Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1276 (KAR)

Ashwatha v. State of Karnataka

2015-11-24

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2015
ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. 11 guntas from out of 32 guntas of land in Sy. No. 121/3A3, amongst other extents of land in Honniganahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District, belonging to the petitioners, when proposed for acquisition by respondent-State for and on behalf of 4th respondent-City Municipal Council, Channapatna under preliminary notification dated 27-7-1983 Gazetted on 5-1-1984 Annexure-A and a final declaration dated 18-12-1984 Gazetted on 21-2-1985 Annexure-B, though, possession allegedly was taken by a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 25-1-1992 published on 13-2-1992 Annexure-G, nevertheless on the allegation that petitioners were neither paid compensation nor did the Special Land Acquisition Officer made a deposit of the compensation before the Civil Court under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, these petitions are presented to declare the proceeding for acquisition of land in question as lapsed by operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'New Land Acquisition Act'). Learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterates the averments in the petitions. 2. Learned Government Advocate very fairly submits that on a perusal of the records relating to the land acquisition proceeding, except for issue of notice under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 calling upon the petitioners to receive the award amount, whence neither the petitioners nor their father placed relevant documents in support of their title to the property acquired before the Land Acquisition Officer for payment of compensation, the amount determined as compensation was neither paid nor deposited in the Civil Court. 3. The submission of Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent-City Municipality that in the light of possession having been taken by issue of notification, Annexure-H under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, Section 24(2) has no application and the acquisition cannot be said to have lapsed, is noticed only to be rejected. 4. The answer to the question whether under Section 24(2) of the 'New Land Acquisition Act' the award in question passed more than five years prior to the commencement of the Act, compensation when not paid to the petitioners or their father, admittedly the land loser, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, proceeding for acquisition of the land is deemed to have lapsed? is no more res integra in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the following decisions: "(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others, AIR 2014 SC 982 : (2014)3 SCC 183 ; (ii) Union of India and others v. Shiv Raj and Others, AIR 2014 SC 2242 : (2014)6 SCC 564 ; (iii) Bimla Devi and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, (2014)6 SCC 583 ; (iv) Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another, (2014)6 SCC 586 ; (v) Karnail Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2015 SC 2041 : (2015)3 SCC 206 ; (vi) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2015)3 SCC 353 ; (vii) The Working Friends Co-operative House Building Society Limited v. State of Punjab and Others, JT 2015(9) SC 357; (viii) Velaxan Kumar v. Union of India and Others, AIR 2015 SC 1462 : (2015)4 SCC 325 ." 5. Suffice it to notice paragraph 20 in Pune Municipal Corporation's case, which reads thus: "20. From the above, it is clear that the award pertaining to the subject land has been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. It is also admitted position that compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the Court. The deposit of compensation amount in the Government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the subject land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act." 6. Applying the aforesaid observations to the facts and circumstances of these cases, there is no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the acquisition proceeding insofar as lands belonging to the petitioners concerned lapsed within the enactment of 'New Land Acquisition Act'. Writ shall ensue declaring the acquisition proceeding as having lapsed.