬁcat;ion passed on 05.08.1986, their legal representatives, to 4 as Well as on the petitioners.-V~5v:tofA thllhe subsequent petitioners-

1Vvi*L'o"4.. 4 V _ That" preliminary notification was passedplonVV'l5i.i'?V.i'19l82 and final notification was on "O5.,.Q8'.1986 and the award was passed ' =Von,:127';i(l:S;.1997, of-course, after a lapse of 11 same by itself would not Vitiate the impugned acquisition proceedings as Section 11 of Act is not applicable, as per the decision of _ 11 ..

Apex Court in MUMTHI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS /2002(3) SUPREB/§E:.:i1*§... That out of the total extent of land in _ viz., 604 acres and 23 guntas, it 'w acquisition relates to only 7.: acres:'ar1d 34- As per the official reco_rds,i'~tlie V pio'Vssejssion..i3 of impugned land has _rvesp:ondents and non--issuance--ii-sf Section 16 (2) of L.A.4_£:ct woi1ld- vitiate the impugried__ Tl"1Aat"rnagnitude of the impugned Housing 'Sch~:~_':mei enter an extent of 604 acres and which, the 2nd respondent had i * Dfc-rmed a layout over an extent of 564 i' ,__i4iiiiacres'vit:iiarid 39 guntas of land, thereby, forming hoiiise sites in Block N'os.1 to 14 and disposed the 1381116 to Various allottees, the same amounts to substantial implementation of the scheme -12- satisfying the requirement under Section 27 of B.D.A. Act, as per the ratio rendered-.._:i'iin BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHO;R1Ti?Ai'ejj1?s;t.. DR. H.s.HANUMANTHAPRAHm(1LR 199eTj};A'R:542} i' ~ and DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITE (ILR QAR; if. 1258); and That in any preliminary nOtiﬁcatiO3;~.x;;Tas pasiéeta and the final notiﬁeatgiiguﬁz,1%/ s.i:':?assed..':--4Vgj1;i'i OS';68.198e and the petitierieis..._Iiiaveﬁ-piiosen to challenge the after a lapse of nearly 20 "jﬁyears, is liable to be dismissed on the laeiies, as per the decision in HARI OTHERS vs. STATE 01-' U.P. AND [1984(2) SCC 624] and in the case of OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS vs. V" "b.R.LAxM:t AND OTHERS [1996 (6) sec 445}. KMSHNAMURTHT 4iB.ANG}IIV}:@RFe_:i -13-

7. Based on the above ﬁndings, the learned Single dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present 8.1. Mr. Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior,' Counsel -. appearing for the appellants and Advocate General and Mr. Abdul _4Khader,»« learn-ed:'coufj.sel appearing for B.D.A. reiterated thelVl'i'submissionls before the learned Single Judge.

8.2. That apart, Mr. Padm.an_a.b1'ia Senior Counsel invited when some portion of the acquired impugned l to one S.M.Kannaiah located irtgthe. same. number, was denotiﬁed by the Gevttetnmefnttty-.i:,viet,der dated 05.10.2007, the refusal to de-noitify"i.._thé* :"'impt{,ighed land is arbitrary, unreasonable, i'v1',discrimina'tor3tand violative of Article 14 of the Constitution .,,"_gg.

-14- 8.3. Per contra, the iearned Advocate General, however, produced the proceedings of the Government dated 23.03.2009, withdrawing the de~notiﬁcation orde:*,':'da;ted_, 05.10.2007 in respect of the Land belonging to and therefore, the Government has tak,reria'iiniforrn _istand'.*-C

9. We have heard the }earned«.__couns_e1 anidiigiven four careful consideration to the submissions -nj1ade"oy_ 'both sides.

10. Upon the above rival issues arise for our: 0

(i) Whether acquisition proceedings is ivitiatedior.ﬁnon4--.co'1iip1iance of Section 17(5) of the passing of award after 11 years A the impugned acquisition proceedings 'P ."~"«.__V{iii) Whether the nonmissuance of notification under it Tffsection 16(2) of the LA. Act in the official gazette as to the taking of possession of the impugned

(iv) (Vi) ...15...

land by the respondents vitiates the impugned acquisition proceedings?

Whether non--formation of the .

impugned land Vitiates the__impugr;_edi"acquisition-_ ii' proceedings as per Section ofitiive 77.:

Whether the above Wi'itv°'petition__is_ur11a.i'nta:1nab1e " it both on the groiirid 1ocus.ista:adi..v:and (b) laches? and A i V it Whether _ the impugned land is arbitrary, and violative of Art.ic1e 14-. of « th.e"C_on stjtution?

11. 1. Issue-,__ No.I°':_ Whet.her'~ the 'inipugiied acquisition proceedings is vitiated._i_for,:rio_n»comp1iance of Section 17(5) of the .... ....

11.2. It is apt to refer to Section 17 of the B.D.A. Act which reads as hereunder:

"I 7. Procedure on completion of scheme3"(t)'_~ r it When a development scheme has been prepared,' L"

Authority shall draw up a nott'ficatiort--stating factx ' A' of a scheme having been made and 'ilirniits "of'ihe area comprised therein, and..__naming_ 'o1ac.e"l'wiiere particulars of the scheme, a of the area lcoiiiprised therein, a statement.,,.f9«be6Z}ﬁ5iﬂ;€llt.:'thee,lqml lwhiclth is proposed to be acqzii'r-ghld.a,5;{'v(}fi;,ihe"'Eggs: inregard to which a betterment Vtax-vmay beplevielld be seen at all hhhh (2/).:;>€{ lthe"sat'dl.hot.Q;ication shall be sent to7the" within thirty daysﬁom the ofrelceip'tAhAthejreojhf forward to the Authority for griminsmission V "to the Government as hereinafter lllpretreiaetl, and} representation which the Corporation it " » .n2a_ylthi}2kifit_to make with regard to the scheme. V. Azithorizy shall also cause a copy of the satdnotiﬁcation to be published in the Official Gazette ,, ; Rand aﬂixed in some conspicuous part of its own office, «the Deputy Commissioner 's Oﬂice, the oﬂice of the -17- Corporation and in such other places as the Authority may consider necessary.

(4) If no representation is received ﬁ"o_r;n"thef_~ ;. Corporation within the time specified in subf_s'ection"

(2), the concurrence of the Corporationto 'theyschemei shall be deemed to have been given.' ' I (5) During the nu'r:y~«tii:y,s nest:;rq1tawiin;¥=nlé"' 3 day on which such, notification-is'"published.in..tthe oﬂicial Gazette the rfuihoriity %{_shall'~ .a notice on every person V whose n_ame,VuppeL;,,s.-- 'in'. the nssessment list of the 'Seoul authority orAi'inj_"-.the_:?and revenue register"'us'_«beingi*_Vpritnuriér to pay the property tax; or innit re}{entie"'nss'essnten_t any building or land i.€«v._propose&t...t_a-- be acquired in executing thescheme ..;_5r{,ii: lregttrd to which the Authority proposes to .re'co:}~e_r betterment tax requiring such "~7personVv to show. cause within thirty days from the date A C ofZthe.receipt of the notice why such acquisition of V or land and the recovery of betterment C ' not be made.

(6) The notice shall be signed by or by the order " I 4_ ofthe Commissioner and shall be served,-

(a) by personal delivery or, if such person is absent or cannot be found, on his agent, or if no -18- agent can be found, then by leaving the same on the land or the building; or (1)) xxx xxx xxx (cjxxx xxx xxx 11.3. Sub~sections (1) and (3) of B.D.A. Act referred to above conteir1'p1ates 'that mesj ino.tif1cation "

for development scheme has to same shall be notified in the officiaiii the fact of the scheme, the limits ofthe of the area comprised and to be acquired; the said gazette notification shaii in some conspicuous part of the offit§e"of the "B,_D.i;q_,"-the/. office of the Corporation and sttchiiiothier :ii']o?1at:ec/._vwhere the authority may consider it necesisa1'y__an'd no complaint by thepetitioners in this i

1.._é}i'.jiA"A.'Section 17(5) of the B.D.A. Act referred to above icontexlofalates that the notification published in the ofﬁcial ... ..

gazette under Section 17(1) and (3) of the B.ZD.A. Act shall be served on every person whose name appears the assessment list of the local authority or as found i_n"the_* _ revenue register. It is not in dispute in the instantiicase that.' such notification as to the impugned acquisitiolizgwelre on the persons Whose name appealed in 'the assessjm.eVnt..3list -. ' of the local authority and who were___availah1e addresses as found in the land revenulellliregilsterrllh ll-ngcase of those persons who were not:'availa'b'1'e'.*in found in the assessment list land revenue register, n0tices».;xilerel on the land, which is also a valid of the B.D.A. Act.

11.5.:_Conlcie'det:llv,';.pet;itioners~1 to 4 who are the legal the"erstwhilehowherls and whose names were found in the = l;iet,"_j.. however, could not be found in the V7.Vifiad«dresses.u_showr1'the assessment list of the local authority the if land revenue register. It is under such V._'cir'cutns'tances, notices were served on the land, which is a

-22..

provisions under the B.D.A. Act to indicate the proposals for acquisition, considering the objections thereto, sanctioning the proposal for acquisition on consideration qf'-. such objections and if such acts do not take V "

place within a period of years proceedings would lapse. i'.S_'uprerne__'. » Court in several decisiori5 "where ifi-"ues?.fiori»f_3a of delay in the implementation of. proposals made Vurider ,i'h'e- for; purpose of completion Proceedings; occurs» " ' ﬁiew that if is the acqu coti_ldi._:be_ quashed, prior_to'~.the1ia«1iritrod_uction 6 and

--A the Act~«.prescribing limitation on'.the_ poizxershand.h_:ith.e,--time within which suchu"action taken. It would be a pégrnatter of. policy for the Legislature to éindicateé the time' within which such acts at i' = taken. In the case of B.D.A. Act, the nature and complexity of the'i:n.p=lementation of the scheme, a period of years has been fixed for purpose of it «completion of the scheme from the date of "issue of the notification under Section 1 9 of the RDA. Act on sanction of the scheme.

-23..

Therefore, when the Legislature itself has taken note of within what period the schemes have to be implemented and prescribes an authority thereto and alsc_:_*1 provides for as to what consequence would ._ " i follow on non--implementation the 'scheme . within that period, we do :;;.lm¢ Court can take a "ifie14? that implementation of the is way discriminatory.when"conipared to provisions Of the in both the provisions. ;:iroVz2ided,for".identical situation;---' begin {case more details the period within "i1ghich::t_ has to be issued_' [and which award has tobe case of the B.D.A. Act irnplementation ofthe scheme has been limited to'a.. peiiodnof 5 years as provided in liseic-iion..27 oflthé"B.D.A. Act. V V of the B.D.A. Act provides that l' fiuilthin a period of 5 years from the V dcite the publication in the official gazette it of the declaration under Section 19(1), the iauthority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and

- 24 -

the provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative. In the LA. Act certain period has been fixed which is considered to be reasonable within which the ﬁnal__;""' it notification will have to be issued award has to be passed anal-if's--u.ch it are done beyond the time, therein, the acquisition Vof.4landi"w_ili'« lapsefi AV.' 1 To the same eﬁect is Section it B.D.A. Act. Ifthe s.D.A. :A.ctiprovicles far years to be ireaﬁsonablsr 'periods _ for substantial compliance_ we cannotsitate sa'iti'_-p_ro'vision is the scherrieV.oJ**ﬂt.he as"'moa7.if'ied by the applicable by reason ofthe prov.isio'nsV_of.Sections 17, 18, 27 and 36 of the B.D.A. Act;

asicompliance of Section 27 of the B.D.A compliance of the impugned Housing :i_S'eheme,' dealt with, in the later portion of this g f.' ~«.,\§ r i123s%néﬁt- " 3 eeeeeeee II I. .

...25...

12.5. What is relevant for the present issue is, Whether the passing of the award after 11 years vitiates the impugned acquisition proceedings applying Section 1 1--A of the 12.6. The H0n'b1e Supreme Court in VS. STATE or KARNATAKA AND OTHERsiv_i":~.f2Q:Q2 {3} Supreme 9] While approving the Bench of this Court in Khoday .§Jistille'ri_e;~:'s es f. hereunder:

"15. So far--.._ia's_ tihe;_;/--ti\ct is concerned, it is not for-l~._rrLere acquisition "landj; _proz>sidie for the W"estapblisltmentS"-of S ibevelopment fittthorityVtofacilitateiand ensure a planned growth and. eeeeze-meet of the City of Apllﬁfangailorei and areas: adjacent thereto and °'of....lands, if any, therefor is A mvep§g;y4Vi"incidental thereto. In pith and ii lthe Act is one which will 1 ' ,_iilisqaarely}fall under, and be traceable to the op powers of the State Legislature under Entry .. siofi List II of the VIIth schedule and not a it ifflaw for acquisition of land like the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 traceable to Entry 42 of List III of the VIIth Schedule to the r""_?'"'§x -25- Constitution of India, the ﬁeld in respect of which is already occupied by the Central Enactment of 1894, as amended from time to time. lfat all, the B.D.A. Act, so far as--':--. C acquisition of land for its developmental activities are concerned, in substance and effect will constitute a special law --. for acquisition for the special purposes A the B.D.A. and the saméi'VV.tUas not'-also':

considered to par;i"lllof.l; Lana"

Acquisition Act, 18.94.,-.lt'~colitld be legitimately stated, _ ax readingillcfl Section 36 of th,e'B,_iii;A. ¥Act_ that"rthel.l'Ka_rVhataka Legisla"ture_V .th'c?_re'by ' to bind thernse'lv_es llito _ additions or a.i2iendfneiits,V l3uiliich~«.._inigl_it be made by altﬂgether legislature, be it the Pclrlisclzgniéﬂl, to lthesjgand Acquisition Act, I894. The procedure for acquisition under llthe>B.D.A. Act"i}is--a--vis the Central Act has analysed elaborately by the Division .'~.,'B€lTl1'l"_lfL,., aslnoticed supra, and, in our view, vegy' rightly too, considered to constitute a special and self--contained code of its own i «.,_and the B.D.A. Act and Central Act cannot "be said to be either supplemental to each other, or pari materia legislations. That

-27..

apart, the B.D.A. Act could not be said to be either wholly unworkable and ineffectual if the subsequent amendments to the Central Act are not also imported into__;"""i consideration. On an overall consideration"-._ of the entire situation also fITt'""C0u'lJ':'710_t'l either possibly or reasonably'-tgstcited' the subsequent amendments to the 'Centrali A . . Act get attracted or appli'ed"'--either any express provision or. "h,ecessai'y_gA intendment or implication {toil iarjquiisitions under the B.D.A. Act." Act, expressly pro vides; A ienacting the .._«--uil;ich the period of on ofgivhich alone the initiated thereunder shall lapse due toa_ny._hcI.eﬂiult, the different circumstances 'cr.nd.x_l..'period of limitation envisaged under the Central Act, 1894, as larriiended by theamending Act of 1984 for the proceedings on pain of lapse forever, cannot be imported into consideration for purposes of Act without doing violence to the it llikylanguage or destroying and defeating the "livery intendment of the State Legislature expressed by the enactment of its own *%::> }f 475 -28- special provision in a special law falling under a topic of legislation exclusively earmarked for the State Legislature. A scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for__§V_:W' implementation under the B.D.A. cannot be stultified or rendered"'ineffective and unenforceable by a proi;isioniA.i'n the"

Central Act, particularly' the' nature ,of . Section 6 and 1 1--A, whiciucannot also its own force have any------ appllicationaito... actions taken 'the' 1 Act.

Consequently, we _V 1Uh€ItSOe__U€i7"L '-in they the DivistO~n:'*~vBénch the Kﬂfftﬂttdlttt High Court l.td., case (.t?;ai'uprc':1l)i' ~ the applicability of Sections as amended and insetted byV'theA.CentraI Amendment Act of,1984=i= .. pfoceedings under the

- 213.?-D.A': ._Act. Vvllllfhe submissions to the on behalf of the appellant has whatsoever and do not commend for our acceptance."

(emphasis supplied) .. ..

