Sri B v Ramachandra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.42/3 OF KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, HAS LAPSED.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:51479 WP No. 18382 of 2017

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The petitioners have called in question the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents in respect of land bearing Survey No. 42/3 measuring 2 acres 21 guntas, Kariyammana Agarahara Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk (schedule property) notified under Section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development, Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short) vide preliminary notification dated 09.02.2004 and culminating in Section 28 (4) final notification dated 19.12.2005.

¶38

BRIEF FACTS

¶39

The petitioners claim absolute ownership over the schedule property through a chain of partition and mutation entries. The land was originally held by Venkatappa alias Abbaiah Reddy, who died in 1991. The preliminary notification under Section 28(1) was issued on

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51479 WP No. 18382 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

09.02.2004 (Annexure-E) including the petitioners land,

¶43

but showing the name of the deceased khatedar. Several adjoining lands in Kariyammana Agrahara notified in the same scheme were de-notified from time to time i.e. on 23.02.2004, 05.05.2004, 07.05.2004, 15.02.2011 and 12.12.2011 (Annexures- F, G, L, M, N). The petitioners filed their objections to the notification requesting dropping of acquisition which was not considered. No notice was ever served on the petitioners as Kathedars or Anubhavadars, and the possession was admittedly not taken at any point of time and that the petitioners continued to remain in lawful possession. During the pendency of the writ petition which was filed in 2017, the respondents passed an award on 15.02.2018 and the matter has been referred to the Civil Court as LAC No. 73 of 2018. The deposit of compensation is also stated to have been made only after the writ petition was filed. The petitioners also rely on the fact that even recently, certain lands in the very same industrial areas have been de-

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51479 WP No. 18382 of 2017

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

notified, demonstrating that the scheme is no longer viable.

¶47

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

¶48

AGA for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶50

the acquisition has lapsed for non-passing of an award within time. No award was passed for more than 12 years after the 2005 notification, thereby attracting lapse under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act, 1894’ for short) read with Section 30 of KIAD. Act. It is contended that the petitioners continue to be in physical possession. No mahazar was drawn and the respondents reliance on a paper possession is false. It is submitted that numerous notifications issued from 2004 to 2011 de-notify neighbouring survey numbers demonstrating that the original Section 3 (1) scheme has become unworkable and the respondents have adopted “pick and choose” approach by retaining only their land. It is submitted that the award

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:51479 WP No. 18382 of 2017

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

dated 15.02.2018 was passed after 12 years and during the pendency of the writ petition is void, colourable and intended to defeat their rights. It is further submitted that the deposit of compensation in a LAC proceeding was made only after filing of the writ petition, evidencing that the statutory mandate has not been met.

¶54

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the preliminary and final notification were validly issued and on publication of 28 (4) declaration making the land absolutely vested in the State free from encumbrance. It is contended that the notices issued under Sections 9, 10 and 12 (2) of the Act, 1894 were issued and that in view of the absence of claims, the SLAO passed an award on 15.02.2018 and referred the matter to the Civil Court in LAC 73 of 2018. It is contended that de-notification of other lands does not entitle the petitioners to seek exclusion of their land as well. It is contended that the possession was taken under Sections 28 (6) and (8) and they rely on to contend that

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:51479 WP No. 18382 of 2017

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act, 2013’ for short) and Section 11A of the Act, 1894 do not apply to the acquisition under the KIAD Act and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶58

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is,

¶59

whether the acquisition proceedings initiated under Sections 28 (1) and 28 (4) of

¶60

the KIAD Act in respect of the schedule property have lapsed on account of (i) inordinate delay, (ii) non-taking of possession, (iii) failure to pass an award within the statutory period, and (iv) repeated notification of several similarly placed lands coupled with an award having been passed only during the

¶61

pendency of the writ petition and compensation deposited thereafter?

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:51479 WP No. 18382 of 2017

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

The preliminary notification is of the year 2004

¶65

and the final notification of 2005. For over 12 years, no further steps were taken to finalise the acquisition. The respondents have not offered any cogent explanation for the delay. The delay of this magnitude, unexplained and attributable to the respondents vitiates the acquisition process. The petitioners have continued in undisturbed physical possession of the land throughout. There is no contemporaneous or credible material to show lawful taking of possession under Section 28(6).

¶66

The award was passed on 15.02.2018 during the pendency of the writ petition i.e., nearly 13 years after the final notification. The passing of the award during sub judice proceedings after the Court's notice and without prior steps for over a decade, renders the action colourable and unsustainable and such action cannot cure defects.

¶67

It is true that the KIAD Act does not prescribe any specific time limit for completion of the acquisition

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:51479 WP No. 18382 of 2017

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

process, nor does it provide for a statutory lapse as contemplated under Section 11A of Act, 1894. The scheme of Section 30 of the KIAD Act incorporates only the procedural mechanism for enquiry and determination of compensation and does not extend to importing the lapse provision. However, even in the absence of express statutory provision period, the acquisition proceedings must nevertheless be concluded within a reasonable time.

¶71

State action in matters of compulsory acquisition is not immune from constitutional scrutiny. An acquisition that is kept pending for an unduly long period without explanation, or where essential steps such as taking of possession or passing the award are not taken for several years, becomes vulnerable to challenge or the ground of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution. Thus while the KIAD Act may not contemplate statutory lapse, the authorities are required to act with diligence and complete the acquisition within a reasonable time frame, failure to do so vitiates the

¶72

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:51479 WP No. 18382 of 2017

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

proceedings on constitutional parameters. In the instant case, the preliminary notification is of the year 2004, final notification of the year 2005, for more than 12 years no steps have been taken to pass an award or to take possession. An award has been passed on 15.02.2018 at such a belated stage while the litigation is pending cannot cure the fatal defects arising from long dormancy. The adjoining lands are de-notified, developed for nonresidential uses, the feasibility of the notified industrial area is lost. The inordinate delay in passing the award, non-taking of possession, award during the writ proceedings and absence of public process renders the acquisition arbitrary and contrary to Article 300A and therefore unsustainable. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following :

¶75

ORDER

¶76

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶77

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:51479 WP No. 18382 of 2017

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

(ii) The acquisition proceedings in respect of Survey No. 42/3, measuring 02 acres 21 guntas, Kariyammana Agrahara, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, are hereby quashed.

¶80

(iii) The preliminary notification dated 09.02.2004 and final notification dated 19.12.2005 are hereby set aside.

¶81

(iv) The award dated 15.02.2018 passed during the pendency of the writ petition and all consequential proceedings including reference to LAC Court are quashed.

¶82