Karnataka High Court
Dr Talavane Krishna vs State Of Karnataka on 22 March, 2017
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.Nos.18353-357/2014
C/w
W.P.Nos.12231-237/2014 (LA-UDA)
IN W.P.Nos.18353-357/2014
BETWEEN:
1. Dr. TALAVANE KRISHNA,
S/O T.THIMMAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
TALAVANE FARM, LALITHADRIPURA,
MYSORE-570010.
2. SMT. ANITA KRISHNA,
W/O Dr TALAVANE KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
TALAVANE FARM,
LALITHADRIPURA,
MYSORE-570010. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri G.KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
Sri CHANDRAKANTH PATIL K., ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001,
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
2
MYSORE-570005,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570005.
4. SMT. MAITHREYI PUTTANNA,
W/O LATE PUTTANNA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
5. SMT.GAYATHRI JAGADISH,
D/O LATE PUTTANNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
6. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI RAMESH,
D/O LATE PUTTANNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
7. SMT. RAJANI RAJ,
D/O LATE PUTTANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.70, HUDCO COLONY,
BANNIMANTAP LAYOUT,
MYSORE-570015,
MYSORE-570010.
8. SMT. H.S.RATHNAMMA @ H.S.RATHNA,
W/O SRI H.S.RAO,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
NO.919, KANTHARAJA URS ROAD,
LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570004.
9. SHRI R.P.VEERA RAGHU,
S/O LATE R.PANDURANGA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
NO. 195, 4TH CROSS,
J.P.NAGAR, MYSORE-570008.
10. SHRI P.VENKATESH,
S/O LATE R.PANDURANGA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
NO. 392, 7TH MAIN,
VIDYARANYAPURAM,
MYSORE-570004.
3
RESPS.4 TO 10 ARE REP.BY THEIR POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER-
SHRI B.S.PRABHAKAR,
S/O LATE SUBBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
TALAVANE FARM, LALITHADRIPURAM,
MYSORE-570010. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri D.ASHWATHAPPA, AGA FOR R1;
Sri P.S.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
Sri ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR.COUNSEL FOR
Sri R.SUBRAMANYA, ADV. FOR R4-R10)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY VIRTUE OF
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 15.7.1997 VIDE ANN-N AND
FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 22.7.2005 VIDE ANN-O ARE LAPSED
AND BECOME INAPPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION
SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.
IN W.P.Nos.12231-237/2014 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN
1. SMT.MAITHREYI PUTTANNA,
W/O LATE PUTTANNA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
2. SMT.GAYATHRI JAGADISH,
D/O LATE PUTTANNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. SMT.VIJAYALAKSHMI RAMESH,
D/O LATE PUTTANNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4. SMT. RAJANI RAJ,
D/O LATE PUTTANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.70, HUDCO COLONY,
4
BANNIMANTAP LAYOUT,
MYSORE-570015.
5. SMT.H.S.RATHNAMMA @ H.S. RATHNA,
W/O SRI. H.S.RAO,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
NO.919, KANTHARAJAURS ROAD,
LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570004.
6. SHRI. R.P.VEERA RAGHU,
S/O LATE DR.PANDURANGA NAIDU,
AGED 73 YEARS, NO.195, 4TH CROSS,
J.P.NAGAR, MYSORE-570008.
7. SHRI.P.VENKATESH,
S/O LATE R.PANDURANGA NAIDU,
AGED 70 YEARS,
NO.392, 7TH MAIN,
VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSORE-570004,
PETITIONERS 1 TO 7 ARE REP.BY THEIR POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER -
SHRI. B.S.PRABHAKAR,
S/O LATE SUBBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
TALAVANE FARM, LALITHADRIPURA,
MYSORE-570 010. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR.COUNSEL FOR
Sri R.SUBRAMANYA, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570005,
REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
5
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570005.
4. Dr. TALAVANE KRISHNA,
S/O T.THIMMAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
TALAVANE FARM, LAITHADRIPURA,
MYSORE-570 010.