12.7. In our considered opinion, therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Mani Thimmpdieihps case, referred to above, the impugned acquisition pr'oCeed.i:ngs is not vitiated on account of passing of award _<3¢fter:'~1 1"~.3.rears,'4 'w it as, whenever acquisition proceedingsgis tiriitiatepdi..underee.__th{:A B.D.A. Act, Section 1 1-231 of the LA. not 12.8. Issue No.11 is answered 13.1. Issue No.11: : J' A Whether non--is_suanc.ei--i:._of under Section 16(2) La. iii the official gazette as to of the impugned land by the A "i.respof1--de1<its hiﬁfiiétiates the impugned acquisition proceedings?

(2) of the LA. Act, as amended by the Acqu.isitioi1.iA{'Mysore Extension Amendment) Act of 1961, hereunder:

"16. Power to take possession.--- When the Cotlector has made an award under -30- Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances.

(1) Section 16 of the Principal shall be renumbered as sub-section {I}:_of. it that section, and after the_.sub+sec:-tioni" b Section Ofﬁcer re~numberecZ, thee '' subsection shall be added, 1 "{2} The fact si'£V¢hl."1?C!V~l_C:i'lngVfi possession be the Deputy Commissioner"l"i:n __the_'.:~Qfﬁcial Gazettetland shall [be e'vi€iencé4of4s'£teh fact. "

the "Collector" read "Deputy )i'_ » i . ' -Comniiissioner .

l """ " (emphasis supplied) :_:Bl.4Nafegyanappa vs. The State of Karnataka 0rsi"{,I_iIeR 20e75'KAR.2é5) and V.Gunda Reddy vs. The ~«.i.Sec_:i-e,tary, 'Department of Revenue and others (ILR 2005 the learned single Judge of this Court held that absence of taking actual possession of the Eand \e}¢''__,...,- "

.....31.....

acquired, even the issuance of notiﬁcation under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act is not sufficient to hold possession has been taken over by the BDA. regard, the learned counsel for the appellants'/"'pe_tition'ers,: "' placing reliance on the decision in D. Naraj/an'apipa"s_icase'"ariéji V. Gunda Reddy's case, content';-isV""that a-sithe v A' have not even issued a notifficationp.und.ern.Section_1p6V(V§) of the LA. Act in the instant casegiithe'appellants / petitioners are in continuous possession' of A above, the made 3. reference to the decision of Ape:~3 the case of BALWANT NARAYAN§f'iBHAGDE._i_Vi$i'S. it M.D.BHAGWA'I' AND OTHERS [("19.7e{) :1. Ezooequivalent to AIR 1975 sc 1767].

-V 13.42.: Narayan Bhagde's case, the Apex The so--called paper possession or "possession on paper is no delivery of ....-»~--«.\ ....32...

possession, actual, formal or symbolical. A Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Rajamannar, C.J. and Rajagopala Aiyangar, J. had stated at page 762 in the case of Pethaperumal Ambalam v. Chidaxnbaram Chettiar:

The next question is whether V makes any difference in legal '7 if possession is taken C. Court. The Code conte"1nplatesV__noVV notice to the judgmentlidebtor that stage or ob_}ec1iion_ raised by him to ~lthei'j'deliVeir3i_'.:~.§Ii'_\ possessio1i:punde;_r ' or 'Rule 95, title to the propei'ty from the Vjudgnrient-debto':il the auction g'~i*.:purchaser';he_has no interest in the 'A propeptyvto protect.

'' . "Alt further been pointed out: characterisation of possession _li""~taken under Order 21, Rule 96, as 'A "paper possession" is hardly justified and runs counter to the

-33..

principle on which the provision is based. Symbolical possession obtained under Order 21, Rule 96 is quite a different thing from paper possession, which might correctly~--~-- describe only the possession '7 obtained by a party who being if entitled to actual poss:e~sVsion'," they judgrnent~debtor hirnself' - being if I possession, obtains V ' " « . p of possession on paper possession; gr without requisites.' V false returns i's.'vVV.11_fiade«_' if.' they were corn plied V " --~ .,

22. ltlWou1dVthu_si be 'seen that a symbolical or l"forri'i'al deliifery of possession as understood in effect of dispossessing the judgnient~rlebtor from his right title or interest

-V in property. It does not dispossess the V. vipereson "in actual possession in his own right if pi."noVt,_iiable to be evicted under the decree or in pursuance of the auction sale. A symbolical or -34- formal delivery of possession against the juclgment--debtor is giving of actual possession of the property in the eye of law and has the effect of dispossessing him although as_---:.aﬂ' matter of fact he may have succeeded»,.

resuming back possession as Ibefore "

after dispossession.

23. In a proceeding the acquisition of Iand a1l"'interests" ai'eVl"w_iped loutl"

Actual possession of the for its use, for the public-p'ur'po'se it has been of possessioniu . 'cannot be "symbolical'"e' = » ii iii ' » V V as generally understogoldl in it cannot be a possessions._rne,rel'y_ paper. What is required uncle_;j19"t,he his ' the taking of actual .°pos"se.ssio1i'o_n themspot. In the eye of law the i possession will have the effect of tran'sferri1i-g possession from the owner or the

--V occupant offthe land to the Government.

