Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 545 (KAR)

BASAVANNAPPA v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GULBARGA

2005-08-23

K.L.MANJUNATH

body2005
( 1 ) DECEASED Basavannappa was the owner of 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 132/2 situated at Gotur Village of Chittapur Taluk. Petitioners are his legal heirs. ( 2 ) LAND of the petitioners was taken over by the respondents in the year 1977 for the formation of a road from Mudgal to Kodla. Though the land of the petitioners was taken over for the formation of road, the same was not notified and acquired in accordance with law. Subsequently, notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 was issued on 23-10-1992 without including the petitioners' land and thereafter petitioners requested the respondents to include the land of the petitioners for acquisition on the ground that their land was also taken over for the formation of a road. Subsequently, a notification was issued as per Annexure-D including the land of the petitioners which was taken over for the formation of the road. Thereafter, an award was passed as per Annexure-F, dated 28-10-2002 and the same was sent for approval by the LAO to the Deputy Commissioner. Subsequently, instead of paying compensation to the petitioners, an endorsement has been issued as per Annexure-K, dated 1-4-2003 stating that compensation cannot be paid to the petitioners since proceedings have been dropped under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Challenging the said order, present petition is filed. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Government pleader for the respondents. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners contend before this Court that when the land of the petitioners is taken by the respondents for the formation of road without acquiring the same, it is for the respondents to pay compensation by determining the market value of the property along with other statutory benefits or in the alternative to surrender the land to the petitioners if the respondents are of the opinion that acquisition proceedings initiated by them has been lapsed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. If really, respondents had not taken possession of the petitioners' land, respondents could have invoked section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Having taken possession of the petitioners' property wrongfully without paying compensation to them, respondents cannot close their eyes and close the acquisition proceedings by invoking Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. If really, respondents had not taken possession of the petitioners' land, respondents could have invoked section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Having taken possession of the petitioners' property wrongfully without paying compensation to them, respondents cannot close their eyes and close the acquisition proceedings by invoking Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act comes into operation if an award is not passed within two years. If the respondents are of the opinion that Section 11-A has to be pressed into service, in such an event respondents have to surrender the land to the petitioners along with damages caused to them. Having utilised the petitioners' land, it is not open for them to close the file by invoking Section 11-A of the Land acquisition Act. Even if an award is not passed within two years, it is the duty of the LAO to initiate acquisition afresh and pay the compensation payable to the landowners. Section 11-A of the Land acquisition Act is not for the benefit of the respondents, but it is for the benefit of the persons who have lost their property due to acquisition. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances, this petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to pass an award afresh in accordance with law and pay compensation payable to the petitioners within a period of six months or in the alternative to restore possession of the land of the petitioners to them and pay damages payable to them in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act. --- *** --- .