5. SMT.ANITA KRISHNA,
W/O DR.TALAVANE KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 EYARS,
TALAVANE FARM, LALITHADRIPURA,
MYSORE-570 010. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri D.ASHWATHAPPA, AGA FOR R1, R4 & R5;
Sri P.S.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY VIRTUE OF
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT.15.7.97 VIDE ANNX-L & FINAL
NOTIFICATION DT.22.7.2005 VIDE ANNX-M ARE LAPSED &
BECOME INAPPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION
SCHEDULE PROPERT AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 10.03.2017, THIS DAY COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER', THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Petitioners 1 & 2 are husband and wife. They have filed these writ petitions seeking a declaration that acquisition proceedings initiated as per Preliminary Notification dated 15.07.1997 and Final Notification dated 22.07.2005 acquiring 6 different extent of land comprised in Sy. No.41 of Alanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, described with greater details in Schedules-A to D to the writ petition, as having lapsed.
2. Petition averments disclose that petitioner No.1 is a Medical Practitioner. He has served in different capacity abroad. He claims to have returned to India with an ambition to establish an Ayurvedic Hospital and Research Centre and in this regard, he purchased about 22 acres of land in Kurubarahalli village from respondents 4 to 10 and certain others. In addition, petitioner No.1 purchased 2 acres 19 guntas of land and his wife - petitioner No.2 purchased 30 guntas of land in Alanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk.
3. In so far as the acquired land of which we are concerned, viz., Sy. No.41, petitioners claim to have entered into transactions with the owners in the following manner:
(a) Petitioner No.1 purchased 30 guntas of land situated in Block-G of Alanahalli village, Mysuru Taluk, 7 under registered sale deed dated 30.08.1982 (Schedule-A to the writ petition);
(b) Under an agreement to sell executed by respondents 4 to 10 petitioner No.1 claims to have purchased remaining extent and established an Ayurvedic Hospital known as Indus Valley Ayurvedic Centre and a Herbal Garden consisting of variety of plants.
Petitioners have produced the agreement to sell dated 18.12.1995 entered into by the owners of the land at Annexures-B & C; Power of Attorney dated 10.04.1996 executed by the owners has been produced at Annexure-D. As per the agreement to sell, the remaining portion of properties comprised in Sy. No.41 described in Schedules-B to D to the writ petition was agreed to be sold in favour of the petitioners.
4. According to the petitioners, development over these properties was permitted and a No Objection in this regard was obtained from the competent authority as the lands were earlier proposed to be utilized for Nehru Loka Project by virtue of the Government Order dated 05.03.1988. Indeed, No Objection 8 Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioners to establish the Ayurvedic Hospital and Research Centre as per Annexure-F dated 23.09.1996
5. It is contended by the petitioners that petitioner No.1 has established the Ayurvedic Hospital and Research Centre in the name and style Indus Valley Ayurvedic Centre with effect from the year 1995 and has planted large number of medicinal plants by establishing herbal garden apart from sandalwood and teakwood plantation. Thus, they have been in physical possession of the same. It is further urged that formalities pertaining to the execution of the sale deeds could not be completed due to pendency of phodi work by the Revenue Department.
6. Preliminary Notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act'), was issued on 15.07.1997 notifying the land in question along with several other lands for formation of Vidyanagar Extension. Total extent of lands notified for the said purpose was 184 acres 28 guntas. Subsequently, an extent of 110 acres 18 guntas of land was excluded from the acquisition proceedings. The total land proposed for acquisition 9 in Alanahalli village was only 83 acres 20 guntas. A final notification was issued under Section 19(1) & (2) of the Act on 22.07.2005. This was challenged by the petitioners by filing W.P.No.12743/2007. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that petitioners had no locus standi to question the acquisition proceedings as their vendors were the absolute owners as on the date of Preliminary Notification issued on 15.07.1997. Other contentions urged were not considered. This order passed on 10.06.2010 is produced at Annexure-P. The order dismissing the writ petition was challenged in W.A.Nos.2787-2788/2010. The vendors of the petitioners i.e., respondents 4 to 10 herein filed applications seeking their impleadment as co-appellants. The Division Bench permitted the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition itself, so as to file fresh writ petition on the same cause of action seeking declaration and such other reliefs. The writ petition was withdrawn on 10.04.2014, with liberty to file fresh writ petition within two weeks. Thereafter, they have filed the present writ petitions.
7. It is urged that common award was passed on 31.12.2006. The contention of the petitioners is that, though an 10 extent of 83 acres 20 guntas of land situated in Alanahalli village has been acquired, the layout plan prepared does not include the property of the petitioners; respondents 1 to 3 cannot implement any scheme in the Schedule Properties in view of the developments carried out in the land and that in view of long lapse of time from the date of passing of the award and in the wake of total inaction on the part of the respondent- Authority in taking up any developmental activity in the acquired lands, the entire scheme has lapsed.
