Back
High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench At Dharwad)
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
Gopireddy Hanamappa Sangavanavar & Others
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Others
W.P. Nos. 83011-83055 of 2013 (LA-KIADB)
Decided On: 17-02-2014
Further Petitioners undisputedly did not oppose the acquisition when the preliminary and final notification came to be issued in the year 1985 and 1986 respectively. In fact, they have participated in the proceedings for award of compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
There is no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioners have received the compensation inasmuch as in the very representations submitted by the petitioners indicate that petitioners themselves are offering to refund the compensation already received by them to the KIADB authorities.
It is well settled principle of law that after passing of the award and taking possession under the Land acquisition Act, the lands vests with the appropriate Government free from encumbrances. Even if the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, the land owner does not have any right to seek for denotification of the land or restitution of the land.
The discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be exercised to grant relief only to a person whose conduct does not disentitle him to obtain such discretionary relief and from the conduct of the Act, if it is explicit that for such relief, the petitioners would not be entitled then condonation of delay would not be called for an the High Court while exercising the power under Article 226 would be slow in condoning such delay. Lapse of time and delay are important factors which requires to be considered while exercising the power under Article 226 and such defence must be examined by taking into consideration the length of delay and the nature of the acts done during the interregnum period namely during such intervals.
De-notification of the lands in question is impermissible and even otherwise when petitioners have not challenged the acquisition proceedings, received the compensation and delivered possession of the lands, in such circumstances, de-notifying the lands in question does not arise.
1. Heard Sri Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel along with Smt.Sunitha P.Kalasoor, appearing for the petitioners, Sri Basavaraj Sabaraa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri Maldar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the records made available by learned counsel appearing for the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short 'the Board')-
2. Petitioners are seeking for a direction to the respondents to denotify the lands mentioned in Annexures-A and B insofar the same relates to the petitioners by declaring that the professed and purported acquisition of lands notified has stood frustrated by efflux of time.
3. Records would indicate that declaration declaring that the lands in question and other adjacent lands to be an industrial area came to be made on 27.09.1982 and 30.07.1983 under Sections 3 (1) and 1 (3) respectively. Pursuant to the same, a notification under Section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) came to be issued on 19.01.1985 with an intention to acquire the same for the purposes of development by Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board for the establishment of industries therein vide Notification dated 19.01.1985. The said acquisition proceedings was not objected to by the petitioners and final notification under Section 28 (4) came to be issued on 21.03.1985. Subsequently, an award came to be passed on 01.12.1988 fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre. Some of the land owners sought for reference and the reference court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,000/- per acre to Rs.30,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Board was in appeal before this Court and the said appeals came to be dismissed on the ground that the compensation awarded appears to be just and fair. However, one of the land owners had approached this Court not being satisfied with the compensation awarded in M.F.A.No.2229/19S5 and this Court by judgment dated 19.1 1.2002 had allowed the appeal by fixing market value at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre which came to be accepted by the Board. Compensation fixed by this Court in the said appeal came to be accepted by the Board since it was not further challenged and matter having attained finality.
4. Undisputedly, petitioners did not challenge the acquisition proceedings. Their claim in the present writ petitions is that they are illiterate, vulnerable villagers and they were lured by respondents to consent for acquisition and with an earnest belief that their villages would be industrially developed and their children and wards would be extended employment they were of the view that it would enable them to eke out their livelihood which would be as a measure of rehabilitation and as such they categorically and unequivocally admit that they did not seriously oppose the acquisition which had been so proposed by the Board and notified for acquisition. The lands involved in the present writ petition belonging to the respective petitioners are tabulated herein-below indicating the name, survey number arid extent of land of each of the petitioners Annexure-A
(“Table”)
5. It is the contention of Sri Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that petitioners were not divested of the possession of the lands and as such they submitted representation to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 seeking for release of the lands from the acquisition proceedings and expressing their willingness to return the amount which they had received by way of compensation. On account of non- consideration of the said representation, they had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.72258-262/2012 and 72503-524/2012 (LA-KIADB) and a direction was issued to the respondents therein to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible vide or
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