" if {.25. When a public notice is published at a

-- convenient place or near the land to be taken

-"stating that the Government intends to take MW/,", ,.._.»-

-35- possession of the land, then ordinarily and generally there should be no question of resisting or impeding the taking of possessior1y,__'4* Delivery or giving of possession by the ownerfor V the occupant of the land is not required-;""'fl'iie-_ . Collector can enforce the surrender of if to himself under Section _.4_7 oi'--.pthe if" ' impeded in taking possessio11;~~..,_Qn of the notice underSection.ll:9{_1i--._.pAclaims.,_to,i compensation for all interests iii} has to be made; be it the inteArest._ofvlthe of a person entitled "to: -the occuipationf. of land. On the taking'_off;-po_s.se:ssio.r1" land under Section___1__6_'orr"1;l?{:_1V)_ i_,1_:j"veistslﬂabsolutely in the Government?' "til-'5:g=p, « ___inc1_1mbrances. It is, therefore,' clear' of possession within the meaning of 16 or 17(1) means takirig of'posses'sion__po.n the spot. It is neither a pospsessionfovn paper nor a "symbolical"

it*poSsessionv"as~ generally understood in civil law. But_4lthev_que-stion is what is the mode of taking '._posslessio._n'i? The Act is silent on the point.

"'p_U11ie4_ss lllpossession is taken by the written a._lagree'ment of the party concerned the mode of _pVtalking possession obviously Would be for the £9?

-35- authority to go upon the land and to do some act which would indicate that the authority has M taken possession of the land. It may be in form of a declaration by heat of otherwise or by hanging ,....a.__ wfritteinv. declaration on the spot that it ' has taken possession of, the éilalnd. 1 presence of the owner or thejocculhjhant' of land to effectuate the ytakinygofvpossessioniiisv.E not necessary. No fizrtheir'._ncati¢e"~-Eisyond that under Section 9(1) of thevﬁct d'-When possession hasheen taken', '.ow_ner'or the occupant of ttheslandi-isidisgﬁossessed. Once possession has :i3eerii.,_taLl:ien.ﬁ;9,:1and vests in the Gcyern:xn'énVt.V_ V3' « , = -.

26. i['he:ja4ppellant's resuming possaission o'f.__the land after once it was .' %..jt&I.ken Government had not iofyiurgdoing the fact of the vesting oi"t»he.V in the Government. The _ Goxfernineiit or the Commissioner was not at :"iiberty'ito withdraw from the acquisition of fportion of the land of which possssion '=1 » ....37_ had been taken, under Section 48(1) of the Act.

27.xXXx XXXX xxxx xxx

28. .......... .. There can be no hard 'V' fast rule laying down what act ' sufficient to constitute takingzloiipiossessionu = . V' of land. ...... ............. It iagﬁgais than 1 the appeliant was not present.__whe'n this done by the Tehsildar, but preseiice H' of V} the owner or the occupant'_xoi'_ is necessary to effectuate of possession. .

as a matte_r--.e.f notice shouid be otigner or the occupant _ A' t'i:e__iand.,:th,at_ possession. would be taken at a time, though it may be desirabie 'vwh<§re~.V_i'p*o'ssible, to give such noti-ae before "~p.osse.ssion is taken. by the that wouid eliminate the :}any fraudulent or collusive transaction-_. of taking of mere paper '.V.possess"i§_mV, without the occupant or the it " owner eyer coming to know of it."

(emphasis supplied)

-38..

13.5. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Balnlant Narayan's case, is derived as hereunder: l l V A

i) What is required under Act*'ie4.:'::~.. the taking of actual posscessiodmlv

ii) It may be in fofrnlx of declaration by beat ' otherwise or by~..hanglngtjaV:"u!t'itten"d declaration on the the authorityghas taken of the land.' p::3fes*ence_4'o_fthe"owner or the "land to e_ffec'tzlate 'tile jaossession is._not' necese-'.ar_y."" ~ '

(iii) lwneensepeeseesion has been V_»»'-itaileen, the*o.u)__ner or the occupant of V 'A ' . _, thevoland is dispossessed.

" . . '"(iv)V nossession has been taken E"thet'Vlanid vests in the Government. A' {fa} Resuming possession of the land ' 'after once it was validly taken by the Government had not the effect -41- contention urged by the learned counsel for the society and learned Government Pleader by placing reliance upon the impugned notiﬁcation regarding taking -' it possession of the lands in question,» ' i cannot be accepted by "

They are far from truth 2 it admitted facts. llTherefore,V__ petitioners must succeed they are i entitled to the I'eli'ofs as "for in

-these writ petitions." by 13.7. llifin it decisions, viz., D. Narayanappa"'s case Reddy's case referred to above, though to the decision of the Apex infg: aﬂbzn.-";yan's case, the ratio laid down therein; brought to the notice of the learned 'Single for hisillproper appreciation. . 13.8} 'I'hat"apart, the issue regarding mode of taking ,possVe.ssion_ also came up for consideration before the Apex E /~T""x 3 - '-

fen _.,.,«,« l pplied ....42....

court in TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD VS. A.VISWA.M (DEAD) BY LRS. (AIR 1995 so 3377), wherein, thgkipgx Court after referring to Balwant Narayan's case he1.d_:mth{3Ijs~:._i _ "9. It is settled law bymh serie.s""'vof'_Vv:'"*V. judgments of this Court that the " e V accepted modes of taking . 2 V the acquired land it i.s:"~»..V.recordingVVpit memorandum or LAO in the pres'e.nce o-it V by him /them and that taking posses_sionﬂof it iivould be possevssio-n:".;_:of iand. It is commoi-iivi'};noiv1e~dge.___th.a_i: in some cases person may not co-

operate possession of the i :t,he4vx'instant case, the revenue records disclose that been taken by the Officials of the VV'7CRevenue Rbepeartinent. Of-course, an argument was also ; advanced that possession of the impugned lands .. ..