8. It is urged by the Counsel for the petitioners that respondents 1 to 3 could not take possession of the property from the Government as large junk of land acquired consisted of Government land. The private land available was only 5 acres 28 guntas; petitioners had fully developed their properties for a rarest project to establish Ayurvedic Hospital and Research Centre; petition schedule properties fall as a frontage to their project; that they have provided underground water tank for their entire project in a portion of the schedule property; they have laid foundation for construction of community hall. The vendors of the petitioners have joined the petitioners in filing the writ petition.
11
9. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. G.Krishna Murthy appearing for the purchasers-writ petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ashok Harnahalli appearing for the vendors who are also arrayed as writ petitioners have urged the following legal contentions in support of the prayer for declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed.
(a) Preliminary Notification under Section 17(1) was issued declaring that the respondent-Authority had decided to acquire 184 acres 28 guntas of land situated at Alanahalli village for formation of Vidyanagar Layout; the proposed layout was approved for 83 acres 20 guntas, but petition schedule properties were not included in the said proposed layout and the layout plan at Annexure-X in the index indicate that the land was reserved for land bank and not for development;
(b) that the Government sanctioned the scheme for only 83 acres 20 guntas on 22.03.2001, but final notification under Section 19(1) of the Act was issued only for 74 acres 20 guntas and out of 74 acres 20 guntas, 65 acres 13 guntas belonged to the Government and the remaining 8 acres 37 guntas only was private land; possession in respect of the Government land of 65 acres 13 guntas has not been taken, so also the land of the petitioners measuring 3 acres 9 guntas, hence the acquisition of the 12 land has not materialized and the scheme or the project has not take of;
(c) Till today, no layout has been formed in any portion of the land though more than 11 years have lapsed from the date of Final Notification which was published in the gazette on 08.09.2005 and hence, the scheme itself has stood lapsed;
(d) Delay in issuing final notification:- Though Preliminary Notification was dated 15.07.1997, Final Notification was issued on 08.09.2005 after a lapse of eight years. Thus, the authorities have not exercised their power in a reasonable manner within a reasonable period;
(e) Discrimination:- That Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short, 'MUDA') decided to acquire 184 acres 28 guntas in Sy. Nos.31 & 41 of Alanahalli village for Vidyanagar layout as was evident from Preliminary Notification. Subsequently, 12 acres of land belonging to one Guruswamy, 15 acres of land belonging to J.S.S. Educational Institution were excluded. Thus, while large extent of land belonging to others was left out, the land belonging to petitioners where Ayurvedic Centre had been constructed came to be included in the Final Notification though their land was totally unconnected and was located beyond the road and the same could not have been made part of the layout intended to be formed; 13
(e) The scheme cannot be implemented as MUDA has no intention to develop the land. In this regard, it is stated that admittedly possession in respect of only 5 acres 28 guntas out of 74 acres 20 guntas was taken. MUDA could not take possession of other lands including that of petitioners;
(f) In the Master Plan approved by the Government for Mysore Nanjangud Local Planning Area on 12.01.2016, the Planning Authority has declared the schedule property as falling under commercial zone and except Sy. No.31, other properties are included in special agricultural zone;
(g) In so far as locus standi of the petitioners to file this writ petition, it is urged that petitioner No.1 is the owner of Block-9 in Sy. No.41 having purchased the same on 03.08.1982; that in respect of other portion of the properties, petitioner being an intending purchaser having been put in possession and his vendors having joined him to file these writ petitions, there can be no problem regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners have placed reliance on several judgments including the following:
i) SMT.NAGU BAI & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA -
ILR 2001 KAR 1169, to urge that subsequent 14 purchasers have right to seek a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed;
ii) SHIMOGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 2002 KAR 2078, to urge that final declaration under Section 19 (1) has to be issued within a reasonable time and inordinate delay in issuing final notification and passing award and taking possession would be unjust to the land owners and the declaration would be held invalid;
iii) RAM CHAND & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - (1994) 1 SCC 44, to urge that in case of unexplained delay between the preliminary and final notification, the final notification gets vitiated;
(iv) B.E.M.L. EMPLOYEES H. B. CO-OP. SOCY. LTD. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA - AIR 2004 SC 5054, to urge that if lands of certain persons are denotified, but those similarly placed are not similarly treated, acquisition is liable to be quashed;
(v) K.M.CHIKKATHAYAMMA & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS - ILR 2016 KAR 1603, regarding application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'New Act of 2013'), delay in the 15 proceedings on account of any order of stay of the Court cannot be taken note of.
