Karnataka High Court
R Sethuram vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. No.1065 OF 2021 (LA-RES)
IN
W.P. No.2710 OF 2017 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. R SETHURAM,
S/O V RAMAKRISHNA,
AGE 38 YEARS,
R/O NO.10/231,
SANTHE BEEDHI,
KOLLEGALA,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571439.
2. V MAMATHA,
W/O R SETHURAM,
AGE 33 YEARS,
R/O NO.10/231, SANTHE BEEDHI,
KOLLEGALA,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571439. ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR.BASAVARAJ V SABARAD, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR.MAHESH R UPPIN, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560001.
2
2. THE KARNATAKA URBAN WATER
SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD,
JAL BHAVAN, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE,
BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560029,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571313.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION,
KOLLEGALA,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571439.
5. CITY MUNICIPALITY,
KOLLEGALA,
CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT - 571313. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR.H.N.SHASHIDHARA SR.COUNSEL FOR
MR.S.SUHAS, ADV., FOR C/R2)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE DATED 16.08.2021 IN WP NO.2710/2017 (LA-RES)
AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR, PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
In this intra court appeal the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellants are joint owners of lands situate at Kollegala, Chamrajanagar District. Out of the aforesaid lands, 1 acre of land belonging to appellants was sought to be acquired for providing underground drainage facility to Kollegala Town. A preliminary notification dated 25.10.2014 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The aforesaid notification was published on 07.11.2014. It is pertinent to mention that appellant No.1 filed a writ petition seeking quashment of the aforesaid notification, which was disposed of by learned Single Judge of this court by an order dated 19.01.2015 and it was inter alia held that the writ petition is not maintainable. However, the appellant No.1 was 4 granted the liberty to file objections and the authority was directed to consider the same.
3. Thereafter, on 26.05.2014, the Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted an enquiry and on 23.03.2015, declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 26.11.2015. Thereafter, the appellants filed a writ petition on or about 20.01.2017, in which notification as well as declaration under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act dated 25.01.2015 and 23.03.2015 were challenged. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 16.08.2021 did not entertain the challenge to the notification under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act. However, the writ petition preferred by the appellants was disposed of with a liberty to the appellants to submit an application before the Land Acquisition Officer and the Land Acquisition officer was directed to make a reference to the authority under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 5
4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not published in the manner prescribed therein inasmuch as it was not published in two daily newspapers having wide circulation. It is also submitted that usual notices were not issued to the appellants and therefore, the appellants could not participate in the enquiry. It is further submitted that the appellants cannot be deprived of their constitutional right to hold the property in a manner not known to law. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'J & K HOUSIND BOARD & ANOTHER VS. KUNWAR SANJAY KRISHAN KAUL', (2011) 10 SCC 714, 'KULSUM R. NADIADWALA VS. STATE', 9202) 6 SCC 348, 'HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. S. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI AND OTHERS', (2005) 7 SCC 627, 'SRI.VENKATESH VS. SRI.P.SUBBAIAH AND ANOTHER', ILR 2007 KAR 3912, 'KAMAL TRADING PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS', (2012) 2 SC 25, SPECIAL 6 DEPUTY COLLECCTOR, LAD ACQUISTION C.M.D.A. VS. J.SIVAPRAKASAM AND OTHERS', (2011) 1 SCC 330, 'UNION OF INDIA AND OTHRES VS. GOPALDAS BHAGWAN DAS AND OTHERS', 2020 SCC OLINE SC 217, 'CHAIRMAN INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN VS. PURE INDUSTRIAL COKE AND CHEMICALS LTD.', (2007) 8 SCC 705, 'COMPETENT AUTHORITY VS. BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY', (2005) 13 SCC 477.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. It is pertinent to note that appellant No.1 had assailed the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, in a writ petition viz., W.P.No.56888/2014, which was dismissed of with the following direction:
2. Petitioner's counsel states that the final notification is not yet issued. As only a preliminary notification has been issued and final notification is not yet issued, the petitioner cannot maintain a writ petition assailing only the preliminary notification. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.7
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that objections have been filed to the preliminary notification. It is needless to observe that filed the said objections are in order, then the respondent authorities would have to consider the same in accordance with law.
4. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands dismissed.
6. Thus, the subsequent challenge to notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is barred on the principles of res judicata. It is pertinent to mention that the appellants were aware about the initiation of land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, even if the requirement of publication of notification in two newspapers was not complied with, the same cannot affect the validity of the notification. In 'SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION C.M.D.A VS. J.SIVAPRAKASHAN AND OTHERS, (2011) 1 SCC 330, wherein the Supreme court has held as under:
It is significant to note that there is no averment in the writ petition that the respondents were not aware of the proposed acquisition. It is evident that they were aware of the notification.8
It is also conceivable that respondents 5 to 11 who knew about the proposed acquisition would not have informed respondents 1 to 4 about the proposed acquisition. Be that as it may, Therefore, even if the publication in two regional language newspapers is considered to be not in compliance with the requirements of Section 4(1), it cannot affect the validity of the preliminary notification or the consequential proceedings in regard t survey Nos.186/1 and 186/2.
7. Before proceeding further, we deem it appropriate to refer to well settled legal principles with regard to delay and laches. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the appellants.
8. A constitution bench of the Supreme Court in 'AFLATOON AND ORS. VS. L.T.GOVERNOR. DELHI AND ORS. AIR 1974 SC 2077 dealing with the issue of challenge to land acquisition proceedings has held "......to have sat on the fence and allowed the government to complete the acquisition on the basis that Notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack 9 the Notification on the ground which were available to them at the time when the Notification was published, would be putting a premium of dilatory tactics.
9. The Supreme Court while dealing with a challenge to the land acquisition proceedings, held that when a person challenges a Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on any ground, it should be challenged within a reasonable period and if the acquisition is challenged at a belated stage, the petition deserves to be dismissed only on this ground. [See: 'HARI SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P.', AIR 1984 SC 1020]. Similar view was reiterated by Supreme Court in 'STATE OF MYSURU VS. V.K.KANGAN', AIR 1975 SC 2190, 'STATE OF ORISSA VS. Dhodei Sethi and Anr.', 1995 5 SCC 583, 'STATE OF TAMILNADU VS. L.KRISHNAN', AIR 1996 SC 497 and 'C.PADMA AND ORS. VS. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU AND ORS.', 1997 2 SCC 627.
10. In 'STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. VS.
D.R.LAXMI AND ORS.', (1996) 6 SCC 455, it has been 10 held that delay in challenging the Notification under Section 4 of the Act is fatal and writ petition entails with dismissal on the ground of laches and if there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all the steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the court should be loathe to quash the Notification. It has further been held that even though the order may be void, but if the party does not approach the court within a reasonable time, which is always a question of fact and have the order invalidated or acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the court has to be exercised in a reasonable manner.
11. In the backdrop of aforesaid principles, the facts of this case in hand may be adverted to. It is also pertinent to mention here that the writ petition was filed on or about 20.01.2017, whereas the award was passed on 26.11.2015. Though the petitioners were aware about the acquisition proceedings, yet they waited for the award to be passed and thereafter, filed a writ petition after a period of one year and two months. Thus, the writ petition suffers from delay and laches and therefore, belated challenge to the land 11 acquisition proceedings cannot be entertained. For yet another reason, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the petitioner has not assailed the award dated 26.11.2015 in the writ petition.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SS