Karnataka High Court
Sri Chikkanna G vs State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2025
-1-
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 272 OF 2018 (LA-UDA)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.5917 OF 2021 (LA-UDA)
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 272 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI CHIKKANNA G
S/O LATE GIRIGOWDA,
PETITIONER NO.1 IS DEAD
PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF
DECEASED PETITIONER NO.1
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.12.2024
2. SRI.SULOCHANAMMA W/O G.CHIKKANNA,
R/AT #2664/A, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, K.G.KOPPAL,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU-570009
3. SRI.MOHAN KUMAR C
S/O CHIKKANNA,
Digitally
signed by V R/AT #2664/A, 2ND CROSS,
N BADIGER
Location:
2ND MAIN, K.G.KOPPAL,
HIGH SARASWATHIPURAM,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MYSURU-570009
DHARWAD
BENCH
DHARWAD 4. SRI.CHETHANA
W/O MOHAN KUMAR C,
R/AT #2664/A, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, K.G.KOPPAL,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU-570009.
-2-
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
5. SRI.JAGAN C
S/O CHIKKANNA G,
R/AT #2664/A, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, K.G.KOPPAL,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU-570009.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJARAMA SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570005,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANAND ADV., FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED
NIL BEARING NO.PRA.BHU.SWA/85-86 PUBLISHED IN THE
KARNATAKA OFFICIAL GAZETTE DATED 25.06.1987, BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION INSOFAR
AS SCHEDULE LANDS BELONGING TO THE PETITINOERS IS
CONCERNED; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
-3-
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING FINAL
ST
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT BEARING NO.VANA
E 274 MIB 88, BANGALORE, DATED 25.06.1988 PUBLISHED IN THE
KARNATAKA OFFICIAL GAZETTE DATED 25.06.1988 AT ANNEXURE-D
TO THE WRIT PETITION INSOFAR AS SCHEDULE LANDS BELONGING
TO THE PETITINOERS IS CONCERNED; DECLARE THAT THE SCHEME
AND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
PERTAINING TO BOGADI VILLAGE LAYOUT WHICH HAS RESULTED IN
ISSUANCE OF FINAL NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-D HAS LAPSED
INSOFAR AS SCHEDULE LANDS BELONGING TO THE PETITIOENRS IS
CONCERNED.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5917 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI. PUTTAIAH
S/O LATE GIRIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT:79 YEARS,
R/AT #2664/A, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, K.G.KOPPAL,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU-570009.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJARAMA SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570005,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
-4-
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANAND ADV., FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED
NIL BEARING NO.PRA BHU SWA/1985-86 PUBLISHED IN THE
KARNATAKA OFFICIAL GAZETTE DATED 25.06.1987, AT ANNEXURE-B
TO THE WRIT PETITION INSOFAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY
BELONGING TO THE PETITINOER IS CONCERNED; ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BEARING NO.VANA E 274 MIB 88, BANGALORE, DATED
25.06.1988 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA OFFICIAL GAZETTE
DATED 25.06.1988 AT ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION
INSOFAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITINOER
IS CONCERNED; DECLARE THAT THE SCHEME AND ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO BOGADI
3RD STAGE EXTENSION LAYOUT WHICH HAS RESULTED IN ISSUANCE
OF NOTIFICATIONS AT ANNEXURE-B AND C HAS LAPSED INSOFAR
AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIOENR IS
CONCERNED.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 07.01.2021 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
W.P. No. 272/2018
C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In these writ petitions, petitioners are assailing the Preliminary Notification dated 25.06.1987 and Final Notification dated 25.06.1988 inter alia sought for relief that the acquisition proceedings has become lapsed in respect of the subject lands.
2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. Facts in W.P.No.272/2018:
3.1. It is the case of the petitioners that the land bearing Survey No.220, measuring 39 Guntas out of 01 Acre 33 Guntas and land bearing Survey No.221 measuring 2 Acre 26 guntas of Bogadi village, Mysore Taluk, are the joint family properties of petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.1 is in possession of the lands in question. It is further stated in the petition that, as per the partition deed dated 20.03.2013 land was divided amongst petitioner No.1, 2 and 5 and an extent of 39 Guntas was allotted to the share of the petitioner No.1.
