The statutory presumption raised by the notification under Sec. 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was crucial in determining the possession of the land and the lapse of acquisition proceedings.

JUDGMENT

ALOK ARADHE J. - This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dtd. 10/8/2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellants are the owners of the land of Sy.No.51 measuring 4 acres and 30 guntas situated at Vajrahalli Village, Uttarahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. The State Government issued a preliminary notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 23/9/1988 seeking to acquire the schedule land amongst other lands. Thereafter, a declaration under Sec. 6(1) of the Act was issued on 25/9/1989 and an award was passed on 23/6/1990. It is the case of the appellants that no compensation was paid to them. The father of the appellant as well as the other land owners filed a writ petition viz., W.P.Nos.28577-28586/1995, in which challenge was made to the acquisition proceedings. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge by an order dtd. 12/4/1996 and an intra court appeal preferred before the division bench was also dismissed. The father of the appellant and the other land owners approached the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition. After the first round of litigation had attained finality, the appellants approached this court by filing a writ petition inter alia on the ground that the possession of the land in question has not been taken away from them and no compensation has been paid. Therefore, the proceedings of acquisition stood lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Learned Single Judge by an order dtd. 10/8/2017 has dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited the attention of this court to the photographs annexed with the writ petition in support of the contention that the appellants are still in possession of the land in question. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by learned Single Judge.

4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the award in the land acquisition case was passed on 23/6/1990. Sec. 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, provides that in a case where an award is passed and possession is taken, the fact of taking such possession may be notified by the Deputy Commissioner in the official gazette and such notification shall be evidence of such fact. Thus, issuance of notification under Sec. 16(2) of the Act raises a statutory presumption with regard to assumption of the possession In the instant case, the notification under Sec. 16(2) of the Act was issued on 19/4/1991. Therefore, it is evident that the possession of the land was taken from the appellants. Learned Single Judge has relied on the notification issued under Sec. 16(2) of the Act to hold that the possession of the land in question was taken from the appellants. Thereafter, the sites which were formed by Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society was approved on 7/12/2022. Thereafter, on 3/3/2001 the sites were allotted to its members of the Society. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly negatived the plea of the appellants that in view of Sec. 24(2) of the Act, the proceedings under the Act have lapsed. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by learned Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.