were taken over only by the revenue officials but not by the Deputy Commissioner. But what is relevant is wheth.er possession was taken or not, by the respondents representatives. Strictly speaking, What all, Sec-tiony "

the B.D.A. Act contemplates is, the .A may notify the fact of taking .epo§sessA:9ﬁ. VSe'ction_V_V.V1E_l§(2)l, therefore, either does not contemplate a situation that the Deputy Commissioner possession of the land in question nor Sectiorrrequires that there shall be a ga:Q:ettef::inotiiicati.pn,_fo:§ over possession of the only Provides that the Deputy the fact of taking such possessior1:._Ef is published, the same shall belpllthe A. proof "o1" 'taking over possession of the land eother interpretation would be contrary to spiriti of Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act. "7l'.lv1erefore, vvhether gazette notification was issued under as to the taking over possession of the land that itself is a valid piece of evidence to hold that /' F \_ -44- possession had already been taken over by the acquiring authority. Therefore, what follows is that, the issuance*.of notiﬁcation under Section 16(2), in our considered_op'1'n«ion:,_ _ addition to taking over possession of the acqpui1*ed~..1a'n.:d;as" W provided under the Land Acquisition operates as a conclusive proof oftaking». possession.._VVof_.3the --. * land and ignoring such noti;fication___oin»vthe actual possession was not taken;"--..in.. opinion, is contrary to the Iegalppresurriptiori Section 16(2) of the L.A. of gazette notiﬁcation 'the instant case, will not in any way be iapthat the respondent~B.D.A. had not taken Vpospsesnziiioiiiiiof the impugned land from the petitionef:S}i}' appellpantsi ' ---------- ~ "

_T'hat_Viap_art, as held by the Apex Court in Tamil and Balwcmt Narayan's cases that the ifacceptedirr>..od.e "of taking possession of the acquired land is c recording'-..pf memorandum by the revenue authorities would /.

-45..

itself constitute taking possession of the land as it would be impossible to take physical possession of the acquiredillanpd and such entries in the revenue records is itse1f_.concflusive__ _ proof of taking actual possession of thepland on"

presence of the owner or the occu,par1t..:iof ta'? effectuate taking of possession_'"is not 11eceissairy.;Vyqppo1nce -. L' possession had been taken,;__ the of the land is dispossessed; once taken, the land vests in the :»y."r;?SumptiOn of possession of validly taken by the Governmerit,Tljadl:iés.ot undoing the fact of vesting of th"e_land there is no necessity that takinpgp ofli"poVsse:ssionu "shall be only by the Deputy asp.per"Se-ction 16(2) of the L.A. Act, because the°z_opti_on. i -"..the Deputy Commissioner to issue

7.Vi""~notificati.on as taking of possession and the same is not "-«mandatory in such cases, where possession was taken 'en'tr_ie:s are made in the revenue records, the issuance of l'n'oti.fiycation under Section 16(2) is not mandatory. _ 46 ...

13.11. Hence, the non~issuarice of Section 16(2) notiﬁcation, will not, in any event, vitiate the acquisitionend if any notiﬁcation is issued under Section 16(2), conclusive proof for taking possession and theV__s_arne--.i_ﬁNould'~ not suffer from either presumption or ithat' possession has not been taken from the owners o»r'i'i~r;c¢1iparitS of the impugned lands.

13.12. Issue No.III is aiﬁ§wer.§d ;ar:COr'difig1y. 14.1. Issﬁe ' Whether.' the layout in the impugned iland .yfitiatesdiimpugned acquisition '-proc:eediAngsv~.as per"Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act? 14.2.7 For appreciation of the issue under _ .:i_Copn4sideration,i' it is apt to refer to Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act, 'v_vhi_cii1' reads as hereunder:

...47_ "2?'. Authority to execute the scheme within ﬁve years: Where within a period of ﬁve years from the date of the publication in the Oﬂicial Gazette of the declaration under Sub» section{1) of Section 19, the Author'ityu":---- fails to execute the p scher"ne----:ﬂ 9 ' substantially, the scheme 4' ' and the provisions of Section. * " i become inoperative."

14.3. The undisputedvihaets ate total extent of 604 acres and 23 guntas ofthe".'2é§:"V"§%espondent had already formed a extent of 564 acres and 39 guntas of 'havci".cdi,s.tz=iT:51iJted house sites to various allottees. _ g i "

'"14V.4".' Uiidef simiiar facts and circumstances of the case, the this Court in the case of BANGALORE v.v:'DEVELOF,13tIE1§IT:vi' A AUTHORITY VS. '" (ILR 1996 KAR. 642) held thus:

ttttt

-48..

"IO. We are unable to appreciate how the learned Single Judge could strike down the Finaljhg Notification on the ground that the release certain lands amounts to violation of the :"

guaranteed under Article 14 of the Const'itvu:ti.on~;:: '- In the first instance, as mentioned herein we are not at all satisﬁed that theirelease it was in accordance with laW.--._l'ndeed"; the.VCo:u'n._:sel"' for the Authorities s_ubmitt_e_d:=,that steps have already been taken of the order providing for release. the release of the area released j_.i11i* and Dr. Ram V K 5.. /1}: er Manikshadarga, Venktappa ad--measures 90 acres. The total area 'pVroﬁVosed::ii'to«acquire is about 1334 acres_andll<2 even assuming that the area 5io1"Vv9iO acres'--isV__released, that itself cannot lead to._the_'s'conclusion that the Authority and the ffwiere acting illegally and were not seriousV..tOi1_.'i:mplement the scheme and the ilghacquisitionl proceedings must fall. In the first iginstance, in our judgment, the release of these were not in accordance with law and tlfierefore that release cannot lead to the ,"....l....t.m._.c .....M...,.... -