Further it is stated that as per partition deed dated 28.10.2013, -6- W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021 an extent of 1 Acre 10 Guntas out of 2 acres 10 Guntas in Survey No.221/2 was divided amongst petitioners No.1 to 4. It is also stated that as per partition deed dated 28.10.2013, remaining extent of land measuring 1 Acre in Survey No.221/1 was partitioned amongst petitioners No.1, 2 and 5 and land bearing Survey No.220 of Bogadi village, wherein 39 Guntas of land was sub-divided as Survey No.220/2 and land bearing Survey No.221, wherein land to an extent of 2 Acres 10 Guntas was sub-divided as Survey No.221/1 and as such, the petitioners have produced RTC extracts for the period from 1986-87 to 1990-91 as per Annexure-A series to substantiate their rights in respect of subject land.
3.2. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "MUDA") proposed to acquire the land belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of formation of Bogadi layout at Mysore and as such, issued Preliminary Notification under Section 16(1) of the City of Mysore Improvements Act, 1903 (for short "the 1903 Act") on 25.06.1987. Thereafter, the respondent-authorities have issued Final Notification under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities -7- W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021 Act, 1987 (for short "the Act") on 25.06.1988. It is also stated in the writ petition that the respondent-MUDA have not proceeded with the acquisition proceedings, no compensation has been paid to the petitioners and further, the possession of the schedule land remains with the family of the petitioners. The petitioners have also produced photographs of the schedule land as per Annexure-E series. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner No.1 has made an application to the respondent-MUDA with regard to seeking details about the acquisition proceedings referred to above and as such, the respondent-MUDA issued Endorsement dated 07.11.2017 (Annexure-F and G series) stating that the acquisition proceedings was not continued and possession of the land in question has not been taken. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent-MUDA ought to have passed award within two years from the date of Final Notification and as such, the award has not been passed, and therefore, the petitioners have sought for quashing the acquisition proceedings. It is also stated in the writ petition that the petitioners were served with notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on 10.01.2020 (Annexure-J and K) and -8- W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021 general award was passed accordingly. The petitioners have produced Annexure-L series wherein the respondent-MUDA have deposited the compensation under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act before the Civil Court. It is the grievance of the petitioners that as the respondent-MUDA have not taken possession of the land in question and the petitioners herein are in possession of the land in question and as no compensation has been paid till date and further award notice was served after 32 years from the date of acquisition proceedings and therefore, the acquisition proceeding become lapsed as the scheme was not implemented as the land belonging to the petitioners has not been utilised by the respondent-MUDA. Hence, the petitioners have presented this writ petition.
4. Facts in W.P.No.5917/2021:
4.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner in possession of the land bearing Survey No.220 of Bogadi village, Mysore Taluk to an extent of 33½ Guntas out of 1 acre 33 Guntas and the land has been phoded as Survey No.220/1 measuring 17 Guntas, Survey No.220/5, measuring 8 -9- W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021 Guntas and Survey No.220/6, measuring 8.08 Guntas and his brother-Chikkanna got remaining 39½ Guntas of land. It is the case of the petitioner that the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner and accordingly, produced RTC extracts at Annexure-A series. It is stated in the petition that the respondent-MUDA proposed to acquire the land for the purpose of formation of Bogadi village layout and accordingly, Preliminary Notification was issued on 25.06.1987 followed by Final Notification dated 25.06.1988 produced at Annexure-B and C respectively. It is further stated in the writ petition that, no award was passed within the stipulated period nor compensation has been paid to the petitioner. It is further stated that petitioner is in lawful possession of the land in question. When the things stood thus, the respondent-MUDA have issued notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 10.01.2020 stating that the general award has been passed. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the award notice has been issued after more than three decades and therefore, the impugned acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed in respect of the subject matter of the land in question. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner has
- 10 -W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
received notice from the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Mysore in LAC No.16/2020 with regard to quantification of the compensation to be payable to the petitioner. The petitioner has presented this writ petition on the ground that the award notice has been issued after three decades and there is no implementation of the scheme by the respondent-MUDA substantially and therefore, presented this writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings.