11. Respondent - MUDA has filed statement of objections. It is mainly contended that petitioners have no locus standi to question the acquisition proceedings as they are the subsequent purchasers of the land after issuance of preliminary notification dated 15.07.1997; that the State Government has accorded approval for change of land use in the master plan for the formation of layout in respect of 83 acres 20 guntas of land as per order dated 17.06.1999 and the scheme was approved under Section 18(3) of the Act on 22.03.2001.
12. They have admitted the fact that though a request had been made to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District, to direct the Tahsildar, Mysuru, to deliver possession of the Government land of 16 acres 21 guntas in Sy.No.31 and 48 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.41, totally measuring 65 acres 13 guntas, so far possession of the land has not been delivered to them.
13. Learned counsel Mr.Manjunath appearing for respondents 2 & 3 has urged that mere reduction of the extent 16 of land in the final notification will not affect the development of the Scheme; previous sanction of the Government is not required for framing the Scheme where the scheme is implemented by utilizing the funds of the State Government as is clear from the judgment in SMT.M.V.LALITHAMANI & OTHERS Vs. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS - 2003 (4) Kar.L.J. 528; that even after publication of the master plan, there would be no impediment for the authority to form a residential layout as there could be no bar. He points out that delay in publication of final notification will not per se affect the validity of the acquisition, particularly because for the purpose of completion of the scheme, period of limitation of 5 years begins to run from the date of taking possession of the land and that as the State Government has not handed over 65 acres of lands, despite issuing reminder, period of limitation of 5 years has not yet begin to run.
14. Insofar as the application of Section 24(2) of the New Act of 2013, he has contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been stayed by the Division Bench, and therefore, that contention would be of no avail. 17
15. Learned counsel has placed reliance on several judgments including the judgment in the case of V.CHANDRASEKARAN & ANOTHER Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & OTHERS - (2012) 12 SCC 133; M.B.RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 1992 KAR 174; and A.KRISHNAMURTHY (SINCE DECEASED) BY L.Rs. Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS - 1996 (3) KAR.L.J. 506.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, the points that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are :
(i) Whether the acquisition proceedings in respect of the acquired land belonging to the petitioners comprised in Sy.No.41 have stood lapsed on account of delay in finalization of proceedings and in not forming any layout?
(ii) Whether the acquisition proceedings are otherwise, vitiated?
17. Both the above points are considered together. Admitted facts would reveal that preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the Act was issued on 15.07.1997 proposing to acquire 184 acres 28 guntas of land. The Government sanctioned the project for 83 acres 20 guntas. Final notification was issued 18 under Section 19(1) of the Act for 74 acres 20 guntas. Out of this, 65 acres 13 guntas of land is admittedly Government land and only 8 acres 37 guntas is the land belonging to private individuals. Admittedly, possession of the Government land measuring 65 acres 13 guntas has not been handed over to the MUDA. Even as per the stand of the respondent - MUDA, only 5 acres 28 guntas of private land was taken over by issuing notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and the land belonging to the petitioners measuring in all 3 acres 9 guntas has not yet been taken over. No layout has been formed. Indeed, no layout could be formed because the Government has not transferred the land.
18. From the date of acquisition of the land by issuing final declaration dated 22.07.2005, 11 years have lapsed. It is thus apparent that though the scheme had been formed for developing the lands into a residential layout, the MUDA has not been able to take over possession of the land and commence work regarding formation of layout, although preliminary notification was issued in the year 1997. There is an enormous delay of 8 years in issuing the final notification from the date preliminary notification was published. There is 19 absolutely no explanation for such long and inordinate delay in issuing the final notification. There is also absolutely no justification for the delay that has been caused thereafter in taking up the work of formation of layout. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SHIMOGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 2002 KAR 2078, final declaration under Section 19(1) has to be issued within a reasonable time and any inordinate delay in issuing the final notification would be unjust to the land owners and in such circumstances, the final declaration would stand vitiated. In the said decision, the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 17, by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of RAM CHAND & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - (1994) 1 SCC 44, has held that where payment of compensation has been pegged down to the date of preliminary notification and there is inordinate delay, the market value as on the date of the preliminary notification becomes a fraction of the market value prevailing at the time of passing of the award and taking of possession which would be unjust to the land owners. Even in that case, the Urban Development Authority, Shimoga had failed to explain the inordinate delay and there was absolutely 20 no reason forthcoming for the delay of more than 3 years, and therefore, the final declaration issued was held invalid. Again, in Ramchand's case, the Apex Court has categorically laid down that a statutory authority cannot take a plea that although it has not performed its duty within a reasonable time, it was of no consequence because the person who had been deprived of his right did not approach the Court within a reasonable period. The Apex Court in the said judgment has clearly laid down that powers conferred by act of Parliament must, as a general rule, be exercised within a reasonable time, otherwise the exercise of power gets vitiated. It has been also laid down that reasonable exercise of power includes exercise of power within a reasonable period.
