Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
M. Suresh Kumar S/o A.R. Muthukumar - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Karnataka - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11551 Of 2019 (LA-RES), Writ Petition No. 25329 Of 2017 (LA-RES), Writ Petition No. 25759 Of 2017 (LA-RES), Writ Petition No. 11550 Of 2019 (LA-RES), Writ Petition No. 11553 Of 2019 (LA-RES)
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11A, 6, 4(1) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 – Section 24, (1),(a), (2) 25, 19, 5A, (2) - Land - Beneficiary - Whether beneficiary can claim that delay in acquisition is by State and/or SLAO and as such, acquisition needs to be upheld to protect interest of beneficiary - Whether once a direction has been issued in a Writ Petition for an award to be passed, would time period prescribed under Section 11A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be applicable or would it get extended merely on ground that a Writ Appeal had been filed and pending - Whether time for passing of an award would get extended since proceedings were pending before Hon’ble Apex Court in a SLP - Whether in given facts and circumstances, acquisition proceedings in present matter has lapsed. [Para 23.2]
Finding of the Court: Though in some acquisitions, an ascertained person or entity could be beneficiary, in most acquisition, it could be in general interest for formation of layouts etc., where beneficiary is not ascertained - Even in case where beneficiary is ascertained, acquisition proceedings are required to be initiated and completed by exercise of powers of eminent domain by State - No compulsory acquisition can happen or resorted to by a beneficiary on its own - Thus, from time of issuance of preliminary notification, conduct of enquiry, issuance of final declaration, passing of an award, taking possession of property etc., all these aspects have to be performed by State or SLAO - Beneficiary cannot on basis of its interest being harmed contend that acquisition is required to be saved and/or that on account of default by State or SLAO, beneficiary cannot be deprived of usufructs of acquisition - Remedy in such a case would only be for beneficiary to lay a claim against State claiming any damages that might have been caused to beneficiary, which civil remedy beneficiary would always have - Hence, Court answer Point No.6 by holding that beneficiary cannot claim that if there is delay in acquisition by State and/or SLAO, acquisition needs to be upheld to protect interest of beneficiary - In event of there being any violation of time period prescribed, irrespective of what was cause for delay, acquisition would lapse - Preliminary notification and final declaration/notification vide Annexures-A and B respectively are quashed - Liberty is reserved to beneficiary to initiate such proceedings as may be advised against the State for recovery of damages if any caused to beneficiary.
Result: Petitions allowed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioners in W.P.No.11551/2019 are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
b. Without prejudice to their right, further declare that acquisition proceedings under Sec.24 and 25 of the Central Act 2013 being not passed any award within two years or otherwise, within one year under Act 2013, according to law, there is no acquisition in the eye of law and the one on which the Respondents are contending that they are entitled to pass the award not sustainable in law and accordingly quash the acquisition proceedings initiated according to the Endorsement in Case No. LAQ No. (8)SR 4/02-03 dated 22.12.2018 that was handed over to the Petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police, Hebbagodi on 05.01.2019 in respect of the land in question in the interest of justice and equity.
c. To declare that in terms of the Judgement of the Full Bench held in (Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others) reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, the land acquisition is deemed lapsed under Sec.24(2) of the 2013 Act, as there is no award being passed prior to commencement of the New Act 2013 nor Possession being taken till date, in the interest of justice and equity.
“The Petitioner No.1 is the son of 2nd Petitioner. The Petitioner No.1 is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.142 measuring 5-00 acres situated at Goolimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The 1st Petitioner and 2nd Petitioner jointly owned Sy. No.143 measuring 5 Acres. 2nd Petitioner has executed the General Power of Attorney dated 23.08.2007 in favour of 1st Petitioner for challenging this acquisition by him. The 2nd Petitioner is the mother of 1st Petitioner, however, on the basis of the power of attorney in respect of 2½ Acres, that being jointly in Possession with the 1st Petitioner, by means of power of attorney, the Petitioners are filing this petition challenging acquisition of Sy. No.142 and 143 of Gulimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The Petitioners while being in Possession of the same, the Respondents having published a Notification bearing NO.LAQ/SR/1/02-03 dated 20-5-2002 followed by a final Notification came to be published in the Gazette vide Notification No. RD/3/LAW-Be/03 dated 02.08.2003. The said notification being published after one year, same came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.11298/2005. Copy of the Preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A and copy of the final notification dated 02.08.2003 is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-B. Copy of the General Power of Attorney dated 23.08.2007 in favour of the Petitioner No.1 is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-C”.
2. The petitioners in W.P.No.25329/2017 are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
Section 25 of LARR Act reads as Period within which an award shall be made –The Collector shall make an award within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under se....
The court held that land acquisition proceedings lapsed as the award was not made within two years, violating statutory provisions and infringing constitutional rights.
The key legal principle established in the judgment is that the award must be made within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings lapsed as no award was made within 2 years of the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, and the State was d....
The delay in challenging acquisition proceedings and the impact on third-party rights can weigh against quashing the proceedings, even if the award has been passed beyond the stipulated period.
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lapse of acquisition proceedings due to the delay in passing the Award, and the applicability of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the 189....
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
