Inordinate delay in land acquisition proceedings renders the action of authorities arbitrary, justifying the quashing of notifications.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers:

"a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other similar Writ or order or Direction, quashing Preliminary Notification dated 04.01.2007, bearing No: LAQ(1)CR 86/2005-06 issued by the 2nd Respondent Authority at ANNEXURE-A to the writ petition in so far as Schedule property belonging to the petitioner is concerned. OR b) Issue a Writ in the nature of declaration or any appropriate writ or order or Direction, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of preliminary notification dated 04.01.2007, bearing No: LAQ(1)CR 86/2005-06 issued by the 2nd Respondent Authority at ANNEXURE-A to the writ petition has lapsed by virtue of introduction of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in so far as Schedule Land belonging to the petitioners is concerned.

(b) Direct the respondents to delete the revenue entries made in RTC pahani's at Annexure-B pertaining to Annexure-A, notification in lands of the petitioners in Sy.

No. 2/5 (c) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard Sri.Krishna Kumar K.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.M.Rajakumar, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and have perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents in unison would submit that the issue in the lis is identical to what is decided by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.Nos.47459-461/2018 disposed on 26.06.2019. The said order reads as follows:

"Mr.F.R.Ramesha, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr.E.S.Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Mr.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.

3. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia seek a writ of certiorari for quashment of preliminary notification dated 04.01.2007 issued by the respondent No.1 insofar as it pertains to the land comprised in Sy.No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas situated at Haalalu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk.

4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petitions briefly stated are that the petitioners are the owners of the land measuring 2 acres 22 guntas forming part of Sy.No.31/1 of Haalalu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. The respondents issued a notification under Section 17 (1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) on 04.01.2007. However, despite a lapse of 11 years, no action was taken to finalise the land acquisition proceedings. Thereupon, the petitioners have approached this Court on the basis of a decision rendered by a Bench of this Court in‘ C.G.GANGADHAR Vs. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSORE AND ANOTHER ’ 2013 (4) K.L.J 559

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the rights to hold the land are the constitutional rights which are carried to the petitioners under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the aforesaid right cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the inaction on the part of the respondents for more than 11 years is arbitrary and the controversy involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in C.G.GANGADHAR’s case, supra.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that no time limit is prescribed under the Act for completion of the land acquisition proceeding and therefore, merely on the ground of delay, a notif