Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board (Khb) – Appellant
Versus
Narasimhaiah @ Kuntanna S/o Late Narasimhaiah Since Deceased, Rep. By Lrs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
This writ appeal is preferred by the respondents in Writ Petition No.63796/2016 (LA-KHB) challenging the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. We have heard Shri H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri N.S.Sriraj Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1[a to d] & caveator/respondent No.2 and Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.3.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The appellant - Board initiated acquisition proceedings for the purpose of development of residential sites and to construct housing facilities. The acquisition proceedings commenced with an issuance of a Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('1894 Act' for short) dated 23.06.1990, proposing acquisition of land measuring 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy.No.22/2B. At the relevant time, revenue records indicated that the notified extent fell entirely within Sy.No.22/2.
A Durasti Phodi carried out in the year 1989 resulted in bifurcation of Sy.No.22/2. Consequent to this bifurcation, the acquired extent of 1 acre 11 guntas of land came to fa
The court established that possession taken and compensation paid prevent lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act, emphasizing the need for both conditions to be unmet for any lapse to ....
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
Failure to demonstrate legal possession invalidates land acquisition; lapse of the acquisition scheme confirmed by statutory mandates.
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not create a new cause of action to question finalized land acquisition proceedings where possession was taken and compensation paid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the landowner must prove that possession was not taken and compe....
No reasonable explanation being given by the petitioners for such inordinate delay, this court should not go into the stale demand of the petitioners after lapse of years.
The court established that failure to notify landowners and to take possession in accordance with the law invalidates the land acquisition process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fulfillment of the twin requirements of paying/depositing compensation and taking possession of the subject lands is crucial to prevent th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse if the possession of the land was not taken and comp....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
