Allowed

M Suresh Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2022WP/11550/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowners challenged acquisition for failure to make a fresh award within statutory time. The court held that pending challenges without a stay did not extend the award deadline and that the acquisition had lapsed. It allowed the petitions, quashed the notifications and awards, and reserved liberty for the beneficiary to pursue damages against the State.

What did the court decide?

Preliminary and final acquisition notifications and any awards quashed; liberty reserved to the beneficiary to pursue damages against the State.

M Suresh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 11551 OF 2019 (LA-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 25329 OF 2017 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 25759 OF 2017 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 11550 OF 2019 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 11553 OF 2019 (LA-RES)

¶9

IN W.P.NO.11551/2019 BETWEEN:

¶10

M. SURESH KUMAR S/O A.R. MUTHUKUMAR AGE: MAJOR

¶11

SMT. DHANALAKSHMI W/O MUTHU KUMAR AGE: MAJOR

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.231/1 2^ND CROSS, 29^TH MAIN BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560068

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI.K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MITHUN.G.A, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE

¶18

¶19

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VISHVESWARAIAH CENTRE 3^RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001

¶21

THE SECRETARY THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS & VEGETABLES AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET, BANGALORE-560023

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA.K.R, AGA FOR R1 & R2; DR. NANDA KIRSHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 20.05.2002 AND 02.08.2003 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURES-A & B DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SECTION 11A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 FOR BEING NOT MADE AN AWARD WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY CONSTITUTION BENCH IN 2010(2) SCC 533 AT PARA 11 AND FURTHER TO HOLD THAT THE ACQUISITION DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED EVEN OTHERWISE UNDER THE NEW ACT, UNDER SECTION 24(1)(A) READ WITH SEC. 25 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 AS NO AWARD UNDER THE NEW ACT HAS BEEN PASSED WITHIN 12 MONTHS BY INITIATING FRESH ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE NEW ACT UPON COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW ACT AND ETC.

¶25

¶26

¶27

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶28

IN W.P.NO.25329/2017 BETWEEN:

¶29

SRI. N. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE K.R. NARAYANA REDDY AGED:MAJOR R/AT NO.147, OLD MADIWALA BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU

¶30

SRI. N. CHANDRA REDDY S/O LATE K.R. NARAYANA REDDY MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT NO.147, OLD MADIWALA BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU’

¶31

SRI. N. NAGARAJ S/O LATE K.R. NARAYANA REDDY MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT NO.147, OLD MADIWALA BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU

¶32

SMT. MADHAVI SIMPI REDDY W/O SHYAMASUNDER REDDY MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT NO.147, OLD MADIWALA BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU

¶33

...PETITIONERS

¶34

(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. VIKRAM BALAJI AND SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATES)

¶35

AND:

¶36

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶37

¶38

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶39

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶40

THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE INFANTRY ROAD BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE BENGALURU.

¶41

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU.

¶42

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER PODIUM BLOCK, VISHVESWARAIAH KENDRA 3^RD FLOOR, BENGALURU-560 001

¶43

THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET, BENGALURU-560 023 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶44

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.NITHYANANDA.K.R, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; DR. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6)

¶45

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS PER THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION AND FINAL NOTIFICATIONS DATED 20.5.2002 & 2.8.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & B ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SECTION 11-A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT OF 1894 FOR NOT MAKING AN AWARD WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO

¶46

¶47

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶48

YEARS FORM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE CONSTITUTION BENCH REPORTED IN [2002] 3 SCC 533, PARA 11 AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SECTION 24 & 25 OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 24 AND 25 OF THE ACT, CENTRAL ACT 30 OF 2013 AND ETC.

¶49

*********

¶50

IN W.P.NO.25759/2017 BETWEEN:

¶51

VENKATASWAMAIAH @ K. VENKATASWAMAPPA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.68, 11^TH MAIN BTM 1^ST STAGE, DRC POST BENGALURU-560029

¶52

...PETITIONER

¶53

(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. SHILPA RANI AND ANUSHA.L, ADVOCATES OF BALAJI ASSTS.)

¶54

AND:

¶55

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001

¶56

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, M.S.BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560001

¶57

¶58

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶59

THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE INFANTRY ROAD, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE BENGALURU-560001

¶60

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU

¶61

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER PHODIUM BLOCK VESHVESWARAIAH KENDRA, 3^RD FLOOR BENGALURU-560001

¶62

THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS & VEGETABLES AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET, BENGALURU-560023 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶63

… RESPONDENTS

¶64

(BY SRI.NITHYANANDA.K.R, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; DR. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶65

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED PER THE FINAL 1/02.03 AND NO.KAM DT. 20.05.2002 AND 02.08.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER S. 11A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT OF 1894 FOR NOT MAKING AWARD WITHIN PERIOD 2 YEARS THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE CONSTITUTION BENCH REPORTED IN 2003 (2) SCC 533, PARA 11, AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED U/S 24 & 25 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT OF 2013 AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.24 AND 258 OF THE ACT, CENTRAL ACT 30 OF 2013 AND ETC.

¶66

¶67

¶68

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶69

IN W.P.NO.11550/2019

¶70

BETWEEN

¶71

M. SURESH KUMAR S/O A.R. MUTHU KUMAR AGED:MAJOR R/A NO.331/1, 2^ND CROSS 29^TH MAIN ROAD NEAR GAYATHRI APARTMENT BTM I PHASE, BANGALORE-560068

¶72

...PETITIONER

¶73

(BY SRI.K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MITHUN.G.A, ADVOCATE)

¶74

AND:

¶75

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE

¶76

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VISHVESWARAIAH CENTRE 3^RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001

¶77

THE SECRETARY THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET, BANGALORE-560023

¶78

… RESPONDENTS

¶79

(BY SRI.NITHYANANDA.K.R, AGA FOR R1 & R2; DR. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶80

¶81

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶82

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION NO.LAQ/SR/1/2002-2003 DATED 20.05.2002 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FINAL NOTIFICATION IN BEARING SL.NO.3/BHU/SWA/BE/2003 DATED 02.08.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-B RESPECTIVELY, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SECTION 11A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 FOR BEING NOT MADE AN AWARD WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY CONSTITUTION BENCH IN 2010(2) SCC 533 AT PARA 11 AND FURTHER TO HOLD THAT THE ACQUISITION DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED EVEN OTHERWISE UNDER THE NEW ACT, UNDER SECTION 24 (1)(A) READ WITH SEC 25 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 AS NO AWARD UNDER THE NEW ACT HAS BEEN PASSED WITHIN 12 MONTHS BY INITIATING FRESH ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE NEW ACT UPON COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW ACT AND ETC.