19. In the facts of the present case, petitioners have purchased a portion of the land under absolute sale deed and have entered into an agreement with a due power of attorney executed in respect of the other portion from its owners - (other co-petitioners) and have established an Ayurvedic Hospital and Research Centre. They have been sought to be deprived of the same allegedly for the purpose of a formation of residential layout. The idea of forming the residential layout has remained 21 in an embryonic stage, inasmuch as except issuing the notifications, nothing has happened, though 20 years have lapsed from the date of issuance of preliminary notification.
20. The question of locus standi in the present case will not arise for the simple reason that petitioner No.1 has already purchased a portion of the land in the year 1982 and has entered into an agreement of sale coupled with execution of General Power of Attorney in his favour way back on 17.12.1995. Based on the Agreement of Sale and the General Power of Attorney and as also the Sale Deed, he has put up construction of the Hospital and a Research Centre known as 'Indus Valley Ayurvedic Centre'. Therefore, it is not as if petitioners have clandestinely taken up the venture of establishing the Hospital after the issuance of preliminary notification. At any rate, all the owners of the land have joined the petitioners in filing this writ petition. This is not a case where interest in the land has been acquired by the petitioners after the issuance of preliminary notification and therefore, petitioners have to resign to their fate. At any rate, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Nagubai's case supra, such question regarding locus standi will not arise where the 22 subsequent purchaser has approached the Court contending that due to inordinate delay in completing the acquisition proceedings, the acquisition stood lapsed.
21. It has to be noticed in this case that several lands situated in the vicinity of the land belonging to petitioners have been excluded from acquisition. It is specifically contended by the petitioners that in the layout plan, the land of the petitioners has not been included and that it has been included in the notification only to treat it as land bank. In fact, this approach of the acquiring body to treat the land as a land bank has been deprecated and found fault with by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 28.10.2015 passed in W.A.Nos.5752-56/2012 c/w. 6828-32/2012. Indeed, the said judgment also becomes relevant and applicable in the context of the facts on hand because even in the facts of the said case, the planning authority did not show any intention of implementing the scheme by utilizing the lands acquired and it had resorted to acquisition only to create them as land bank. The Division Bench has opined that the development authorities were not created for the purpose of acquiring the land to treat them as land bank; if that were to be permitted, 23 then any development authority could misuse the land acquisition proceedings by notifying and acquiring large extent of land which may run into several hundred acres for future development after decades for which it had to deposit the amount after several years.
22. In the facts of the present case also, not even a single acre of land has been utilized for formation of the layout though nearly 20 years have lapsed since the date of preliminary notification. There is absolutely no intention on the part of the acquiring body to utilize the land for formation of the layout. Major chunk of the land though belonged to the Government, in an extent of nearly 65 acres has not been handed over to the authority. Lands belonging to other private individuals have been excluded from the acquisition. Except about 5 acres 20 guntas all other private lands have been excluded. Therefore, effectively this is the only piece of land belonging to the petitioners for which the MUDA has come up with objections to the challenge laid, on the ground that petitioners have no locus standi and that the scheme has not lapsed. MUDA has kept quiet for two decades without implementing the scheme in any manner to any extent.
24
23. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is absolutely no reason why the MUDA shall be permitted to take up such unreasonable contention when it has failed to discharge its statutory duty of formation of layout even after lapse of 11 years from the date of issuances of final notification. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to deny the relief sought for by the petitioners. Petitioners are entitled to succeed. Even from the date of pre-notification dated 15.7.1997 there is delay of 7 years till the publication of final notification on 22.7.2005. This unreasonable and unexplained delay also vitiates the acquisition as held by the Apex Court in the case of RAM CHAND & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - (1994) 1 SCC 44.
24. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned acquisition proceedings in respect of lands belonging to the petitioners comprised in Sy.No.41 measuring 3 acres 9 guntas is declared as having lapsed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK