Delay and latches can be grounds for dismissal of a writ petition, and a party seeking compensation enhancement cannot subsequently challenge the acquisition proceedings.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This intra court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioners assailing the order dtd. 18/12/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P.Nos.29941 & 34012-15 of 2011.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal as revealed from the records are, the appellants claim to be the owners of land measuring 2 acres each in Sy. No.64 situated at Mandakalli village, Mysuru District, which totally measures 10 acres 10 guntas. They allegedly purchased the said lands under five separate registered sale deeds dtd. 6/5/1996. The Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') had issued notification dtd. 28/11/1996 under Sec. 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act of 1987') for acquisition of the lands belonging to the appellants along with other lands for the purpose of establishing a heavy truck terminal. The appellants had filed objections to the said acquisition proceedings. The objections were overruled and the final notification was issued on 3/6/1997 under Sec. 19 of the Act of 1987. On 30/9/1997, the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the Authority had passed an award and the same was approved by the Divisional Commissioner on 27/11/1997. Since the appellants had refused to receive the award notice, the compensation amount was deposited before the jurisdictional Civil Court. After issuance of notification under Sec. 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act of 1894') on 26/2/1998, the appellants had filed application under Sec. 18 of the Act of 1894 seeking reference to the jurisdictional Civil Court for re-determination of compensation. Thereafter, on 4/8/2011, the appellants had filed W.P.Nos.29941 & 34012-15 of 2011 seeking declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands in question had lapsed in view of Sec. 27 of the Act of 1987. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order impugned, has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches and also on the ground that the appellants who had filed an application under Sec. 18 of the Act of 1894 seeking enhancement of compensation, cannot subsequently maintain the writ petition questioning the acquisition proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the scheme for which the land in question was acquired was not sanctioned by the State Government and no order has been passed as required under Sec. 18(3) of the Act of 1987, and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have held that the Scheme had lapsed. He submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of AMEER KHAN & OTHERS VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS - 1998(4) Kar.L.J. 129, wherein in respect of the very same acquisition proceedings, it has been held that there was no sanction order as required under Sec. 18(3) of the Act of 1987, and therefore, the final notification under Sec. 19 of the Act of 1987 cannot be sustained. He submits that the learned Single Judge had also erred in placing reliance on the judgment in the case of MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FO GREATER BOMBAY VS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS - AIR 1997 SC 482, as the said case would not be applicable to the facts of the present case having regard to the fact that the appellants have not received the compensation, whereas in the said case, the owners of the land had received compensation, and thereafter, challenged the acquisition proceedings. He also contends that the appellants are in possession of the land in question, and therefore, it is apparent that the land in question are not utilized for the purpose of the scheme, and therefore, the appellants are entitled for the reliefs prayed in the wr