Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Kar) 806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.
Ankappa – Appellant
Versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6355 of 2017 (LA-RES)
Decided On : 16-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
H.M.Muralidhar, Advocate, Anitha N., Advocate, H.Shanthi Bhushan, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay, estoppel, and lack of grounds for challenging acquisition proceedings can bar a petition seeking quashing of the acquisition.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Quashing of Acquisition Proceedings - Land Acquisition Act, 1984, Sec. 4(1), Sec. 6(1), Sec. 17, Sec. 5-A, Sec. 18 - The court discussed the impugned acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, and the settlement before the Lok Adalat, and the subsequent challenges and execution proceedings. The court found the petition devoid of merit due to delay, estoppel, and lack of grounds for challenging the acquisition proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petition sought quashing of acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for establishing a High Technological Park by the Defence Department. The acquisition notifications were issued in 1988 and 1989, and subsequent legal proceedings ensued regarding compensation and settlement before the Lok Adalat. The petitioners also challenged the Lok Adalat awards and the acquisition notifications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition devoid of merit due to the long delay of almost 30 years in filing the petition, the settlement before the Lok Adalat, and the rejection of the challenge to the Lok Adalat awards by the Division Bench of the Court. The court also held that the petitioners' conduct barred their claim by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment, and waiver.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in filing the petition, the settlement before the Lok Adalat, the challenge to the Lok Adalat awards, and the alleged non-utilization of the acquired land for the intended purpose.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of delay, estoppel, and lack of grounds for challenging the acquisition proceedings. The court also emphasized that once land is acquired and vested in the authorities, the land losers cannot seek restoration of the land based on non-utilization or change in public purpose.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned acquisition proceedings pursuant to the preliminary notification dtd. 16/7/1988 and final declaration dtd. 19/1/1989 issued by the respondents and for other reliefs.

2. The material on record discloses that on 16/7/1988, the respondents issued a preliminary notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short 'the L.A.Act') proposing to acquire 125 acres of land including the subject lands of the petitioners for the purpose of establishing a High Technological Park by the Defence Department. Subsequently, an additional 2 acres 36 guntas was added to the acquisition and a final notification dtd. 19/1/1989 was issued under Sec. 6(1) of the L.A.Act by invoking the urgency clause under Sec. 17 of the L.A.Act and by dispensing with the enquiry required under Sec. 5-A of the L.A.Act. Subsequently, the award was passed on 10/5/1990 and possession was taken on 24/7/1989. As per the award, compensation was fixed at Rs.1,30,000.00 per acre payable in favour of the petitioners and other land losers. Subsequently, being dissatisfied with the award, petitioners filed reference applications under Sec. 18 of the L.A.Act seeking enhancement of compensation and the same was allowed by the reference Court vide order dtd. 13/8/1998, which increased the compensation to Rs.2,48,000.00 per acre. The respondent - beneficiary challenged the said awards of the reference Court in MFA No.5403/1999 & connected matters which were referred to the High Court Lok Adalat. On 27/8/2001, the appeals were settled between the petitioners and respondents reducing the compensation payable from Rs.2,48,000.00 as determined by the reference court to Rs.2,22,000.00 together with all statutory benefits in full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioners.

3. It was relevant to state that the said settlement before the Lok Adalat was arrived at pursuant to the joint memo filed by the petitioners and the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioners and other land losers raised certain objections with regard to calculation of statutory benefit which were disputed by the respondents and the matter came up before the Lok Adalat once again on 6/5/2002, whereby the Lok Adalat noted that since the matters had already been disposed of by settlement, if the claimants - petitioners were not satisfied with the calculation or deposit, it was open for them to levy execution so that the Executing Court can pass appropriate orders.

4. Subsequently, the Execution petitions were taken up for consideration by the Executing court and since there was a dispute regarding the memos of calculations filed by the petitioners and the respondents, orders were passed by the Executing Court in favour of the petitioners which were challenged by the respondents in W.P.No.4612/2004 c/w W.P.No.4613/2004 which was disposed of by this Court on 1/8/2005 and the matter was remitted back to the Executing court.

5. The aforesaid execution proceedings are still pending, in which the petitioners contend that the entire amounts payable by the respondents in terms of the Lok Adalat awards together with benefits have not been paid by them to the petitioners.

6. Meanwhile, petitioners challenged the aforesaid Lok Adalat awards passed by this Court in MFA No.5403/1999 & connected matters by preferring W.P.No.11372/2017 and connected petitions before this Court seeking setting aside of the Lok Adalat awards. Simultaneously, petitioners have also filed the present petition challenging the acquisition notifications and proceedings. In this context, it is necessary to state that the aforesaid W.P.No.11372/2017 filed by the petitioners against the Lok Adalat awards, has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 24/3/2022 and consequently, the Lok Adalat awards dtd. 27/8/2001 have attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioners.

7. Heard learned counsel for the