5. I have heard Sri.Rajarama Sooryambail appearing for the petitioner and Sri. T. P. Vivekanand learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MUDA. Sri. Manjunath K, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State.
6. Sri. Rajaram Sooryambail learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that though the acquisition proceedings has been initiated during 1987, however, notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 10.01.2020 and therefore, since the award notice has been issued beyond reasonable period that too, after 32 years from the date of issuance of Preliminary Notification and further compensation has been deposited on 29.06.2020
- 11 -
W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021 before the Civil Court beletedly, and as such, it is argued that the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed as has become lapsed.
6.1. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the possession has not been taken by the respondent-MUDA and petitioners are in possession of the land in question as on today and therefore, referred to the endorsement issued by the respondent-MUDA as per Annexure- F that the respondent-MUDA have abandoned the scheme of implementation of acquisition. Accordingly, sought for interference by this Court.
6.2. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to paragraph 8 of the statement of objections filed by respondent-MUDA that the respondent- MUDA themselves admits that award notice was issued belatedly and compensation was deposited before the Civil Court after 32 years and therefore, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is the principal submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondent-MUDA have not utilised the land in question and
- 12 -
W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021 further no steps have been taken to take possession and implement the scheme by allotting site and therefore, he refers to the photographs attached to the petition and submitted that the writ petitions are required to be allowed.
6.3. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 4275 and in the case Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and in the case of Banagalore Development Authority v. Anandarama Reddy and others in W.A.No.1013/2016 disposed of on 04.02.2020 and argued that the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed in respect of the subject matter of the land in question.
7. Per contra, Sri. T. P. Vivekanand appearing for the respondent-MUDA submitted that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and further scheme has been implemented substantially by the respondents and in this regard he refers to the judgment of this
- 13 -
W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021 Court in the case of the Mysore Urban Development Authority and another v. Chikka Boraiah (Dead) by LRs in W.A.No.5961/2003 disposed of on 12.01.2011 and in the case of Bore Gowda v. Mysore Urban Development Authority in W.P.No.32177/2002 disposed of on 03.02.2012 and contended that a very same notification was called in question and this Court has held that the scheme has been implemented substantially and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
7.1. Further, it is contended by Sri. T. P. Vivekanand learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MUDA that delay in passing award notice and to deposit the compensation was on account of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "ULCAR Act") by the competent authority and therefore sought to substantiate the action of the respondent-MUDA. It is also contended that as some pockets of land in question was not taken possession on account of the pending proceedings under different enactments and therefore to substantiate the action of the respondents about delay in passing the award. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
- 14 -
W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021 7.2. Learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the additional statement of objections filed in the writ petitions and contended that the action of the respondent- MUDA is just and proper and therefore, argued that no interference is called for insofar as acquisition proceedings are concerned.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the Preliminary Notification was issued on 25.06.1987, proposed to acquire the land for the purpose of formation of Bogadi layout at Mysore and the Final Notification came to be issued on 25.06.1988. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners herein are the owners of the lands in question and the award notice has been issued on 10.01.2020 under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation has been deposited before the Civil Court at Mysore on 29.06.2020. It is the case of the petitioners that the possession of the lands in question was not taken and award notice was issued after more than three decades.
- 15 -
W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
9. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent-MUDA that the scheme of acquisition was implemented substantially and same was confirmed by this Court in W.A.No.5961/2003 disposed of on 12.01.2011 and in W.P.No.32177/2002 disposed of on 03.02.2012. In the backdrop of these aspects, I have carefully examined the delay in issuing of the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Though the proceedings were initiated under the provisions of ULCAR Act, however there was no impediment for the respondent-MUDA to issue notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and to deposit the compensation before the competent Civil Court immediately after the initiation of acquisition proceedings. The respondents ought to have issued General award within the reasonable period and not beyond three decades.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (supra) has held that delay in deposit of compensation under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act amounts to procedural lapse and in the present case, the award notice was issued after inordinate delay of 32 years and compensation was deposited thereafter and
- 16 -
W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021 therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In the case of Delhi Development Authority (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 22 held as follows:
"22. A cursory reading of these paragraphs will show that it is only pursuant to judicial orders that the State wakes up from its slumber. It is important to note that a notice of award under Section 12(2) to persons interested can only be issued after money is received by the Land Acquisition Collector, and that the said Collector shall not take possession of land unless and until compensation amount is received by him. Further, actual payment to land owners must be made latest within a period of 60 days. It is high time that the State realizes that persons whose property is expropriated need to be paid immediately so as to rehabilitate themselves. Also, it cannot be forgotten that the amount usually offered by way of an award of a Land Acquisition Collector under the 1894 Act is way below the real market value, which is only awarded and paid years later when the reference proceedings culminate in judgments of the High Courts and of this Court."
11. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1013/2016 has held that if the scheme of acquisition is not implemented substantially and the petitioner still continues
- 17 -
W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021 to be in possession of the land acquired therein and no action has been taken by the respondents to take possession of the land in question, hence, the acquisition proceedings would become lapsed. Taking into account the aforementioned judgments rendered in favour of the petitioners/claimants therein, though the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the scheme of acquisition has been upheld in W.A.No.5961/2003 and in W.P.No.32177/2002, however, in those cases, this Court allowed the plea made by the respondent-MUDA that the layout has been formed and sites have been formed in respect of the subject land in those cases refers to the subject land in Writ Appeal and Writ Petition. Admittedly, in the present petitions, no possession was taken by the respondent-MUDA even according to them and that apart, award notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was passed after 32 years and therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-MUDA cannot be accepted.
12. This Court in the case of Mrs. Poornima Girish vs. Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka and
- 18 -
W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021 Others reported in ILR 2011 KAR 574, at paragraph 8 held as follows:
"8. Having heard Sri. Krishnappa, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Abdul Khader, Learned for the respondent - Authority on merits, it is found that the situation is one which is irredeemable and irretrievable for the Authorities as the Authority by its own inaction and letharginess has allowed the acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned lapse. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings in terms of the Preliminary Notification under Section 17 of the Act and Final Notification under Section 19 of the Act are hereby quashed only insofar it relates to the land in possession of the petitioner in terms of the report now placed before the Court according to which the petitioner is in possessions of site measuring 40 feet by 60 feet."
13. The aforementioned judgment of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.4824 of 2010 disposed of on 01st March, 2014. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2018 KAR 2144, wherein at paragraphs 5 to 8 held as follows:
- 19 -W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
"5. It is no longer res-integra that power conferred on any authority be exercised reasonably and reasonable exercise of power includes exercise of the same within a reasonable period. An acquisition proceeding once initiated has to be completed by passing an award and paying compensation followed by taking over possession within a reasonable period. This has to be strictly followed even in the absence of any statutory limit prescribed for passing of award and completing the acquisition proceedings. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the judgment in the case of RAMCHAND & OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS1. The Apex Court has laid down in para 14 as under:
"14. The Parliament has recognised and taken note of the inaction and non-exercise of the statutory power on the part of the authorities, enjoined by the provisions of the Act to complete the acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time and because of that now a time-limit has been fixed for making of the award, failing which the entire proceeding for acquisition shall lapse. But, can it be said that before the introduction of the aforesaid amendment in the Act, the authorities were at liberty to proceed with the acquisition proceedings, irrespective of any schedule or time-frame and to complete the same as and when they desired? It is settled that in a statute where for exercise of power no time- 1 1994 (1) SCC 44
- 20 -
W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021 limit is fixed, it has to be exercised within a time which can be held to be reasonable. ..."
