The court ruled that land acquisition proceedings lapsed as the award was not made within the two-year statutory period under Section 11A, affirming the necessity of all mandatory publication modes.

ORDER :

1. These two writ petitions raise an identical question relating to the validity of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (‘LA Act, 1894’ for short). Since the nature of acquisition, the land involved, the publication of the declaration under Section 6 (1) and the contentions regarding limitation under Section 11A, are common, both petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The central issue for determination is “whether the award passed in each case was within the statutory period of two-y ears ‘from the last date of publication’ of the declaration under Section 6 (1), if not, whether the acquisition stands lapsed by operation of law under Section 11A of the LA Act, 1894.”

Brief facts in W.P. 56476/2016:

3. The petitioners are owners of the converted residential properties forming part of developed land in Jigala/Lingapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The land had earlier been converted for non-agricultural residential use. A preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) was issued, followed by a declaration under Section 6 (1), which was published in Karnataka Gazette on 24.04.2008 and the corresponding newspaper publications were also issued. It is the case of the petitioners that no local publication was made in the Grama Panchayath or Chavadis. The award was passed on 05.05.2011. A notification under Section 16 (2) was later issued, and the compensation was deposited before the Reference Court in 2019.

Facts in W.P. No.57600/2017:

4. The petitioners claim to be the residents of the same area and owners of the converted residential sites forming part of an approved layout. A preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) was issued, followed by a declaration under Section 6 (1), which was published in Karnataka Gazette on 09.11.2006. The declaration under Section 6 (1) was published in Vijaya Karnataka and Indusanje daily newspaper on 12.01.2007. The award was passed on 26.12.2008/11.02.2009 It is alleged that on 22.02.2012, 28.02.2012 and 12.04.2012, the RTI endorsements were issued stating that there were no records exist, evidencing publication. The award was passed on 05.05.2011. Section 16(2) notification was issued, and the compensation was deposited in 2019.

5. Heard Smt. B.V. Vidyulatha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Harisha A.S., learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P. No.57600/2017 and Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Basavaraj Sabarad, learned senior counsel for Sri Ravindhra H.T., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Harisha A.S., learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P. No.56476/2016.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.57600/2017 submits that the award dated 05.05.2011 was passed beyond two-years from the last valid date of publication of the Section 6 (1) declaration which according to them is 05.07.2008, thereby rendering the entire acquisition automatically lapsed under Section 11A of the LA Act, 1894. It is contended that the alleged publication on 06.05.2009 in the Grama Panchayath and the Chavadi never took pla