The judgment establishes that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, it is mandatory for States to notify all persons interested in acquired lands, including tenants. This ensures their right to object before finalizing any land acquisition.

ORDER :

1. In this writ petition, acquisition of 86 acres 35 guntas of land situated at Kusanal Village and Ugar Khurd Village of Belagavi District is questioned by the petitioner -Company.

2. Petitioner, a public limited company, contends that it is the tenant of these lands and they were inducted as tenants under registered Lease Deeds dated 04.09.1951 and 16.02.1972. They also contend that they have made an application seeking for conferment of occupancy rights as provided under the Land Reforms Act and the same is pending adjudication before the Land Tribunal.

3. A notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act") was issued on 31.05.2016 proposing to acquire a total of 86 acres 35 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.127/P1 (measuring 16 acres 24 guntas), Sy.No.128 (measuring 34 acres 37 guntas) and Sy.No.129 (measuring 35 acres 14 guntas) for the purpose of establishment of a Rehabilitation Centre at Kusanal Village as a result of execution of Hippargi Dam Project. This notification was also published in the Gazette on 09.06.2016 vide Annexure-D.

4. On publication of Section 11(1) notification, the authorities served notices on the owner Sri Ganapati Maharaj Sangli, who did not object to the acquisition for the purpose of establishment of a Rehabilitation Centre at Kusanal Village as a result of execution of Hippargi Dam Project.

5. It is not in dispute that notices were not served on the petitioner calling upon it to submit objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition.

6. It is stated that a report was submitted to the State Government and the State Government, on consideration of the said report took a decision to acquire the land on 19.10.2016 and consequentially to issue a declaration. Consequently, a declaration under Section 19(1) of 2013 Act was issued in March, 2017 (date not mentioned) and was also published in the Gazette on 06.04.2017 vide Annexure-E.

7. Thereafter, it appears that notices were issued to the land owner and three separate awards were passed i.e., in respect of land bearing Sy.No.127/P1 measuring 16 acres 24 guntas on 03.02.2018 vide Annexure-A, in respect of Sy.No.128 measuring 34 acres 37 guntas on 08.02.2018 vide Annexure-B and in respect of Sy.No.129 measuring 35 acres 14 guntas on 14.02.2018 vide Annexure-C.

8. It is also stated that pursuant to the aforesaid awards, the State has also paid compensation of about Rs.12.83 crores to the land owner.

9. It is the contention of the petitioner that it was incumbent upon the State to notify it about the acquisition since it was the person who was actually affected by the acquisition. It is contended that the Sugar Factory being run by the petitioner was heavily dependent on the sugar cane that was grown in 86 acres 35 guntas of land and if these lands are acquired, they would suffer a huge loss. It is also contended that the question of petitioner's entitlement to be conferred with occupancy rights was pending adjudication before the Land Tribunal and in this view of the matter, it was completely wrong on the part of the State to have paid compensation to the owner in respect of subject lands, which were in possession of the petitioner and in respect of which its claim for being conferred with occupancy rights was pending adjudication before the Land Tribunal.

10. It is also specifically contended by the petitioner that in the RTC, the name of the petitioner is entered in the cultivator's column and therefore, the State could have no excuse for not notifying the petitioner.

11. It is stated that since the State was aware about the proceedings pending before the Land Tribunal, the petitioner ought to have been notified about the acquisition.

12. It is also contended that the petitioner had in fact fil