Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1995 (KAR)

Chandrappa v. State Of Karnataka

2020-10-05

S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2020
JUDGMENT S.Vishwajith Shetty, J. - These writ petitions are filed by the owners of the agricultural lands bearing No.87/1B, 87/1C, 87/1D and 88 of Rattihalli village, Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District challenging the impugned notification dated 29.10.1967 as per Annexure-B and also notification dated 30.04.2016 as per Annexure-E and for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation dated 28.04.2015 as per Annexure-C. 2. The petitioners, who are the owners of the aforesaid agricultural lands, have challenged Annexure-B dated 29.10.1967, which is an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the aforesaid lands. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that after passing of Annexure-B, the respondents have not taken possession of their lands and in the year 2016 they have issued a fresh notification for acquisition of the very same lands. They have also filed an application as per Annexure-C for cancellation of the acquisition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition has lapsed and therefore, he prayed for quashing Annexure-C. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that in the absence of challenge to the acquisition notification, the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petitions as against the award. She also submits that the possession of the lands in dispute has been taken in the year 1972 and she relies upon the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 14th July, 1972 in this regard. She also submits that Annexure-E is not a fresh notification for acquisition and on the other hand, the said document is an order passed by the State Government permitting lease of the acquired lands to the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation for the purpose of constructing scientific warehouses. She also states that the petitioners have admitted completion of the acquisition proceedings in their representations Annexure-C and E. She submits that in the absence of challenge to the acquisition notifications, present writ petitions are not maintainable. 5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions addressed by both parties and also documents available on record. 6. Annexure-B is an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the acquired lands including the lands, which are subject matter of these writ petitions. 5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions addressed by both parties and also documents available on record. 6. Annexure-B is an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the acquired lands including the lands, which are subject matter of these writ petitions. The said lands are acquired under a preliminary notification in the year 1964 and final notification in the year 1966. The possession of the lands acquired have been taken over by the respondents by issuing Section 16 Notification dated 14.07.1972. In the absence of any challenge to the acquisition notifications, the present writ petitions filed challenging the award are not maintainable. 7. Annexure-B award is dated 29.10.1967 and challenging the same, the writ petitions are filed after an inordinate delay of fifty years. There is no explanation with regard to the delay in filing the writ petitions. Annexure-E is not an acquisition notification as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but it is an order of permitting lease of the acquired land. Further, the contention that the acquisition has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act also does not merit consideration in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others, in SLP(C) Nos.9036-9038 of 2016, decided on 06th March, 2020. The writ petitions are therefore, liable to be dismissed both on the count of delay as well as on merits and the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs prayed for by them in the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.