The main legal point established is that the acquisition proceedings can lapse under Sec. 11A of the Land Acquisition Act if the award is not passed within the specified period. Additionally, the court emphasized the need for justifiable reasons to invoke urgency provisions under Sec. 17 and the requirement to tender compensation before taking possession.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

ALOK ARADHE J. - This intra court appeal takes an exception to order dtd. 5/12/2013 passed in writ petition Nos.5417-5420/2009 and writ petition No.17517/2009, by which the petition preferred by respondent in which challenge was made to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been allowed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that land bearing survey number 64 situated at Koratagere Town Kasaba, Tumkur District was an Inam land (hereinafter referred to as the '[schedule land' for short) was governed by the provisions of Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act, 1955. The father of respondent was a permanent tenant in respect of aforesaid land who was granted occupancy rights in respect of schedule land measuring 17 acres and 10 guntas.

3. The appellant is the town Panchayat constituted under the provisions of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The Panchayat was in need of schedule land as well as land measuring 7 acres of Survey No.64 for the purposes of Solid Waste Management at Koratagere Town. Thereupon, proceeding under the Act were set in motion. A Notification under Sec. 4(1) invoking urgency provision under Sec. 17(1) of the Act was issued on 9/12/2004, by which land measuring 3.03 acres was notified for acquisition.

4. The aforesaid notification was published in the Gazette on 30/12/2004, whereas, the same was published in newspaper on 17/12/2004 . Even though the urgency provision under Sec. 17(1) of the Act was invoked, after a period of 14 months, final notification under sec. 6 of the Act was issued on 16/2/2006. Thereafter, the possession of the schedule land was taken on 9/11/2006 and an award was passed in respect of schedule land on 21/6/2008.

5. Land measuring 7 acres of Sy.No.64 was also required by the appellant for Solid Waste Management at Koratagere Town. Therefore, a preliminary notification under Sec. 4(1) read with Sec. 17 of the Act was issued on 1/10/2005. After a period of 9 months, notification under Sec. 6(1) of the Act was issued on 14/7/2006 and an award was passed on 14/11/2008.

6. The validity of the aforesaid notification was assailed by the respondents in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dtd. 5/12/2013 inter alia held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justification for invocation of the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Act. It was further held that since, an award has been passed beyond a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act, the same has lapsed under Sec. 11A of the Act. Accordingly, the proceedings for acquisition of the land initiated by the State Government were quashed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even though the award has been passed beyond a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act, yet 80% of the amount of compensation a required to be tendered as per Sec. 17(3A) of the Act was tendered before taking possession of the lands. Therefore, the provision of Sec. 11A of the Act are not attracted to the fact situation of the case. It is further submitted that since, the land was required for public purpose urgently i.e., for the purpose of Solid Waste Management at Koratagere Town. Therefore, the State Government was justified in invoking the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Act. It is however submitted that the appellant does not require the land measuring 7 acres. In support of the submission that the provisions of Sec. 11A of the Act are not applicable to the fact situation of the case, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court rendered in 'DELHI AIR TECH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.', 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 1408.

8. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondent submitted that learned Single