".49- conclusion that the action of the Government and the Authority in proceeding with the acquisitionfit. was fraud on the power of acquisition. It was contended that the release of area of aboL1t:----7()4.:()T'i.:"' ii".

acres in favour of Housing Cowoperative:Soc--ie'ties. must iead to the conclusion that Ztrhiej. was not serious in implementing thé*.V5chern'e,i"vVe * i' do not find any merit in the_joontention.hecaLise'"

retention of the lands with...ii:'theVv_._gHonsin,gA operative Societies does.i:i_1ot*i_ﬁ}eadi todestruction of the scheme. But on the assists in the impieme'n:tatio1§1T oi the object being to tithe» mioeople. The submission*~~.V§i ilearineiiiijviigciiunsel that the scheme _1aj)s«es.__V35.in«.,:"'accordance with the provisions of of the Act, is also required to "be down. The Section provides that " '--in______case the authority fails to er-zecutei.ig.th'e._V scheme substantially within a it years from the date of pnhlicatioiri-.V_ 'of the notiﬁcation under sub» '._gsectio:nl7{1) of Section 19 of the Act, then the it shall lapse. The plain reading of the it Section makes it clear that the scheme can Hvlaipse provided the authority fails to execute \.

-50., the scheme substantially. This expression "fails to execute the scheme" clearly indicates' that the section will attract only in cases":.:""--,."'v where the authority is in a position. 'V' implement the scheme and thenppfails « It was pointed out on behalf of the several Writ petitions were ﬂied in Coft_1rt».to it chailenge the publication of notifications the acquisition proceedings in view: the interim orders _petitions restraining the Authority-from further with the scheme-»_ it was impossible to) efxeicuteii the scheme within of five years prescribed uriaier 2'?' of the Act. The Counseilfpor very rightly did not dispute that seVera1i~--peti'tions were ﬁled and stay orders were issueVd_.__N}p'n these circumstances, it is appreciate how it can ever be suggested thve":'eche1nie has lapsed because the Authority 'execute the scheme. It must also be noted. that the provisions of Section 27 it ii'V.'e».,p'3:es_crihes that the failure of the authority to eiaecute the scheme must be in respect of the __s__ubstantial part of the scheme. In the present "xp

-51..

case, on the showing of respondent»-1, an area of 700 acres is allotted to the Housing Co--operativef°*-,p Societies for construction of houses. The Counsel"-.""--, appearing for the two appellants, who :"

allotted sites No.85 and 115 by the « points out that not only allotments various persons, but houses ikhave "

constructed by those aJlottee_sl;'~~..In ca'se__, now_, held that the scheme had 1ap_sed_, wouldrivresiiilt into serious prejudice ;.t_o:;1ar--,ae allottees from the authority. In is not proper in eXer_c.i.s:e'--of to nullify the action thej ..bbStatutory authority in pursuance of by the statute.

It is _Writ Court to assume that illlegialitiesi "1'lave been committed because the.rA11thority'has released some lands. EVen.§-piasstiming that the release of lands is not in with law, still the Writ Court should Isnot;hai.r.e'-.disturbed the entire scheme and struck down thvepilllotilfication which was published in the '.vyearii1..9i'7.§3..VlThe learned Single Judge should not it turned down the contention urged on behalf "the authority that the petition filed after years after the date of public ion of the -52- Notification should not be entertained of the ground of delay and laches. We are unable 1, appreciate how the Final Notification struck down on the ground that the GovernrneVnt"~'t:"' and the Authority have released "some lands"

acquisition."

. pi i' L 14.5. Section 27 of where there is no substantial iriip1.e;:n'entation of the Scheme. But in thefact remains that out of 604 acres ='2nd respondent had already of 564 acres and 39 guntas of "and have been distributed to various allottees; .$§Ihichi."-establishes that the scheme is considered opinion, it is not permissible' .t"r1e'j appellants /petitioners to contend that the ljr'schemeh«as particularly, when the award has already pa.sseciV--and that the owners/ occupants had already "dispossessed from the impugned land in question. iConsi-ciering the magnitude of the housing scheme, we are -53- satisﬁed that the scheme is substantially implemented" and therefore, Section 27 is not attracted. 14.6. Issue No.IV is answered accordingly. 15.1. Issue No.V:

In any event whether the above. ""i"it..iiDe'tiii'on- 'A maintainable both on the'ii_ground-.. of V(a}'V:"}O{Q.1.SVV' standi and (b) laches? __ 15.2.1 As regards locds .sta;r;--di:;:' already seen that neither the erstv.r.§1e1i1e 1etnd§iownersi"_;a.or petitioners--1 to 4, who are the 'legal and petitioners--5 to 10 who are the subseqiiendt.pnrchasers from pe-titi0ners--1 to 4, have ch.al1enge'dé.the' a.cquisi'ti.o_n.proceedings. it is settled law that e11"szcepts'ansdipreeeeeinge taken by the State in exercise of its 1:V.___gminer1t jfaower starting with the issuance of ~~no,tit'ication and ending with passing of award the original owners shall have a legal bearing ' iliegal heirs of the original owners and the subsequent _ _ purchasers thereto. In the instant case, as the father of the petitioners--1 to 3 who was served with iegal notice di'd"'not challenge the acquisition proceedings, the petitionei's'--E?..' who are the purchasers of the land after~e--i.s:siiar1:ce_ "

preliminary notiﬁcation, cannot chalylenigeppfivthee 1 .acquisitio::§1c.' proceedings and they would orilygubeiiievntitleciftoiget compensation and any sale notiﬁcation would not be and would not confer any titie Court in MEERA or DELHI AND OTHE:'R'S'i' and therefore, the petitioners have no challenge the impugned acquisition it it is apt to refer the ratio iaid in the case of MIEERA SAHANI v. i"vv::iiAIi1EUT1?3i1v141NZ!__"GQVERNDR or DELHI AND OTHERS, referred i it iitoyaboaieegwhieh reads as hereunder:

