JUDGMENT : This intra Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 11.04.2011 passed by learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the original petitioner in which the challenge was made to the proceedings for acquisition of the land measuring 2 acres of Sy.No.332 situated at Hosakote village, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, Bengaluru has been dismissed. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that, the original petitioner was the owner of the land measuring 2 acres forming part of Sy.No.332 situated at Hosakote village, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, Bengaluru (Rural) District. The aforesaid land was required for the purpose of construction of a Court building/judicial quarters at Doddaballapura. Therefore, the proceedings under the Land Acquisition of Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act” for short) were set in motion. The notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer on 03.09.1998 in respect of the land in question. The aforesaid notification was published in two regional daily newspapers on 08.10.1998. The notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act was published in the official Gazettee on 15.10.1998. The original petitioner on 29.07.1999 sent a communication to the Land Acquisition Officer informing him that no notice of proposed acquisition has been received by the original petitioner. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 25.11.1999. The aforesaid declaration was published in ‘Kannada Prabha’ daily newspaper on 14.12.1999. Thereafter, the notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the 1894 Act were issued to the original petitioner on 22.02.2000, by which the date of hearing was fixed on 06.04.2000. 3. The original petitioner filed writ petitions namely WP Nos.12211-12 of 2000 before this Court, in which the learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 03.04.2000 stayed the proceedings in the land acquisition case initiated for acquisition of the land by the original petitioner for a period of two weeks. Thereafter, by an order dated 12.04.2000, the writ petitions preferred by the original petitioner were dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner that without issuing any notice to him, an award was passed on 25.06.2001 and a copy of the award was not communicated to him immediately. Thereafter, by an order dated 12.04.2000, the writ petitions preferred by the original petitioner were dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner that without issuing any notice to him, an award was passed on 25.06.2001 and a copy of the award was not communicated to him immediately. The beneficiary deposited the amount of compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 19.06.2007. Thereafter, the original petitioner was served with a notice dated 02.08.2007 issued under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act, by which the original petitioner was asked to collect the amount which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The aforesaid notice was received by the original petitioner on 17.08.2007. The original petitioner thereupon filed WP No.18681/2007 on 24.11.2007 before this Court. On 26.06.2010, the respondents filed a memo, in which it was mentioned that 2 acres and 8 guntas of Government land was available in the vicinity of the land of the original petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner inter alia had sought the relief of quashment of the award dated 25.06.2001 as well as the quashment of all the proceedings which were initiated under the 1894 Act and as well as declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act have lapsed by operation of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 11.04.2011 dismissed the writ petition preferred by the original petitioner. Being aggrieved, the original petitioner has filed this intra Court appeal on 04.07.2011. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the original petitioner expired. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the original petitioner were brought on record. 4. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that since the possession of the land in question was not taken in accordance with law as prescribed under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act” for short). It is also submitted that as per the stand taken by the respondents, the mahazar was conducted on 26.10.2007. However, the aforesaid submission was made before the learned Single Judge orally and the same has not been pleaded in the statement of objections which were filed in the writ petition. 5. It is also submitted that as per the stand taken by the respondents, the mahazar was conducted on 26.10.2007. However, the aforesaid submission was made before the learned Single Judge orally and the same has not been pleaded in the statement of objections which were filed in the writ petition. 5. It is also contended that no notice was given by the Tahsildar to the appellants prior to conducting of the mahazar which is sine qua non for taking possession in accordance with law. It is also pointed out from the record that the mahazar which was conducted on 26.10.2007 does not mention the fact that the notices were issued to the appellants before conducting the mahazar and the mahazar also does not contain the particulars of the witnesses before whom the possession was allegedly taken. Therefore, the possession has not been taken in accordance with law as prescribed under Section 16 of the 1894 Act. It is also submitted that no notice was issued to the original petitioner under Sections 9 and 10 of the 1894 Act and the Land Acquisition Officer in the clandestine manner passed an award on 25.6.2001. Since, the mandatory requirement of service of notice as contained in Sections 9 and 10 of the 1894 Act which incorporates the cardinal rule of audi alterem partem has not been complied with. Therefore, no sanctity in law can be attached to the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 6. It is also submitted that there was unconscionable delay in issuing the notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act. It is pointed out that even though the award was passed on 25.06.2001 and was approved on 20.08.2001, notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act which was to be given immediately was issued to the original petitioner only on 02.08.2007 i.e., after a period of six years. It is therefore, submitted that the proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act stood vitiated on account of unconscionable delay in issuance of the notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act. It is pointed out that Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act mandates issuance of immediate notice to the land owner, where as in the present case, notice was issued after a period of six years. 7. It is pointed out that Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act mandates issuance of immediate notice to the land owner, where as in the present case, notice was issued after a period of six years. 7. It is submitted that the proceedings in relation to the land in question which vitiated amounts to fraud of power and no previous approval of the appropriate Government as required under the provision of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act has been taken before passing of the award dated 25.06.2001. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into account the controversy involved in the writ petition in its proper perspective which has resulted in erroneous findings and the consequent order. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in ‘Kaliyappan Vs. State of Kerala, 1989 (1) SCC 113’ ‘R.Kolandaivelu & others Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & others, 2010 (2) SCC 97 ’ ‘State of Punjab and another Vs. Gurdial Singh and others, (1980) 2 SCC 471 ’ ‘Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Another, AIR 1961 SC 1500 ’ ‘Bailamma (Doddabailamma) & others Vs. Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society, 2006 (2) SCC 416 ’ ‘Bhanuben Durlabhai Patel & 3 others Vs. State of Gujarat, 2010 SCC Online Guj 11077’ ‘Bhagwan Das and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 545 ’ ‘Gautam Kamat Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, ILR 2012 KAR 5634’ ‘S.M.Kannaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 2011 KAR 795 (FB)’ ‘Devsharan & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others 2011 (4) SCC 769 ’ ‘Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd & others, 2007 (8) SCC 705 ’ ‘Hari Krishna Mandir Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 9 SCC 356 ’ ‘Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others 2020 (8) SCC 129 ’. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate while inviting the attention of this Court to the submission of the petitioner, submitted that the original petitioner had not made a prayer before the learned Single Judge that the proceedings had lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and such a contention has been raised for the first time in this appeal which is not permissible in law. It is also submitted that the original petitioner had filed the writ petitions namely WP Nos.12211-212 of 2000 before this Court in which challenge was made to the validity of the notification as well as declaration issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the 1894 Act, respectively and the aforesaid writ petitions were dismissed by the Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.04.2000. Therefore, the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act cannot be examined by this Court subsequently, as the aforesaid prayer is barred by res judicata. 9. It is also submitted that as soon as the amount of compensation was deposited by the beneficiary, thereafter the notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act was issued to the appellant and therefore, in the factual situation of the case, there is no delay in sending the notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act. Learned Additional Government Advocate has also produced the original record pertaining to acquisition of the land in question. 10. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record of the proceedings for acquisition of the land in question which has been produced before us by the learned Additional Government Advocate. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that admittedly, the land in question was sought to be acquired for purpose of construction of a court building/judicial quarters at Doddaballapura. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the proceedings before this court, the court complex has been constructed at another place. Thus, the purpose of acquisition of the land has already been fulfilled. However, since, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer stands. Therefore, we are required to deal with the validity of the land acquisition proceedings. 11. The State Government undoubtedly has the power of eminent domain. However, the same is subject to certain limitations which have been imposed by the statute itself. The right to hold the property is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. 12. However, the same is subject to certain limitations which have been imposed by the statute itself. The right to hold the property is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. 12. The Supreme Court in Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And Others, 2008(4) SCC 649 has held that right to property may not be a fundamental right, but it is still a constitutional right under Section 300A as well as human right. It has further held that Article 300A of the Constitution of India which embodies the doctrine of eminent domain consisting of two parts namely (i) possession of the property in public interest (ii) payment of reasonable compensation. [See: ‘State Of Bihar & Ors vs Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak and Others, 2006(2) SCC 545 ’ as well as Hari Krishna Mandir Trust (supra)] 13. Section 16 of the 1894 Act provides that after making of the award, the Deputy Commissioner may take possession of the land which thereupon shall stand vested absolutely in the Government from all encumbrances. However, the possession has to be taken in accordance with law. The notice is required to be given to the land owner before taking possession of the land in question and the mahazar/panchnama must contain the names and particulars of the witnesses who have witnessed the act of taking possession and it must also mention that notice was issued to the land owner. The aforesaid requirement is a mandatory requirement in law for taking possession of the land in accordance with law which has been prescribed under Section 16 of the 1894 Act. It is equally well settled legal proposition that prior question of law which arises on the admitted facts can be raised for the first time in an intra Court appeal. 14. In the back drop of the aforesaid well settled legal proposition of the facts of the case in hand and in view of enactment of the 2013 Act, in our considered view, the primary issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the possession of the land in question has been taken in accordance with law or not?. It is pertinent to note that the appellants have specifically asserted that they are still in possession of the land in question. It is pertinent to note that the appellants have specifically asserted that they are still in possession of the land in question. It is also not in dispute that the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of the Court building/judicial quarters which was admittedly being constructed in any place in the same locality and not in the land in question. 15. We have carefully gone through the original record pertaining to acquisition of the land which has been produced before us and in particular, the mahazar which has been drawn on 26.10.2007. The aforesaid mahazar is reproduced below for the reference: “To the Government In the presence of the Revenue Inspector, Kasaba Hobli, Hosakote Taluk. We the residents of Hosakote Village, Kasaba Hobli have recorded the following mahazar: The land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.332 of Hosakote Village was acquired for the construction of a building for JMFC., Hosakote. Since, the owner of the said land is not residing in the village as per the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub Division dated 26.10.2007, the possession of the land is taken and later it is handed over to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Hosakote Sub Division. In this regard, we the residents of the village do not have any objection. This mahazar is drawn at our instance and the same is read over to us and found to be correct. Sd/- Revenue Inspector Kasaba Hobli, Hosakote Taluk. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.” Signatures 16. From perusal of the mahazar, it is evident that it does not contain any mention that notices were issued to the appellants before taking possession. It is pertinent to note that the respondents were aware about residential addresses of the appellants and the respondents were aware that the appellants reside in Gandhi Nagar in Bengaluru and the notices were issued to them on 22.02.2000 on the aforesaid addresses. However, from the notices which have been annexed with the record, we find that notices to the appellants were not sent to their addresses at Gandhi Nagar. The notices have been returned back with the endorsement that the addressee does not reside at the addresses on which the notices were sent. However, from the notices which have been annexed with the record, we find that notices to the appellants were not sent to their addresses at Gandhi Nagar. The notices have been returned back with the endorsement that the addressee does not reside at the addresses on which the notices were sent. Apart from the aforesaid fact, it is pertinent to note that the mahazar/panchnama does not contain particulars of the witnesses who have witnessed the handing over of the possession. 17. Learned Additional Government Advocate was unable to point out from the record that before taking possession, any notices were issued to the appellants by the Tahsildar. Therefore, we find force in the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the appellants that the appellants are in possession of the land in question which contention also fortified by the fact that the Court complex as well as judicial quarters have already been constructed in another locality which was for the public purposes. 18. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority (supra), the proceedings under the 1894 Act have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act. 19. We may deal with the other grounds of challenge under the proceedings of the Land Acquisition Act. From perusal of the record, it is evident that no notice under Section 9 & 10 of the 1894 Act was issued to the original petitioner even though, the respondents were fully aware of the residential address of the original petitioner. Even though the award passed on 25.06.2001, yet notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued to the original petitioner only on 02.08.2007 i.e., after a period of six years, whereas, Section 12(2) of the Act mandates issuance of immediate notice to land owner. It is well settled in law that when a particular act is required to be done in a particular manner, the same has to be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance of that act in any other manner is prohibited. [See: ‘RAMACHANDRA KESHAV ADKE V/S GOVIND JOTI CHAVARE AND OTHERS’, (1975) 1 SCC 559 , ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI V/S ANJUM M.H GHASWALA AND OTHERS’ (2002) 1 SCC 633 , ‘GUJARAT URLA VIKAS NIGAM LTD V/S ESSAR POWER LTD’, (2008) 4 SCC 755 ]. [See: ‘RAMACHANDRA KESHAV ADKE V/S GOVIND JOTI CHAVARE AND OTHERS’, (1975) 1 SCC 559 , ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI V/S ANJUM M.H GHASWALA AND OTHERS’ (2002) 1 SCC 633 , ‘GUJARAT URLA VIKAS NIGAM LTD V/S ESSAR POWER LTD’, (2008) 4 SCC 755 ]. In the instant case, no prior approval of the State Government as required under Section 11-A of the Act was taken, therefore, the impugned award has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, which is incorporated in the statute inasmuch as no notice under Section 9 & 10 of the Act was issued to the original petitioner. Otherwise also, the award is vitiated in law and the same cannot be sustained. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned order dated 11.04.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed. The proceedings initiated for acquisition of the land in question by the respondents under the 1894 Act are held to have been abated under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as the respondents have failed to take possession of the land in question. In the result, the appeal is allowed.