¶83

¶84

IN W.P.NO.11553/2019 BETWEEN:

¶85

SRI. KRISHNA REDDY S/O H. THIMMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶86

SRI. T.R.RAMASWAMY REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶87

CHETANA REDDY D/O LATE T.R. RAMASAWAMY REDDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.310 R.S. GREENWOOD APARTMENTS NEAR CANARA BANK, ANEKAL TALUK

¶88

¶89

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶90

BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BENGLAURU-560099

¶91

SRI.R.T.VENKATASWAMY SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶92

A. B.N.RATNA W/O R.T. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶93

B. ROOPESH R V S/O LATE R.T. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶94

BOTH (A) AND (B) ARE R/AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶95

SRI. R.T. SRINIVASA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶96

A. R.S.DEEPTHI D/O LATE R.T.SRINIVASA REDDY AGED 25 YEARS

¶97

B. R.S. DIVYA D/O LATE R.T. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED 23 YEARS

¶98

BOTH (A) AND (B) ARE R/AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶99

SRI. R.T.NARAYANA REDDY S/O H. THIMMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶100

10 -

¶101

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶102

SRI. R.T. GOPALA REDDY S/O H. THIMMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.1, 2, 5 AND 6 ARE R/A RAMASAGARA VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶103

...PETITIONERS

¶104

(BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MITHUN.G.A, ADVOCATE)

¶105

AND:

¶106

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE

¶107

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VISHVESWARAIAH CENTRE 3^RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001

¶108

THE SECRETARY THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS & VEGETABLES AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET, BANGALORE - 560 023

¶109

… RESPONDENTS

¶110

(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA.K.R, AGA FOR R1 & R2; DR. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶111

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE PRELIMINARY

¶112

11 -

¶113

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶114

NOTIFICATION AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 20.05.2002 AND 02.08.2003 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURES A & B DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SEC.11A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 FOR BEING NOT MADE AN AWARD WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY CONSTITUTION BENCH IN 2010(2) SCC 533 AT PARA 11 AND FURTHER TO HOLD THAT THE ACQUISITION DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED EVEN OTHERWISE UNDER THE NEW ACT, UNDER SEC.24 (1)(A) READ WITH SEC 25 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 AS NO AWARD UNDER THE NEW ACT HAS BEEN PASSED WITHIN 12 MONTHS BY INITIATING FRESH ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE NEW ACT UPON COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW ACT AND ETC.

¶115

*****

¶116

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.07.2022, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶117

ORDER

¶118

The petitioners in W.P.No.11551/2019 are before this

¶119

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶120

a. To declare that the acquisition proceedings as per the preliminary notification and final notification dated 20.05.2002 and 02.08.2003 respectively vide Annexures-A & B deemed to have been lapsed under section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for being not made an award within stipulated period of 2 years from the date of Order of Learned Single Judge, as per the law laid down by Constitution Bench in 2010(2) SCC 533 at para 11 and further to hold that the acquisition deemed to have been lapsed even otherwise under the new Act, under

¶121

12 -

¶122

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶123

Sec.24(1)(a) read with sec.25 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 as no award under the new Act has been passed within 12 months by initiating fresh acquisition proceedings under the new act upon commencement of the new act; and

¶124

¶125

Without prejudice to their right, further declare that acquisition proceedings under Sec.24 and 25 of the Central Act 2013 being not passed any award within two years or otherwise, within one year under Act 2013, according to law, there is no acquisition in the eye of law and the one on which the Respondents are contending that they are entitled to pass the award not sustainable in law and accordingly quash the acquisition proceedings initiated according to the Endorsement in Case No. LAQ No. (8)SR 4/02-03 dated 22.12.2018 that was handed over to the Petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police, Hebbagodi on 05.01.2019 in respect of the land in question in the interest of justice and equity.

¶126

c. To declare that in terms of the Judgement of the Full Bench held in (Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others) reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 , the land acquisition is deemed lapsed under Sec.24(2) of the 2013 Act, as there is no award being passed prior to commencement of the New Act 2013 nor Possession being taken till date, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶127

“The Petitioner No.1 is the son of 2^nd Petitioner. The Petitioner No.1 is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.142 measuring 5-00 acres situated at Goolimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The 1^st Petitioner and 2^nd Petitioner jointly owned Sy. No.143 measuring 5 Acres. 2^nd Petitioner has executed the General Power of Attorney dated 23.08.2007 in favour of 1^st Petitioner for challenging this acquisition by him. The 2^nd Petitioner is the mother of 1st Petitioner, however, on the basis of the power of attorney in respect of 2½ Acres, that

¶128

13 -

¶129

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶130

being jointly in Possession with the 1^st Petitioner, by means of power of attorney, the Petitioners are filing this petition challenging acquisition of Sy. No.142 and 143 of Gulimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The Petitioners while being in Possession of the same, the Respondents having published a Notification bearing NO.LAQ/SR/1/02-03 dated 20-5-2002 followed by a final Notification came to be published in the Gazette vide Notification No. RD/3/LAW-Be/03 dated 02.08.2003. The said notification being published after one year, same came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.11298/2005. Copy of the Preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A and copy of the final notification dated 02.08.2003 is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-B. Copy of the General Power of Attorney dated 23.08.2007 in favour of the Petitioner No.1 is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-C”.

