ORDER :

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

"(i) Quash the Preliminary Notification dated: 12.04.2013 vide No. LAAQCR18/2012-13/C.NO. 102443 vide Annexure-'A', and the final notification published dated: 25.06.2015 in G.O.No. 35 Bhoo.Swa.Dha. 2014 dated: 25.11.2014 as Sy No. 58/2P1 measuring about 0.22.50 Acres of Permannur Village, Ullala, Managalore, D.K. District, vide Annexure-'B' and further proceedings pursuant thereto int eh interest of justice and equity.

(ii) Issue any other writ or order and grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner and the other material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the fact that the final notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894') was issued on 25.06.2015 after a lapse of two years and two months after issuance of the preliminary notification dated 12.04.2013, the impugned notifications and acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto, deserve to be quashed for non issuance of the final notification within the mandatory period of one year from the date of the preliminary notification. It was submitted that the period during which the interim order dated 05.02.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.5953/2014 was in force can not be excluded since the said interim order did not attract explanation 1 to Section 6(1) of the Act. Secondly, it is contended that necessary enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was not conducted prior to issuance of final declaration under Section 6(1) and consequently, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated on this ground also. Thirdly, it was submitted that the enquiry mandated under Section 5-A is not an empty formality and in the facts of the instant case, the said enquiry having not been conducted in accordance with law, the acquisition proceedings deserve to be quashed.

It is further contended that in the light of the undisputed fact that the impugned award was passed only on 15.03.2019 after a lapse of about 3 years 9 months from the date of the final notification dated 25.06.2015, the impugned award having not been passed within the period of 2 years from the date of issuance of final notification dated 25.06.2015 as required under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1894, the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed and deserve to be quashed on this ground also. Alternatively, it is contended that even under the new Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the RFCTLARR Act') , the award ought to have been passed within a period of 12 months from the date of final notification and in the absence of the said period of 12 months being extended and notified as required under Section 25 of the RFCTLARR Act, the impugned award is vitiated and deserves to be quashed on this ground also. It is therefore contended that the impugned notifications and the acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto deserve to be quashed.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the following decisions:-

1. Women’s Education Trust and another vs. State of Haryana and others – (2013)8 SCC 99;

2. Devendra Kumar Tyagi and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – (2011)9 SCC 164;

3. Ashok Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and another – (2007)3 SCC 470;

4. Sachidananda Swamigalu Sri Guru Honnappa Devaru vs State of Karnataka – ILR 2002 KAR 3902;

5. State of U.P and others vs Rajiv Gupta and another – (1994)5 SCC 686;

6. Mulchand Khanumal Khatri vs State of Gujarat and others – (2012)5 SCC 365;

7. Naganna and others vs State of Karnataka and others – ILR 1998 KAR 3503;

8. Smt.Andalamma