IMPORTANT POINT
Subsequent purchasers of land after the issuance of acquisition notifications cannot challenge the acquisition, and delay in filing a petition to challenge an acquisition should be viewed seriously.

ORDER :

The above writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(i) To declare that the act of respondent in taking possession of the petition schedule property without paying compensation to the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional.

(ii) To grant declaration that entire acquisition proceedings in respect of 2 acres 20 guntas bearing Block No.9 Re.Sy.No.4 of Jakkur plantation, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (petition schedule property) is illegal and void.

(iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to possession of the petition schedule property and that acquisition purportedly taken by the respondent is illegal.

2. Case of the petitioner is that one K.Rangappa was allotted 5 acres of land in Block No.9 in Sy.No.4 of Jakkur Plantation, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk on 15.05.1957. That the said K.Rangappa had sold southern half portion of said land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas to one Sri.Puttaiah and Sri.Mariyappa in terms of deed of sale dated 04.06.1959. That the said K.Rangappa repurchased the said 2 acres 20 guntas from said Sri.Puttaiah and Sri.Mariyappa in terms of deed of sale dated 18.02.1980. That the mother of the petitioner herein namely, Smt.Saroj Gupta, purchased said 2 acres 20 guntas from said Sri.K.Rangappa on 01.03.1982. The said land is described in the petition and referred to as petition schedule property. That the name of mother of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the petition schedule property in the year 1986-87 and property tax has been paid thereon.

2.1. That northern half portion of 2 acres 20 guntas owned by Sri.K.Rangappa was sold to Sri.Puttaiah and Sri.Mariyappa in terms of deed of sale dated 22.03.1961 which was again repurchased by said K.Rangappa on 19.10.1967. K.Rangappa sold the said property to one Sri.Choodappa under deed of sale dated 20.10.1967. Said Sri.Choodappa further sold said northern half of 2 acres 20 guntas in favour of one Sri.Nagesh Pai under deed of sale dated 30.05.1969. The said Nagesh Pai in turn sold the said land to one Savitha Pai under deed of sale dated 17.07.1986.

2.2. That there was a proposal for acquisition of about 19 acres of land in Sy.No.4, Block No.10 by the Government for the benefit of respondent No.4-University of Agricultural Sciences, Hebbal, Bengaluru in terms of a Final Notification dated 14.11.1971. That an award was passed on 27.08.1974. A second acquisition was made by way of a final notification dated 20.02.1978 and award in this regard was passed on 18.01.1980. That the Final Notification did not bear either the name of the petitioner or any of his predecessor in title. Though a notice was served by the respondent No.3 -Special Land Acquisition Officer on 16.03.1978 to the owners of the land sought to be acquired, the said notice did not contain either the name of the petitioner or his predecessor in title. However, name of Sri.K.Rangappa, the predecessor in title of the petitioner appeared for the first time in the award dated 18.01.1980 as `Anubhavadar' along with other names namely B.M.Narayanappa, Sriharsha, Doddamuniyappa, Beerappa and Dodda Doddamma as Kathedars. That name of said K.Rangappa was also reflected as `Anubhavadar' in the map/sketch prepared on 14.11.1979 by the respondent No.3. That said entries were made based on the statements given by the locals and that the respondent No.3 did not conduct any inspection as required under law. That since K.Rangappa was not the owner of the property between the years 1959-60 and 1980 his name could not have been reflected as `Anubhavadar' in respect of the petition schedule property.

2.3. That the mother of the petitioner having purchased the petition schedule property from Sri.K.Rangappa on 01.03.1982 had filed a suit against the respondent No.2 in O.S.No.10660/1993 on the file of City Civil Court, Mayohall for relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed on 19.09.1998 on the ground that the property was not identifiable due