¶131

The petitioners in W.P.No.25329/2017 are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶132

a. Declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated as per the preliminary notification and final notifications dated 20.5.2002 & 2.8.2003 vide ANNEXURE-A & B are deemed to have been lapsed under section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for not making an award within a period of two years from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge as per the law laid down by the Constitution Bench reported in [2002] 3 SCC 533, para 11 and further declare that the acquisition is deemed to have been lapsed under section 24 & 25 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and further declare that acquisition proceedings under section 24 and 25 of the Act, Central Act 30 of 2013.

¶133

14 -

¶134

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶135

b. Issue a writ certiorari quash the communication dated: 07.01.2021 addressed from the deputy secretary (Revenue department) addressed to regional commissioner and declare that 07.01.2021 is not an award within meaning of award as defined under The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 ACT No.30 OF 2013.

¶136

c. Pass any other appropriate order or orders or directions as deems fit by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest justice and equity.

¶137

AMENDED PRAYER INSERTED AS PER ORDER DT. 04.07.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE

¶138

COURT

¶139

d. Issue of writ of certiorari quashing the award dt. 25.08.2020 bearing number AQ (8) SR 14/20022003 ( ANNEXURE V ) passed by the Respondent No.5 herein the Special Land Acquisition officer u/s. 11 of 1894 Act land bearing No.106/1 an extent 11 Acres and 12 Guntas land situated in Goolimangala Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, and in the event of prayer (a) the writ petition is not granted by this Hon’ble court, the respondents maybe directed to pass fresh award u/s 30 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 in strict compliance and provisions of 2013 Act and the GOs issued from time to time on the subject of granting compensation in accordance with law.

¶140

“The Petitioners are the absolute owners of the proper bearing Sy.No.106/1 measuring 9 acres 12 guntas situate Gulimangala village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. The land was notified along with other survey numbers, totally 42 acres 31 guntas of land. The State Government proposing to issue a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was published in the official

¶141

15 -

¶142

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶143

gazette dated 20.5.2002. A copy of the said notification dated 20.5.2002 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A”.

¶144

The petitioner in W.P.No.25759/2017 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶145

a. Declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated as per the preliminary notification and final notifications No.LARQSR 1/02.03 and No.KAM dt. 20.05.2002 & 02.08.2003 vide ANNEXURE A & B are deemed to have been lapsed under s. 11A of the Land acquisition act of 1894 for not making an award within period of 2 years from the date of the order of the learned single judge as pre the law laid down by the constitution bench reported in 2003 (2) SCC 533, para 11, and further declare that the acquisition is deemed to have been lapsed u/s. 24 & 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement of 2013 and further declare that the acquisition proceedings under s.24 and 258 of the act, central act 30 of 2013.

¶146

b. Pass any other appropriate orders or directions as deemed by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstance the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶147

AMENDED PRAYER INSERTED AS PER ORDER THIS HON’BLE COURT DT. 04.07.2022

¶148

c. Issue Writ of Certiorari quashing the Government 07.01.2021 ( ANNEXURE N ) and award dt. 25.08.2020 bearing number AQ (8) SR 14/20022003 ( Annexure-M) passed by the Respondent No.5 herein the special land acquisition officer u/s.11 of the 1894 Act the land bearing No.106/2 an extent 11 Acres and 12 Guntas land situated Goolimangala Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore

¶149

16 -

¶150

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶151

District, and in the event prayer (a) if the writ petition is not granted by this Hon’ble Court, the respondents maybe directed to pass fresh award u/s 30 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement 2013 in strict compliance and provisions 2013 Act and the Gos issued from time to time on the subject of granting compensation in accordance law.

¶152

“It is submitted by the Petitioner that Sy.No.106/2 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas of land situate at Gulimagala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District, originally belonged to Pilla Reddy and Pilla Reddy sold the property in favour of Krishnappa vide Sale Deed dated 30.10.1937. Copy of the Sale Deed is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A. The said Pilla Reddy died on 06.03.1973. Even though the Sale Deed took place on 30.10.1937, after the death of Pillary Reddy, the pahanis stood in the name of grandsons of Pilla Reddy viz., Jayarama Reddy and C.L. Venogopal Reddy, children of late Lakshmaiah Reddy. Therefore, after the death of Krishnappa, the Petitioner being the son of Krishnappa, moved an application for change of pahanis in his name. However, the Tahsildar has mutated the revenue entries in the name of Jayarama Reddy, Venugopala Reddy, grand children of Pilla Reddy vide order dated 12.4.2012. This order dated 12.04.2012 was challenged by the Petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru in Revision Petition No.34/2013-14”.

¶153

The petitioner in W.P.No.11550/2019 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶154

a. To declare that the acquisition proceedings as per the preliminary notification No.LAQ/SR/1/2002-2003 dated 20.05.2002 issued by the second respondent

¶155

17 -

¶156

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶157

vide Annexure-A and final notification in bearing SL.No.3/Bhu/Swa/be/2003 dated 02.08.2003 vide Annexure-B respectively, in so far as petitioner is concerned deemed to have been lapsed under section 11A of the land acquisition act, 1894 for being not made an award within stipulated period of 2 years from the date of the order of learned single judge, as per the law laid by Constitution Bench in 2010(2) SCC 533 at para 11 and further to hold that the acquisition deemed to have been lapsed even otherwise under the new Act, under Sec.24 (1)(a) read with Sec 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 as no award under the new act has been passed within 12 months by initiating fresh acquisition proceedings under the new act upon commencement of the new act; and

¶158

b. Without prejudice to their right, further declare that acquisition proceedings under Sec.24 and 25 of the Central Act 2013 being not passed any award within two years or otherwise, within one year under Act 2013, according to law, there is no acquisition in the eye of law and the one on which the Respondents are contending that they are entitled to pass the award not sustainable in law and accordingly quash the acquisition proceedings initiated according to the Endorsement in Case No.LAQ No.(8)SR 4/02-03 dated 22.12.2018 vide Annexure-H that was handed over to the Petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police, Hebbagodi on 05.01.2019 in respect of the land in question in the interest of justice and equity; and

¶159

c. To declare that in terms of the Judgement of the Full Bench held in (Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others) reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 , the land acquisition is deemed lapsed under Sec.24(2) of the 2013 Act, as there is no award being passed prior to commencement of the New Act 2013 nor Possession being taken till date, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶160

18 -

¶161

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶162

“It is submitted that Sri. Rama Nathan S/o Ramaswamy along with two others namely, Deivanai and Alagammai are the owners of land bearing Sy. No.144 measuring 5 Acres situated at Gulimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The Petitioner has been given power of attorney by them by executing a General Power of Attorney dated 20.05.2004 for filing aforesaid acquisition. Hence, the Petitioner is the Power of Attorney holder of Ramanathan & others. It is how, the Petitioner based on the power of attorney is challenging the same in his name as a P.A. holder. The Petitioner is the sonin-law of the said Rama Nathan. Based on this power of Attorney, earlier, in fact, he filed Writ Petition bearing W.P. No.11302/2005, which finally reached the Supreme Court and disposed off in S.L.P. No.2834-2842/2014, pursuant to which, as liberty was given by the Supreme Court, the Petitioner is challenging the same as power of attorney holder of them. He is the power of attorney authorized by them for challenging the said acquisition. The Petitioner while being in Possession of the same, the Respondents having published a Notification bearing NO.LAQ/SR/1/02-03 dated 20-5-2002 followed by a final Notification came to be published in the Gazette vide Notification No. RD/3/LAW-Be/03 dated 02.08.2003. The said notification being published after one year, same came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.11302/2005. Copy of the Preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A and copy of the final notification dated 02.08.2003 is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-B . A Copy of the Power of Attorney is produced as ANNEXURE C.

¶163

The petitioners in W.P.No.11553/2019 are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶164

19 -

¶165

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶166

a. To declare that the acquisition proceedings as per the preliminary notification and final notification dated 20.05.2002 and 02.08.2003 respectively vide Annexures A & B deemed to have been lapsed under Sec.11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for being not made an award within stipulated period of 2 years from the date of the Order of Learned Single Judge, as per the law laid down by Constitution Bench in 2010(2) SCC 533 at para 11 and further to hold that the acquisition deemed to have been lapsed even otherwise under the new Act, under Sec.24 (1)(a) read with Sec 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 as no award under the new act has been passed within 12 months by initiating fresh acquisition proceedings under the new act upon commencement of the new act; and

¶167

b. Without prejudice to their right, further declare that acquisition proceedings under Sec.24 and 25 of the Central Act 2013 being not passed any award within two years or otherwise, within one year under Act 2013, according to law, there is no acquisition in the eye of law and the one on which the Respondents are contending that they are entitled to pass the award not sustainable in law and accordingly quash the acquisition proceedings initiated according to the Endorsement in Case No.LAQ No.(8)SR 4/02-03 dated 22.12.2018 that was handed over to the Petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police, Hebbagodi on 05.01.2019 in respect of the land in question in the interest of justice and equity.

¶168

¶169

20 -

¶170

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶171

“The Petitioners are the owner of the land, bearing Sy. No. 69 measuring 4-00 Acres 05 Guntas and Sy.No.145 measuring 5-00 acres 03 Guntas of Goolimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. These Petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Petitioners while being in Possession of the same, the Respondents having published a Notification bearing NO.LAQ/SR/1/02-03 dated 20-52002 followed by a final Notification came to be published in the Gazette vide Notification No. RD/3/LAW-Be/03 dated 02.08.2003. The said notification being published after one year, same came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.11300/2005. Copy of the Preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A and copy of the final notification dated 02.08.2003 is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-B ”.

¶172

A preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘L.A.Act’) came to be published on 20.05.2002 seeking to acquire the various lands including the lands subject matter of the above writ petitions. A final notification came to be published on 02.08.2003.

¶173

Alleging that the final notification was published one year after the publication of the preliminary notification. Several writ petitions were filed in WP

¶174

21 -

¶175

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019 No.11298/2005, WP No.11832/2005, WP No.10876/2005, WP No.11300/2005, WP

¶176

No.11302/2005 and WP No.11299/2005. All of which came to be disposed of by common judgment dated 22.11.2010. This Court taking into consideration that the acquisition was for a public purpose in order to save the acquisition came to a conclusion that if an award is passed on the current valuation of the property, the interest of the land owners would be safeguarded and as such, passed the following order:

¶177

ORDER

¶178

i. Writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶179

ii. The Writ Petitions in so far as it relates to quashing of preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 and the final notification dated 02.08.2003 are hereby dismissed.

¶180

iii. The impugned award dated 30.01.2005 is hereby quashed.

¶181

iv. The Land Acquisition Officer is hereby directed to pass a fresh award by taking into consideration the market value of the lands in question as on today.

¶182

22 -

¶183

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶184

v. If the Petitioners are dissatisfied with the compensation to be determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is open for them to seek enhancement of compensation as per law. Ordered accordingly.

¶185

The said order came to be challenged by the petitioners-land losers by way of writ appeal in WA Nos.33-34/11.

¶186

The beneficiary of the land acquisition namely the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) had also filed writ appeals in WA Nos.45/2011, 47/2011 and 52/2011 challenging the quashing of the award passed. All the above Writ Appeals were taken up for consideration together and disposed by a common order dated 5.9.2011.

¶187

The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ appeals vide order dated 05.09.2011. The writ appeals filed by the land losers in WA Nos.3334/2011 were dismissed so also the writ appeals filed by the APMC in WA Nos.45/2011, 47/2011 and 52/2011 dismissed.

¶188

23 -

¶189

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶190

Aggrieved by the same, the land losers filed a Special

¶191

Leave Petition in SLP Nos.2834-2842/2014 which came to be disposed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 17.4.2017. The Hon’ble Apex Court came to a conclusion that the observation of the Division Bench was justified and did not call for any interference.

¶192

The Hon’ble Apex Court however while adverting to some of the contentions raised as regards the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“LARR Act” for short) observed that the said contentions would require examination of facts and due opportunity. As such, it was left open to the aggrieved to pursue their remedies in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

¶193

It is thereafter that the above petitions have been filed seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶194

24 -

¶195

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶196

Sri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP No.25329/2017 and WP No.25759/2017 submits as under:

¶197

14.1. The acquisition having been challenged once earlier, this Court vide its order dated 22.12.2010 though dismissed the challenge to the preliminary and final notifications had directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh award by taking into consideration the market value of the land in question as on the date of the judgment and in the event of the land losers being dissatisfied with the same, they could seek for enhancement of the compensation.

¶198

14.2. Thus, he submits that the same was required to

¶199

be done by the Land Acquisition Officer upon the orders being passed in the Writ Petition on

¶200

25 -

¶201

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶202

22.11.2010 which had not been done until

¶203

07.01.2021.

¶204

14.3. Writ Appeals which were filed in WA Nos.3334/2011 and other connected matters came to be disposed by the Division Bench of this Court on 5.9.2011. Though the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the acquisition is liable to be quashed, it was saved in public interest since the Government would have to start the acquisition proceedings from the beginning and as such, the Division Bench affirmed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶205

14.4. Even while the matters were pending before the Division Bench of this Court, there was no order of stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the time for passing the award had not been extended by the Division Bench. As such, it was but required of the

¶206

26 -

¶207

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶208

authority concerned to pass the award within the time prescribed.

¶209

14.5. On a Special Leave Petition being filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court also did not intervene in the matter and dismissed the Special Leave Petition by its order dated 17.4.2017. Thus, he submits that the award ought to have been passed in terms of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (L.A. Act for short) within a period of two years from the date of the judgment in WP No.11298/2005 and other connected matters i.e., 22.11.2010, despite which no award has been passed within the said period of two years.

¶210

14.6. Even otherwise, he submits that the Division

¶211

Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeals

¶212

on 5.9.2011. Assuming that the respondents

¶213

27 -

¶214

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶215

were awaiting the orders passed in the writ appeals, the award ought to have been passed within two years from 5.9.2011. Alternatively, the said award not having been passed, he submits that the acquisition proceedings are required to be quashed.

¶216

14.7. Alternatively, he submits that on coming into force of The Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short LARR Act) on 1.4.2013 in terms of Section 25 thereof, an award would have to be passed within a period of 1 year from the date of the LARR Act coming into force. In this regard, he relies upon Section 25 of the LARR Act which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶217

25. Period within which an award shall be made.– The Collector shall make an award within

¶218

28 -

¶219

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶220

a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under section 19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:

¶221

Provided that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months if in its opinion, circumstances exist justifying the same:

¶222

Provided further that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.

¶223

14.8. No award having been passed in terms of Section 11 of the L.A.Act within the prescribed time and alternatively since no award having been passed within the prescribed time under Section 25 of the LARR Act, the acquisition proceedings have spent itself on account of no award having been passed and as such, he submits that the acquisition is required to be quashed.

¶224

29 -

¶225

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶226

Sri. K.G.Raghavan, leaned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP.No.11551/2019,

¶227

WP No.11550/2019 and W.P.No.11553/2019 submits as under:-

¶228

15.1. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of the properties subject matter of the above Writ Petitions. Though an award had been passed on 30.01.2005, the same has been set aside and fresh award was required to be passed, which was passed only on 07.01.2021. Even the award dated 07.01.2021 was passed under Section 11 of the L.A.Act and not under the LARR Act.

¶229

15.2. Thus, he submits that the award not having been passed within a period of two years from the date of order of the learned Single Judge and within 1 year from the date of which LARR

¶230

Act coming into force, the entire acquisition

¶231

30 -

¶232

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶233

proceedings would have to be quashed, on account of the same having lapsed both in terms of Section 11 read with Section 11A of 1894 Act and Section 25 of LARR Act, 2013.

¶234

15.3.In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the

¶235

Hon’ble Apex Court in Kolhapur Municipal Corpn. v. Vasant Mahadev Patil reported in 2022 (5) SCC 758 more particularly para 37 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy

¶236

reference:-

¶237

37. Therefore, once the reservation of land under the development plan is deemed to have lapsed by operation of law and it is released from reservation, no writ of mandamus could have been issued by the High Court directing the Corporation to still acquire the land and to issue a declaration under Section 19 of the 2013 Act (as in the meantime, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been repealed and the 2013 Act has been enacted). Once by operation of law, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed, it is lapsed for all purposes and for all times to come.

¶238

15.4.Relying on the aforesaid para, he submits that

¶239

the acquisition having lapsed by operation of

¶240

31 -

¶241

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶242

law, it is deemed to have lapsed for all times to come and as such, the same would have to enure to the benefit of the petitioners.

¶243

Dr.Nanda Kishore, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6-APMC would submit that:

¶244

16.1.The time period under Section 11A of the L.A.Act

¶245

had not commenced in view of the matter being pending before the Division Bench and thereafter before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The proceedings before the Hon’ble Apex Court having been disposed only on 12.04.2017 on which date the LARR Act 2013 was in force, there was a period of five years from the date of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court available for the respondent to pass an award. Hence, neither Section 11A of the L.A.Act, 1894 nor Section 25 of the LARR Act, 2013 are applicable to the present facts.

¶246

32 -

¶247

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶248

16.2.Assuming but not conceding that the ground of

¶249

lapsing was available to the petitioners, the same ought to have been raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The same not having been raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court, it cannot be raised before this Court. By relying on Article 144 of Constitution of India and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIRUPATI BALAJI DEVELOPERS (P) LTD., AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 5 SCC 1 , more particularly, para 29 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶250

29. While quoting the several authorities and references as hereinabove we should not be misunderstood as calling “the Supreme Court a superior court and the High Court an inferior court”; all that we wish to say is that jurisdictionally, and in the hierarchical system, so far as the exercise of appellate jurisdiction is concerned, undoubtedly, the Supreme Court is a superior forum and the High Court an inferior forum in the sense that the latter is subjected to jurisdiction, called “appellate jurisdiction”, of the former.

¶251

33 -

¶252

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶253

16.3.This Court is bound by the orders passed by the

¶254

Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court by its order dated 12.04.2017 having upheld the acquisition, the question of this Court now holding that the acquisition is lapsed would not at all arise. In support thereof, he also relies upon the decision in the case of GURMEET SINGH VS. DHIRENDRA KUMAR reported in (2005) 13 SCC 434 and Sompal Singh v. Sunil Rathi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 1 . By relying upon the decision in Union of India v. Jaiswal

¶255

Coal Co. Ltd., reported in (1999) 5 SCC 733 and CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2007) 10 SCC 736 , he submits that if this Court were to entertain the above Writ Petition, the same would be contrary to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the year 2017.

¶256

16.4.He submits that even if there is a delay in passing of the award, the same is not

¶257

34 -

¶258

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶259

attributable to the beneficiary. The delay if any

¶260

is caused by the State and/or SLAO for which the beneficiary should not be held liable and usufructs of the acquisition not be denied to the beneficiary.

¶261

16.5.The Writ Petitions are hit by delay and latches inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court having disposed of SLP in the year 2017, the Writ Petition having been filed in the year 2019 and therefore, they are belated and on this ground,

¶262

he submits that the Writ Petitions are to be dismissed.

¶263

Sri.Nityananda, learned AGA appearing for the State would submit that:

¶264

17.1.The earlier proceedings having attained finality

¶265

before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the readjudication of the matter by filing the present Writ Petition is mischievous.

¶266

35 -

¶267

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶268

17.2.No relief that the acquisition is lapsed can be sought for and as such, the acquisition proceedings cannot be nullified in the manner requested.

¶269

17.3.The competent authority had passed an award on 20.12.2018 which was sent for approval to Deputy Commissioner/Regional Commissioner on 24.12.2018, there being certain lacuna, the competent authority was directed to represent the award for approval, which was so submitted on 27.05.2019. The matter was again referred back to the competent authority, since there was no reference as regards the deposit of the amounts by the beneficiary. The competent authority rectified the same and resubmitted the award for approval on 26.08.2020, which came to be approved on 07.01.2021. Therefore, the competent authority has acted within the time frame. The compensation has been calculated on

¶270

36 -

¶271

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶272

the basis of what has been directed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11298/2005 and as such, the petitioners now cannot claim any prejudice caused to them. The award being passed within a reasonable period of time frame and cannot be said to have lapsed under Section 25 of LARR of 2013. On these grounds, the Writ Petitions are required to be dismissed.

¶273

Heard Sri.V.Lakshminarayana, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.25329/2017 and W.P.No.25759/2017 and Sri.K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.11551/2019, W.P.No.11550/2019 and W.P.No.11553/2019, Dr.Nanda Kishore, learned counsel for APMC in all matters and Sri.Nityananda, learned AGA for the State and Special LAO in all the matters and perused the papers.

¶274

19. The points that would arise for consideration are:

¶275

37 -

¶276

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶277

1. Whether once a direction has been issued in a Writ Petition for an award to be passed, would the time period prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be applicable or would it get extended merely on the ground that a Writ Appeal had been filed and pending?

¶278

2. Whether the time for passing of an award would get extended since the proceedings were pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court in a SLP?

¶279

3. What is the reference point of time for considering the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

¶280

4. What is the reference point of time for calculating the time period prescribed under Section 25 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

¶281

5. Whether in the given facts and circumstances, the acquisition proceedings in the present matter has lapsed?

¶282

6. Whether the beneficiary can claim that the delay in acquisition is by the State and/or SLAO and as such, the acquisition needs to be upheld to protect the interest of the beneficiary?

¶283

38 -

¶284

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶285

7. What order?

¶286

I answer the above points as under:

¶287

Answer to Point No.1: Whether once a direction has been issued in a Writ Petition for an award to be passed, would the time period prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be applicable or would it get extended merely on the ground that a Writ Appeal had been filed and pending?

¶288

and

¶289

Answer to Point No.2: Whether the time for passing of an award would get extended since the proceedings were pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court in a SLP?

¶290

21.1. Both the above points being connected are

¶291

answered together as under:

¶292

21.2. Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

¶293

reads as under:-

¶294

11A. Period shall be which an award within made. –

¶295

The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the said declaration

¶296

39 -

¶297

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶298

has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement.

¶299

Explanation - In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.

¶300

21.3. A perusal of the above provision would indicate

¶301

that the Collector is required to make an award under Section 11 of L.A.Act within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of L.A.Act.

¶302

21.4. It further provides that if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for acquisition would lapse. The explanation to the said provision provides that in computing the period of two years, the period which any action or proceedings to be taken is stayed by an order of the Court shall be excluded.

¶303

40 -

¶304

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶305

21.5. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

¶306

which speaks of declaration reads as under:-

¶307

6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. –

¶308

(1) Subject to the provision of Part VII of this Act, [appropriate Government] is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2)], that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders [and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (I) irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5A, subsection (2)];

¶309

[Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1)

¶310

(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or

¶311

(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification:]

¶312

41 -

¶313

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶314

Provided further that] no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.

¶315

21.6. In terms of Section 6 of L.A.Act, a declaration made therein is required to be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situated and the said declaration is stated to be a conclusive evidence that the land is required for public purpose.

¶316

21.7. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as under:-

¶317

11. Enquiry and award by Collector. –

¶318

[(1)] On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objection (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land [at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, subsection (1)], and into the respective interests of

¶319

42 -

¶320

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶321

the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of-

¶322

(i) the true area of the land;

¶323

(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and

¶324

(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, or whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him:

¶325

[Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorize in this behalf:

¶326

Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.

¶327

[(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement.

¶328

(3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or

¶329

43 -

¶330

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶331

elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.

¶332

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act.]

¶333

21.8. In terms of Section 11, the Collector after enquiry into the objections, if any etc., after ascertaining the true area of the land, the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land as also apportionment of compensation is required to determine the compensation in the form of an award.

¶334

21.9. A reading of Section 6 of L.A.Act., would indicate that the date on which the publication is made in the gazette and/or the local newspapers would be conclusive proof that the land is required for public purpose. Upon the said publication, the Collector is required to make an enquiry and pass an award in terms of Section 11 of L.A.Act and the period in which

¶335

44 -

¶336

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶337

the award is to be passed is fixed at two years from the date of publication of declaration in terms of Section 11A of L.A.Act. The only deduction and/or extension of time is that as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 11A of L.A.Act whereunder the period of stay if any by a Court could be excluded. Thus, merely because a Writ Petition is filed challenging the acquisition would not by itself extend the period fixed under Section 11A of L.A.Act.

¶338

21.10. As a corollary, in the event of the Writ Petition being dismissed/allowed, a Writ Appeal being filed, when it is dismissed/allowed and a Special Leave Petition being filed challenging the order passed in a Writ Appeal, merely because a Writ Petition or a Writ Appeal or a Special Leave Petition being filed would not by itself extend the period prescribed under Section 11A of the

¶339

L.A.Act.

¶340

45 -

¶341

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶342

21.11. For the Explanation to come into effect and/or extension of time to take place, it is required that a positive order of stay be granted by the Court insofar as any action/proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the declaration. This in my considered opinion will also have to be such that the same would come in the way of passing an award under Section 11 of L.A.Act since if the order of stay does not come in the way of passing of an award, there is nothing which could be said to have prevented the Collector from passing such an award.

¶343

21.12. Thus, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 by holding that mere filing of a Writ Petition, Writ Appeal or Special Leave Petition would not extend the period fixed under Section 11A of L.A.Act for making an award. The award would continue to require to be made within a period of two years from the date on which the final declaration

¶344

46 -

¶345

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶346

was published. It is only in the event of an order of stay being granted by any Court which had an effect of staying any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the declaration that the period during which the stay order was in operation would be excluded or as a corollary, the period fixed under Section 11A of L.A.Act would be extended by the time

¶347

period during which the stay was operational.

¶348

Answer to Point No.3: What is the reference point of time for considering the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

¶349

22.1. This aspect has already been adverted to in

¶350

answer to Points No.1 and 2 above. A perusal of Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of L.A.Act which has been reproduced hereinabove, indicates that the last date of publication and giving of such public notice, shall be the date of publication of the declaration.

¶351

47 -

¶352

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶353

22.2. Thus, there could be two situations which could

¶354

arise viz., there could be one final declaration which is published. If that be so, then the date on which the said final declaration was published would be the date of the declaration. However, if there are multiple final declarations published, for example, if there are five final declarations published, then it is the date on which the last declaration i.e., 5^th declaration was published, which would be the reference point of time for considering the period fixed under Section 11A of L.A.Act.

¶355

Answer to Point No.4: What is the reference point of time for calculating the time period prescribed under Section 25 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

¶356

23.1. Section 24(1) of LARR Act reads as under:-

¶357

24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.–(1) Notwithstanding anything

¶358

48 -

¶359

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶360

contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,—

¶361

(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or

¶362

(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.

¶363

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

¶364

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

¶365

23.2. Section 25 of LARR Act reads as under:-

¶366

49 -

¶367

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶368

25. Period within which an award shall be made.–The Collector shall make an award within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under section 19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:

¶369

Provided that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months if in its opinion, circumstances exist justifying the same:

¶370

Provided further that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.

¶371

23.3. In terms of Section 24(1) of LARR Act where

¶372

the land acquisition proceedings are initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if no award under Section 11 of the L.A.Act has been made, then the provision of LARR Act for determination of compensation would apply.

¶373

23.4. In the event of award being made under Section 11 of L.A.Act, then the land acquisition proceedings shall continue under the provisions

¶374

50 -

¶375

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶376

of the Land Acquisition Act as if the said Act has not been repealed.

¶377

23.5. Thus, if no award under Section 11 of L.A.Act has been passed prior to LARR Act coming into force, then by applying the provision of LARR Act, the compensation would be required to be determined by the Collector that is to say that the enquiry in terms of Section 23 of LARR Act would have to be made by the Collector and the award rendered.

¶378

23.6. The time period in such a situation would have

¶379

to be calculated in terms of Section 25 of LARR Act by deeming the final declaration to have been published on the date on which the LARR Act came into force i.e., on 01.01.2014 and the period prescribed under Section 25 of LARR Act would be applicable thereto requiring the award

¶380

to be passed within the period of 12 months

¶381

51 -

¶382

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶383

from the date of publication of the declaration in such case being the deeming fiction of the publication of the declaration being 01.01.2014.

¶384

23.7. The said period could be extended by a period of 12 months by the Appropriate Government if the circumstances exist justifying the same by recording reasons. In the event of the award not being rendered within the said period, then the land acquisition would lapse.

¶385

23.8. Hence, I answer Point No.4 by holding that reference point of time for calculating time period prescribed under Section 25 of LARR Act for an acquisition initiated prior to LARR act coming into force would be the date on which the LARR Act came into force being on 01.01.2014.

¶386

Answer to Point No.5: Whether in the given facts and circumstances, the acquisition proceedings in the present matter has lapsed?

¶387

52 -

¶388

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶389

24.1. In furtherance to the answers above and applying the said answers to the above points to the present case, it is seen that the preliminary notification was issued on 20.05.2002, the final notification came to be published on 02.08.2003, which came to be challenged before this Court and this Court by way of common judgment dated 22.11.2010 quashed the award dated 30.01.2005 and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh award by taking into consideration the market value of the lands as on today (i.e., date of the judgment being 22.11.2010). The learned Single Judge has also reserved the right of the land loser to challenge the acquisition by seeking for enhancement.

¶390

24.2. The said order dated 22.11.2010 came to be challenged by the APMC in W.A.Nos.45, 47 and

¶391

53 -

¶392

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶393

52 of 2011 and the land losers had challenged

¶394

in W.A.Nos.33-34/2011.

¶395

24.3. Admittedly, there was no order of stay passed by the Division Bench in the said Writ Appeals. The Writ Appeals came to be dismissed on 05.09.2011. The learned Single Judge having directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh award on the market value of the land as on the date of judgment being 22.11.2010, at best, the Land Acquisition Officer by taking the benefit of Section 11A of L.A.Act ought to have passed an award within a period of two years from 22.11.2010 i.e., by 21.11.2012.

¶396

24.4. The Writ Appeals having been disposed on 05.09.2011, the land loser filed the Special Leave Petition in SLP Nos.2834-42/2014 which came to be disposed by order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 17.04.2017. The fact that has

¶397

54 -

¶398

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶399

to be taken into consideration is that neither the State nor the beneficiary had challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal. It is only the land loser who had challenged the same by way of a SLP Nos.2834-42/2014.

¶400

24.5. Thus, the State and the beneficiary of the acquisition had accepted the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Even assuming that the period prescribed under Section 11A of L.A.Act would have to be calculated from the date of judgment of the Writ Appeal viz., 05.09.2011, the period of two years expired on 04.09.2013.

¶401

24.6. If the provision of Section 25 of LARR Act were to be applied to the present case by applying deeming fiction that the final declaration is deemed to have published on 01.01.2014 i.e.,

¶402

55 -

¶403

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶404

the date on which the LARR Act came into force.

¶405

24.7. By applying the principles of time period contained in Section 25 of LARR Act, the award ought to have been passed within 12 months of 01.01.2014 i.e., by 31.12.2014. If the time were to be extended by another period of 12 months, the award could have been passed by 31.12.2015.

¶406

24.8. It is no one’s case that the time period has been extended by the Appropriate Government by a reasoned order. Hence, further extension of 12 months would not apply and as such, the award ought to have been passed by 31.12.2014.

¶407

24.9. Lastly assuming that the date is to be calculated from the date on which the Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of the SLP Nos.2834-

¶408

56 -

¶409

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶410

42/2014 i.e., on 12.04.2017 even then the award ought to have been passed on 11.04.2018. In the present case, the award was finally passed on 07.01.2021 since the approval was granted only on that date though the proceedings for approval of the award commenced on 20.12.2018.

¶411

24.10. Looked at from any angle, the present award has not been passed within a period of two years from the date of the order passed in the Writ Petition i.e., 22.11.2010 by 21.11.2012. No award has been passed within a period of two years from the date of the order passed in the Writ Appeal i.e., 05.09.2011 by 04.09.2013. No award has been passed within 12 months of LARR Act coming into force i.e., on 01.01.2014 by 31.12.2014. No award has been passed within 12 months of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.2834-

¶412

57 -

¶413

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶414

42/2014 dated 17.04.2017 i.e., by 16.04.2018. In fact, the process of approval of the award commenced only on 20.12.2018 which is much beyond the period detailed herein above.

¶415

24.11. The authorities concerned were very much aware of the time period being sacrosanct and the authorities have failed to take advantage of the benefit extended by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 22.11.2010 as also by Division Bench vide order dated 05.09.2011.

¶416

24.12. Admittedly, the preliminary notification had been published on 20.05.2002 and the final declaration had been published on 02.08.2003. Today we are in the year 2022. I am of the considered opinion that the authorities have a duty to act within the time frame prescribed either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 till the time that it was in force or under the Right

¶417

58 -

¶418

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶419

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 from the date on which it came into force. If the authorities do not comply with the said time period, then the natural consequences that flows is that the acquisition would have to be declared to have lapsed.

¶420

24.13. As such I answer Point No.5 by holding that in the given facts and circumstances, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed.

¶421

Answer to point No.6: Whether the beneficiary can claim that the delay in acquisition is by the State and/or SLAO and as such, the acquisition needs to be upheld to protect the interest of the beneficiary?

¶422

25.1. The contention of the beneficiary is that the

¶423

passing of the award is not in control of the beneficiary and that the award is required to be passed by the State and/or SLAO. It is on that

¶424

59 -

¶425

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶426

basis it is contended that the acquisition proceedings ought to be upheld.

¶427

25.2. Though in some acquisitions, an ascertained person or entity could be the beneficiary, in most acquisition, it could be in the general interest for formation of layouts etc., where the beneficiary is not ascertained. Even in case where the beneficiary is ascertained, the acquisition proceedings are required to be initiated and completed by exercise of powers of eminent domain by the State. No compulsory acquisition can happen or resorted to by a beneficiary on its own. Thus, from the time of issuance of the preliminary notification, conduct of enquiry, issuance of final declaration, passing of an award, taking possession of the property etc., all these

¶428

60 -

¶429

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶430

aspects have to be performed by the State or SLAO.

¶431

25.3. The timelines which have been prescribed under the Act are clear and it is for the State and/or SLAO to adhere to such timelines without default. If there is a default, the acquisition would have to be struck down as lapsed since the interest of the land loser would suffer on account of State or SLAO not discharging its functions in a time bound manner.

¶432

25.4. The beneficiary cannot on the basis of its interest being harmed contend that the acquisition is required to be saved and/or that on account of default by the State or SLAO, the beneficiary cannot be deprived of usufructs of the acquisition.

¶433

61 -

¶434

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶435

25.5. The remedy in such a case would only be for the beneficiary to lay a claim against the State claiming any damages that might have been caused to the beneficiary, which civil remedy the beneficiary would always have. Hence, I answer Point No.6 by holding that the beneficiary cannot claim that if there is delay in acquisition by the State and/or SLAO, the acquisition needs to be upheld to protect the interest of the beneficiary. In the event of there being any violation of time period prescribed, irrespective of what was the cause for the delay, the acquisition would lapse.

¶436

26. Answer to Point No.7 : What order?

¶437

In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶438

ORDER

¶439

i. The Writ Petitions are allowed.

¶440

ii. The preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 and final declaration/notification dated

¶441

62 -

¶442

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

¶443

02.08.2003 vide Annexures-A and B

¶444

respectively are quashed.

¶445

iii. Needless to say the awards if any passed would also stand quashed.

¶446

iv. Liberty is reserved to the beneficiary to initiate such proceedings as may be advised against the State for recovery of damages if any caused to the beneficiary.

¶447

Sd/JUDGE

¶448

Prs*

¶449

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

M Suresh Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Suresh Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. M N Devaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S a Puttaraju Vs Smt Bhagyamma

Smt Rekha Prasad Vs State Represented by

Karnataka State Road Vs Shivalingaiah

Sri N Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M Suresh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka