Acquisition proceedings initiated decades ago are valid; non-payment of compensation does not automatically lead to lapsing of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings initiated by the respondents/Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore (‘MUDA’ for short) in terms of notification dated 13-03-1961 in respect of land of the petitioners on the score that acquisition had lapsed in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 2013 and have sought certain consequential reliefs.

2. Heard Sri T.A.Karumbaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Seshu V., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri V. S. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The father of the 1^st petitioner, father-in-law of the 2^nd petitioner and grand father of petitioners 3 and 4, is said to have owned land measuring 2 acres 08 guntas including kharab in Sy.No.36/1 of Eeranagere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The then State of Mysore is said to have issued a notification under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 declaring acquisition to the extent of 2 acres and 8 guntas of land which is claimed to be belonging to the father of the 1^st petitioner for public purpose viz., play-ground to the students of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The notification was issued on 31-10-1961. It appears that the 4^th respondent/Special Land Acquisition Officer of MUDA on 13-09-1964 is said to have communicated to the 2^nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner, a report which is drawn on conduct of spot inspection along with Agricultural Officer on 06-08-1964 opining that the land of the petitioners is not suitable for the purpose for which it was acquired, giving the reason that a high-tension wire runs through center of the land. Communications are exchanged between the Departments concerned. Based upon the aforesaid communications, the Deputy Commissioner addresses a letter to the 4^th respondent to take possession of 2/3^rd of the land acquired measuring 1 acre 18 guntas, which is adjacent to Dalitha Vidyarthi Nilaya. The contention now is, even though acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1961, award is not passed and compensation is not determined. The further averment in the petition is that the Deputy Commissioner and the Social Welfare Department have exchanged communications observing release of funds for payment of compensation, to whom is not indicated. Today, the land that was acquired, is now being utilized for the purpose of construction of hostels to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes students.

4. After about 40 years, a writ petition comes to be filed before this Court in Writ Petition No.10180 of 2007 challenging acquisition proceedings, on the score that no compensation is paid to the petitioners. The writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court if they are not successful in getting compensation from the hands of the civil Court. Then comes the new LAND ACQUISITION ACT . Again, springs the subject petition on the ground that compensation is not paid. Therefore, mandamus is sought, declaring acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 2013.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the communications between the Departments from 1961 to 1980 or even on 19-03-1990 are all indicative of the fact that acquisition proceedings initiated against the petitioners have not been taken to their logical conclusion. He would contend that under Section 24(2) the acquisition has stood lapsed and the petitioners are entitled to compensation, which has to