5)

-55., "18. In U.P.JAL NIGAM vs KALRA PROPERTIES (P) LIMITED [(1996) 3 SCC 124)] it was stated by this Court that: (SCCp. 126, para 3} "3. ..... ..Having regard to the facts of this case, we were not inclined to " l' V further adjourn the case nor to remitlhl the case for fresh considerationby High Court. It is we1l--sett1ed la'w:l'thea_f l V after the Notiﬁcation utider Section 4(1»)'l'l- A .. it 1 is published in the"'»:;<gazette"* encumbrance created "by: _ _ . owner does not bind the he purchaser does not to the

19. In i'sNE_H' Pi?z5l'££IjIzl4v_.V_'vsl::'ST2lTE OF U.P. [(1996) 7 sec 4263-igis. statedunder: (scc p.430, para It settled law that any purchases land after of the Notification under V Section 4(1), does so at his/ her own A. peril. The object of publication of the " -- l.n5Notif1cation under Section 4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is needed or

-55....

is likely to be needed for public purpose and the acquisition proceedings point out an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder. It authorizes the s designated officer to enter upon the'';---- land to do preliminaries, .etc;-.if.pi"* Therefore, any alienation of j.landi_'w--.i " V after the publication of the iNoti'ﬁcationv_ts ~ '~ it K under Section 4(1) bind' Government or the beneficiary the acquisition; "possession of the land, a;t1_* tights, é;nc1 interests"in'j'1an§d sta.nd«,{r'es'ted the State, li.iJiiIi1'€lVE3I.'_;__ 16 of the Act, free from "all and thereby aabsoliutei' title in the land is acquired f i th_e1'e,unde'r-.?'.. ..... .. e l'i1'h:e"--.s.aiidta.p;.roposition of law as also reiterated y ittg4JAi€1{;r§IS*HNA SHINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA s [(19ii95)"'i,1oii sec 721] and STAR WIRE (INDIA) _ ii "ISL/[IT}3D: US STATE OF HARYANA [(1996) 11 sec .

-57..

21. In View of the aforesaid decisions it is by now well--settled law that under the Land Acquisition Act, the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge_...__ the acquisition proceedings and that he would be; only entitled to get the compensation." 15.2.3. Hence, the petitioner--5_».to._41O_'iiiifhoi'.';Vare,4_'_the._ "

subsequent purchasers of iInpugned"1«gla;'51_id"have"

standi to challenge the above Writp,etition..i' . 15.3.1. As regards tactiiithat the preliminary notiﬁcation @982, the final notiﬁcation was was passed on 27.05. / petitioners have chosen to move this Courts'-.in shows there is a glaring apparent__iidclayi.iin;"challenging the impugned notification. It iisfatalihevenéto the above writ petition. \A.'.e_ of the View that the learned Single Judge " rightly held that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed applying the ratio rendered in the case STATE he - 58 --~ or RAJASTHANAND OTHERS VS. DR.L.AXMI AND OTHERS {(1996) 6 SCC 445], wherein it is held as hereunder:

"Delay in challenging the notiﬁcation a fatal and writ petition entails with disrms on grounds of Iaches. It is thus, we}1~-»se,tt1e'd: « law that when there is an inordinate it sat.' if ..f "* ----

filing the writ petition and".w'1:.eAn aiilasteps it taken in the aCquisitio:ﬁ~V.._proc'ee_di:r1Vgs,:

become ﬁnal, the court___4_shou1d be}-oathevvvfito quash the notiﬁ'cat;i--ons.i :'}f_'.'l:i_;¢}'I.'(.:O1lI't'A has, no doubt, discretion-airy;°powe_rsV"ur;de.r Article 226 or 'quash the notifi_catiQ_n5l,,,',._f.u'nder' S'e<iition 4(1) and But it shouid relevant factors into pragnzatic'. Veontsideration. When the award pasisediiand possession was taken, the in should not have exercised its power to award which is a material factor Ftaken into consideration before V eziercising the power under Article 226. The * fact that no third party rights were created .:'in the case, is hardly a ground for interference."

-59..

15.4. Issue No.V is therefore, answered accordingly 16.1. Issue No.VI:

Whether the refusal to de--notify the 'V' by the State Government is arbitrairyy,_unreaS0ria7oIe,y discriminatory and violative of 13? Constitution?

16.2. As rightly pointed: learned Advocate General, the de~notiﬂcatio17._'order 5.'3;.Ci.2007 made in respect of land located in the same survey number Vhas'A"oee-niyWithdrawn by the government by order dated aindvthat the Government has taken avtiniforrrii' sta:id,_d'which, in our considered opinion, is neither discriimiiiatoryiihorviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 16.3"; Is:-siievI:'S'Io.VI is, therefore, answered in the negative.

-» 'E -60-

17. In View of the ﬁndings rendered on the above Issue Nos. I to V1, the writ appeal fails and accordingly, the is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. .... '«1.:;;;': " ggfsﬂday' 2009 1 L F' Ia/SN?/Msk' --

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court