6. In the case of TUKARAM KANA JOSHI & OTHERS THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER vs. M.I. D.C. AND OTHERS2, the Apex Court has, while dealing with the issue of legal obligation on the part of the authorities to complete such acquisition proceedings and to make payment of requisite compensation has observed in paras 17 & 18 as follows:
"17. The appellants have been seriously discriminated against qua other persons, whose land was also acquired. Some of them were given the benefits of acquisition, including compensation in the year 1966. This kind of discrimination not only breeds corruption, but also dis-respect for governance, as it leads to frustration and to a certain extent, forces persons to take the law into their own hands. The findings of the High Court, that requisite records were not available, or that the appellants approached the authorities at a belated stage are contrary to the evidence available on record and thus, cannot be accepted and excused as it remains a slur on the system of governance and justice alike, and an anathema to the doctrine of equality, which is the soul of our Constitution. Even under valid acquisition proceedings, there is a 2 AIR 2013 SC 565
- 21 -W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
legal obligation on the part of the authorities to complete such acquisition proceedings at the earliest, and to make payment of requisite compensation. The appeals etc. are required to be decided expeditiously, for the sole reason that, if a person is not paid compensation in time, he will be unable to purchase any land or other immovable property, for the amount of compensation that is likely to be paid to him at a belated stage.
18. While dealing with the similar issue, this Court in K. Krishna Reddy & Ors. v. The Special Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, LMD Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 2123, held as under:
"....After all money is what money buys. What the claimants could have bought with the compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988. Perhaps, not even one half of it. It is a common experience that the purchasing power of rupee is dwindling.
With rising inflation, the delayed payment may lose all charm and utility of the compensation. In some cases, the delay may be detrimental to the interests of claimants. The Indian agriculturists generally have no avocation. They totally depend upon land. If uprooted, they will find themselves nowhere. They are left high
- 22 -W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
and dry. They have no savings to draw. They have nothing to fall back upon. They know no other work. They may even face starvation unless rehabilitated.
In all such cases, it is of utmost
importance that the award should be
made without delay. The enhanced
compensation must be determined
without loss of time...."
7. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of SRI.H.N SHIVANNA AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER3, has held as follows:
"39 .............As held by the Apex Court in Ram Chand's case, two years is held to be a reasonable time within which a final declaration has to be issued, if there are no hurdles placed in the acquisition by the land owners or if there are no hurdles in law. ........................ Even in the absence of any such prescriptions expressly under the statute, having regard to the fact that the right to property is a constitutional right and the person whose land is sought to be acquired is entitled to compensation at the market rate, such a compensation has to be paid to him at the earliest and therefore, the power of acquisition should be exercised within a reasonable time 3 2013 (4) KCCR 2793 (DB)
- 23 -W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
so that the person who lost the land is duly compensated at the earliest point of time."
8. In the present cases, though final notification was issued in the year 1971 so far, neither award has been passed nor possession has been taken over by paying compensation. Therefore, the acquiring body has neither exercised its powers in a reasonable manner nor has it completed the acquisition proceeding within a reasonable period. Hence, acquisition having been abandoned stands lapsed on account of omission and commission on the part of the CITB/BDA in respect of writ petitioners/respondents' herein in so far as the land is concerned."
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Jayalakshmamma and others v. The State of Karnataka and others in Civil Appeal No.13785/2024 (arising out of SLP (C) No.12362/2022) at paragraph 10 to 13 has held as follows:
"10. In our considered view mere passing of an award on 21.04.1986 did not absolve the respondents of their statutory obligation to offer fair and just compensation to the expropriated land owners. Denial thereof is directly in the teeth of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
11. That apart, the respondents have miserably failed to show any provision either under the CITB Act or under the 1894 Act, which can enable them to withhold the payment of compensation
- 24 -W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021
endlessly, which would comprise of over 34-35 years in the instant case. Non-payment of compensation, in the given facts and circumstances of this case, in our considered opinion, has vitiated the subject acquisition and the same is liable to be quashed. Ordered accordingly.
15. Though the above judgment is passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, however, the said judgment is passed against the very same respondent herein-MUDA and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is also to be noted that this Court in W.P.No.38509/2017 disposed of on 14.11.2017 under similar circumstances quashed the acquisition proceedings as against the very same respondents herein on the ground that the possession of the land in question has not been taken and compensation has not been paid thereunder.
16. Taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, as no document has been produced by the respondent- MUDA for having taken possession of the land in question and therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. In the result, I pass the following
- 25 -
W.P. No. 272/2018 C/W W.P.No.5917 of 2021 ORDER
i) The writ petitions are allowed.
ii) The Preliminary Notification dated 25.06.1987 and Final Notification dated 25.06.1988 and all further proceedings with regard to the petition schedule properties are hereby quashed.
iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN