Karnataka High Court
Sri Hanumantharaya vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secy on 24 February, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
{.__4' "s::f3r;>;égI2§'H.
AA _ 'E'[}M§{UR TALUK
QANUMAIAH
{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24*" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009"
BEFORE £ %__ _ '
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AJIT J GU'I9QAi§[ " "
WRY1' FETFFION No.37?4 o%}*j'2oe7'(L{g~t}::%g3
BETWEEN _ . .
1 SEE HANUMANTHARAYA %
S,/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH * '
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R'/AT SHETTIHALLL.' ._
KASABA HOBLI " ~
TUMKUR TALUK
2 SRICHEKKJWIANUMAIAH =
S/C) LATE._HA;'5iU_MAN'.THAIAH_ '
AGED $3923?'-5a*_VYEA.g...__ ' '
R/AT SI»iE";f'_i'I;:5iALLE', _
KASABA'H_oaL:._
'f"L}MKU'RAVTA,LU}{14 _ * '
3 GAI'I¢GA.IAH . .. ~
szca ;;;.A'I'12: H:=;Nu'MAN'I'*:4A'£AH
AGED A--BO'U'i' 4:3 Y~EAi'--?.S
may SHETTIHALLI;
' 'KAVSABA HOBL1. .. .... <4 .
- .? 1_ q*U=m=KU*:3 TALUK
" 53/5; «!,;_z'~':..'_I'l:"3~ HANUMANTHAIAH
A V AGED Amy? 55 YEARS
.R/Arr' E}H'E'i"I'EHALLi,
KASABA mm:
Tsxo LATE HANUMAN'?i~1AmH
AGED ABQUT 38 YEARS
E2/M SHETTIHALLI,
KASABA HGBLI
TUMKUR TALUK
6 SGDDARANGAMMA
Enotificatien on 13.06.1989 proposing to .
' '''iioeft§,§' torquestiozi tfiei acquisition proceedings at some
Eater i V'e1':,vit;.1e. It appears, the petitioners' father
fiieci year 2007 .
V' ;:re1::i.'£ioIier raises only one eontentiozi that the award @
ORBER
The third respondent issued a prelirniiraiyvv
Sy.Nos.66/ 2A and 66/SA II1easuJv:ir;g...1A ae'e:4ei%%i"1::itL "
and 1 acre 8 guntas respectively Tumkur 'under Section 4 tihei Land Acquisition Act of' 'the.-isecond respondent. A final issued on 06.12.1989, denotified A by deleting 41:--,v:':'%)Ai€i3',1.'._2ffBV::ii@3353] 3s and 6'? and a portioiisiof father questioned the eeqteeieen W.P.No.1996};/91. The same_ was iivithdrewiii 06.12.1994, but reserving died-.311 the_ 2001 and the present writ petition is _ "-22. Mr.Ns;r1ja Reddy, iearneci counsel appearing for [X is passed after 2 years after the date of issuance of final notification, inasmuch as , Section 1 IA is attracteci.
3. Minkleshava Reddy: »._as 'ii' Mr.T.P.Vivekananda, learned State as well as the authority 'w§'>*t11d S'"uhH1itAthEfl1S6C'{iOfl 11A is not at all V :'eppiicai)1e-Q iizasmzicim as, the notificatien was issued 1.1-Iédei-"V 7Secfr§.Ori_' of the Land Acquisition Aet 'itihieh is a;1.:iiI*ge«ficy,eleij;1se. 4,: netifieetion. Apparently, the State ceizi 'ViflVeke_tiie pewers only in case of urgency uncier Seetie1:._:V17-(Sf ?Ihf3V'A.C'fZ. A perusal of the provisions ""e:.<}ii1{;i e'17es1*1§=j_ disclesethat even before the passing of 311 peiesession of the land could be taken. Ind'eed,..__"Sec~tie3:1 1'? which is a special power wouid '4 .w_flexe1_uci.e'-* the applicability of Section 11A of the Land _' Aequisielen Act. Hence, the said eontentien is not i V' "'aVafiahie to the petitioners.
5. Another factor which would Weigh against. the petitioners is that there is an inorclinaiie approaching this Court. Indeed, the i. had questioned the aeqtiisitien .._proeeedi:igs;" ,'_'i3ut;_ however, chose to Withdraw the iiuiitiiee no doubt tme that this et.1_ie.:pefcitie1,{ers' = L' father to question it at:"aViater"of_time§ 'B.1.1.1:=the said _ later point does not 'A that the acquisition after a lapse of 20 yeare; that after the *.v the petitioners' father was alixiseicaria ..years, inasmuch as, he died in yjearu Tilefeafter the petitioners have kept for eLmg:ierio€1V"'ef«V6 years. Hence, I am of the View .Vvt1ie.V:'.1scere of delay and laches also, the i No merit. Petitien is rejected. W pei;%.tio1:__1ers§ not entitled for any relief. Sr; Keshava Recidy, learned Addifional Government Acivocate is permitted to file meme' appearance within four weeks.