Karnataka High Court
J N Papi Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2013
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP.36122/2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.36122/2012 (LA-KHB)
BETWEEN
J N PAPI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O LATE NANJA REDDY,
R/AT THOTADAMAE,
JIGALA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. KIRAN KUMAR, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEPARTMENT & REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560001
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560009
REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE SPECIAL LAND AQCUISTION OFFICER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560009
... RESPONDENTS
WP.36122/2012
2
(By Sri. H M MANJUNATHA, ADV. FOR R2 & 3
Sri VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRLY.
NOTIIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R1 U/S.4(1) OF THE ACT
DT.14.6.2006 & THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT.15.3.08 PRODUCED
AT ANN-A & ANN-B PASSED BY THE R1, IN SO FAR AS THE LANDS
OF THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.39/2 measuring 22.15 guntas situated at Jigala Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. According to him, he has constructed a residential house measuring 50' X 80' in the said land.
2. By a preliminary notification dated 14.06.2006, published in the Gazette on 13.07.2006, the land of the petitioner along with several other lands measuring in all about 820 acres were notified for acquisition and objections were called for. Preliminary notification was published proposing to acquire the land for a public purpose namely for the Housing Scheme to be implemented by the Karnataka Housing Board (for short, 'the KHB') - respondent No.2 herein. Final notification under WP.36122/2012 3 Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') dated 15.03.2008 was published in the Gazette on 24.04.2008.
3. It is relevant to notice here that the petitioner did not file any objections to the proposed acquisition, nor did he avail the opportunity of hearing as provided under Section 5A of the Act. An award has been passed on 05.05.2011 as is evident from Annexure-D.
4. The main ground of attack by the petitioner in this writ petition is that as the award is not passed within a period of two years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, the entire acquisition has lapsed. In addition, it is contended that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated because there is no housing scheme duly approved by the State Government to enable the State Government to initiate acquisition proceedings to acquire the land for the housing scheme. In support of this contention, learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to the final notification published in the Gazette vide Annexure-B on 24.04.2008 and requests the Court to compute the period taken for passing the award dated 05.05.2011 which would clearly indicate that the award has been passed after a lapse of two years contrary to WP.36122/2012 4 Section 11A of the Act. He also points out that the statement made in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer noting that the publication of the gist of the final notification was made in the Chawadi of Jigala Village on 06.05.2009 is opposed to the facts and is made only to circumvent the period of limitation prescribed for passing an award under Section 11A of the Act. In support of this contention, petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK PAHWA Vs. Lt. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & OTHERS - AIR 1984 SC 1721.
5. To support the contention that the acquisition proceedings are not preceded by any approval of the scheme as required under Sections 20 & 24(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962, counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of CHICKRANGAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - 1996(7) KAR.L.J. 846 and on an unreported judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.9593/2007 & connected cases on 29.05.2012.
6. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS - AIR 2003 SC 3817 to contend that the period of two years prescribed for making award is to be WP.36122/2012 5 computed from the last of the dates of publication of the declaration.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board strongly refuted the contentions urged by the petitioner urging that the acquisition proceedings having culminated in the final notification issued as back as on 24.04.2008, petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the contentions regarding absence of any approved scheme by filing a writ petition in the year 2012. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent submits that nearly 800 acres of land has been acquired for the Housing Scheme and possession having been taken, the Housing Board has implemented the Scheme and if at this stage, the petitioner is permitted to raise such a contention regarding absence of approval of scheme, then it would result in serious consequences affecting the interest of various third parties. He also points out that sites having been formed in the layout, allotment have been made in favour of third parties.
8. In my considered view, learned counsel for the respondent - Housing Board is right and justified in contending that petitioner cannot be permitted to urge this ground at this WP.36122/2012 6 belated stage, as otherwise it would tantamount to causing serious prejudice, loss and hardship, not only to the Housing Baord, but also to the innocent allottees. Though learned counsel for the Housing Board contends that the Housing Scheme has been duly approved by the State Government and therefore, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable, I am of the view that it is unnecessary to examine these questions as the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise these questions at this belated stage by filing this writ petition after a lapse of nearly four years from the date of issue of the final notification. Petitioner has not even filed any objection to the proposed acquisition pursuant to the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. He has not chosen to object for the acquisition on any of these grounds. Hence, on this ground also, he cannot challenge the acquisition.
9. As regards the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the operation of Section 11A of the Act, as can be seen from the award, the Land Acquisition Officer has clearly mentioned in the body of the award that the gist of the final notification was published in the Chawadi of the WP.36122/2012 7 Village on 06.05.2009. As is apparent from Section 6(2) of the Act, the final declaration has to be published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality in which the land is situated and the Collector is also enjoined with a duty to cause public notice of the substance of such declaration at convenient places in the locality and the last of the dates of such publication or public notice is to be regarded as the date of publication of the declaration. From this last date of publication or giving of public notice, two years period has to be computed for the purpose of Section 11A of the Act within which an award has to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and if no award is made within the said period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse.
10. In the instant case, publication of the notice containing the gist of the final notification has been made in the Chawadi of the Village on 06.05.2009 as is apparent from the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Petitioner now cannot dispute the contents of the award. In this regard, though learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in bringing to the notice of the Court that the gap between the date of publication WP.36122/2012 8 in the Gazette of the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act on 24.04.2008 and the date on which the gist of the notification is published in the Chawadi (06.05.2009) which is almost after one year one month cannot be long, that by itself cannot be a basis to declare that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed due to violation of Section 11A of the Act. In the absence of necessary grounds urged in the writ petition alleging malafides or creation of documents by any concerned official only to save the acquisition, any contention advanced in this regard by the learned counsel would be of no help to the petitioner.
11. Although learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing the case, comes up with an application seeking amendment of the writ petition to raise an additional ground contending that the gist of the final notification was not in fact published in the Chawadi by the Land Acquisition Officer, I am afraid, the petitioner cannot be allowed now to raise such a ground at this belated stage, particularly because the acquisition is of around 800 acres of land for the purpose of a housing scheme to be implemented by the KHB coupled with the specific stand taken in the statement of objections filed by the KHB that the scheme is already implemented and allotment WP.36122/2012 9 of sites has been substantially made. Though learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt by drawing the attention of the Court to the judgment DEEPAK PAHWA Vs. Lt. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & OTHERS - AIR 1984 SC 1721 to contend that if such a long gap is found in the publication of 6(1) Notification in the Gazette and the public notice affixed in the Chawadi, the continuity of action may appear to have been broken by a deep gap and if the notification and the public notice are separated by such a large gap of time, it may become necessary to probe further to discover if there was any cause for the delay and delay has caused prejudice to anyone, there is no necessity to embark upon such an exercise in the present case in the light of the discussion made above.
For the reasons stated above, I find that there is no merit in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS