Allowed

Gowramma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2022WP/56488/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that the land acquisition final notification dated 23.06.1995 was illegal and arbitrary because the acquisition authority failed to publish the preliminary notification in the chavadi within the one-year period mandated by Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court consequently quashed the notification and acquisition proceedings regarding the petiti

What did the court decide?

Impugned final notification dated 23.06.1995 and subsequent acquisition proceedings were quashed insofar as they concern the petitioners' lands. Petitioners were directed to deposit any compensation r

Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.56488/2015 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GOWRAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S

¶9

1a. SRI.K.SHIVANNA S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AND GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶10

1b. SRI.MALLIKARJUNAIAH S/O.LATE CHIKKANNA AND GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶11

1c. SRI.K.C.RAJASHEKARAIAH S/O.LATE CHIKKANNA AND GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: KALLEGOWDANAPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201

¶13

… PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI M.C.JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

1 . STATE OF KARANATAKA BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001

¶17

¶18

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR – 572 201

¶19

3 . THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TIPTUR SUB- DIVISION TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 201

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI K.R.NITHYANANDA, AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION OF LAND BEING OF AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 32 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.82/1 OF EDENAHALLI VILLAGE AND AN EXTENT OF 0-34 GUNTA IN SY.NO.144/4 OF TIPTUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR VILLAGE & TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENTS NO-3 UNDER ANNEXURE-A DATED:23.06.1995 OF THE R-3 IS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND FURTHER IS ALSO VITIATED BY MALAFIDES AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

In this writ petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶26

“i) Declare that the acquisition of land being of an extent of 1 acre 32 gunta in Sy.No.82/1 of Edenahalli Village and an extent of 0-34 gunta in Sy.No.144/4 of Tiptur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Village and Taluk, Tumkur District belonging to the petitioner by the respondents under Annexure-A (vide Notification N.K.E20 Bhu Swathu 95 dated 23.06.1995) of the 1^st

¶27

¶28

respondent is illegal and unsustainable in law and further is also vitiated by malafides;

¶29

b. Quash Annexure-A (vide Notification No.Km.E20 Bhu Swathu 95 dated: 23.06.1995) the 1^st Respondent in so far it relate to land being of an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy.No.82/1 of Edenahalli Village and an extent of 0-34 gunta in Sy.No.144/4 of Tiptur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Village and Taluk, Tumkur District belonging to the petitioner;

¶30

c. Grant such other further reliefs including the cost of this writ petition.”

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent-State and perused the material on record.

¶32

The material on record discloses that the land measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy.No.82/1 of Edenahalli Village and land measuring 34 guntas in Sy.No.144/4 of Tiptur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Taluk belonging to the petitioners along with the lands of others, totally 63 acres 27 guntas of lands were sought to be acquired by the respondents for formation of Tiptur by-pass road by issuance of preliminary notification dated 23.10.1992 and

¶33

¶34

followed by final declaration dated 04.01.1994. Pursuant thereto, an award was passed on 08.05.1996.

¶35

Petitioners challenged the aforesaid acquisition proceedings by filing W.P.No.26202/2002 before this Court, which was allowed vide final order dated 08.06.2005 thereby quashing the acquisition notification and the proceedings. The appeal in W.A.No.1075/2005 preferred by the respondents was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 09.07.2008, followed by the review petition in R.P.No.488/2008 also filed by the respondents being dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 27.02.2009. So also, the petition in SLP.No.30485/2009 preferred by the respondents before the Apex Court was also rejected vide order dated 30.11.2009. It is, therefore, clear that the acquisition proceedings in relation to the lands measuring 63 acres 27 guntas which were sought to be acquired pursuant to preliminary notification dated 23.10.1992 were quashed and the same had attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondents.

¶36

¶37

In the meanwhile, on 12.04.1994, respondents issued preliminary notification proposing to acquire additional extent of land measuring 14 acres 19 guntas. The said preliminary notification which was issued on 12.04.1994 was not subsequently published or notified in the chavadi or in any other manner, so as to extend the period of one year commencing from 12.04.1994 for the purpose of issuance final declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). Despite this, respondents issued the final notification only on 23.06.1995 well beyond the prescribed period of one year from 12.04.1994 on which date the preliminary notification was issued by the respondents.

¶38

It is the grievance of the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the final declaration having been issued beyond the prescribed period of one year as contemplated under Section 6(2) of the Act, the impugned final notification and all acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto deserve to be quashed.

¶39

¶40

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent – State submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the absence of any material placed by the respondents to establish that subsequent to issuance of preliminary notification dated 12.04.1994, the period of one year which commenced from 12.04.1994 stood extended by publishing the said notification in the chavadi, in my considered opinion, the period of one year which commenced from 12.04.1994 stood expired on 11.04.1995 and in view of Section 6(2) of the Act, the impugned final declaration dated 23.06.1995 having been issued beyond the prescribed statutory period of one year is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. In the result, I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶44

ii) The impugned final notification dated 23.06.1995 and the acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed insofar

¶45

¶46

as subject lands of the petitioners are concerned.

¶47

iii) Petitioners are hereby directed to deposit the amount of compensation, if any, received by them before the 3^rd respondent – LAO within a period of three months from today.

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

PKS

Gowramma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowramma v. 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

V Ramaiah Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Aasim Vs the Special Land Acqusition Officer

B Narasappa Vs State of Karnataka

Parvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

M Gangadhara Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Eeramma Vs the State of Karnataka