Karnataka High Court
Naveen Kumar S/O Parasmal vs State Of Karnatakaand Anr on 16 September, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION No.201742/2015 (LA-KIADB)
Between:
Naveen Kumar
S/o Parasmal
Aged about 52 Years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Chikka Sugur
Taluk & Dist. Raichur-584 101
... Petitioner
(By Sri Ganesh Kalaburagi for
Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)
And:
1. State of Karnataka
Rep. by Addl. Chief Secretary
Department of Industries & Commerce
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore-560 001
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board
Dharwad-580 001
... Respondents
(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP for R1;
Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, Adv. For R2)
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue an
appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and also grant
other appropriate writ declaring that the acquisition
proceedings in respect of land bearing Sy.No.162/1,
measuring 7 acres 7 guntas of Chikkasugur village, Taluk
Raichur belonging to the petitioner by virtue of the
notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Act, 1966 dated 27.12.1991 in No.C1-
1-146-SPQ-1991 emanating the award dated 17.04.2007
in file No.KIADB/LAQ/1075/07-08 passed by the
respondent No.2, the copy of which is at Annexure-A and
etc.
This petition coming on for Hearing, this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land Sy.No.162/1, measuring 7 acres 7 guntas of Chikkasugur village, Tq. Raichur by virtue of notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter called as the 'Act of 1966') dated 27.12.1991 and the award dated 17.04.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent stands lapsed.
3
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has issued a notification dated 27.12.1991 under Section 28(1) of the Act, 1966 published in the Karnataka Official Gazette on 09.04.1992 for acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.162/1 and several other lands for the purpose of establishing the industrial area. An Final notification was issued under Section 28(4) of the Act, 1966 on 24.09.1966 was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 14.11.1996. The 2nd respondent has passed the award dated 17.04.2007 determining the market value of the lands acquired. By notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioner was asked to receive the compensation amount. After the acquisition proceedings, the name of 2nd respondent is appearing in the RTC on the basis of notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Act, 1966. It is contended that the compensation amount was not 4 paid to the petitioner and award was passed after lapse of around 11 years from the date of final declaration, the physical and actual possession of the land of the petitioner was not taken over. Hence, it is contended that as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the New Act, 2013) when a physical and actual possession of the land is not taken over by the acquiring body/ State and/or when the compensation amount is not paid to the owner of the land loser, the entire acquisition proceedings stands lapsed. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that the entire acquisition proceedings stands lapsed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and also the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 5
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 24(2) of the New Act 2013, the respondents have not passed the award within five years from the date of final declaration. Hence, the acquisition proceedings stands lapsed. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader and counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the petitioner has accepted the award passed by the 2nd respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer and filed the protest application and the reference application was forwarded to the reference Court and the same was registered as LAC No.122/2008. Once the petitioner having accepted the award passed by the 2nd respondent - SLAO and participated in the land acquisition proceedings before the reference Court, the petitioner has no right to challenge the award. 6 Hence, they submit that the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The land of the petitioner was acquired by the 2nd respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of the Act, 1966. The 2nd respondent thereafter passed the award. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the market value fixed by 2nd respondent, filed the protest application and the protest application was registered as LAC No.122/2008, in which proceedings the petitioner participated before the reference Court. The reference Court disposed of the reference application vide judgment dated 20.01.2015. The petitioner has accepted the award passed by the 2nd respondent - 7 SLAO as well as by the reference Court. The petitioner suppressing the said facts filed instant writ petition on 09.03.2015 i.e., after disposal of reference application. The petitioner has no right to challenge the award passed by 2nd respondent - SLAO.
8. Insofar as Section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013, the said issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Sri K. Srinivas Murthy and another vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Commerce and Industries and Others, reported in ILR 2020 KAR 4195, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that if the acquisition proceedings are initiated under the Act of 1966, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is not applicable. 8
9. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL