Non-compliance with notification procedures does not invalidate land acquisition if possession and award were executed appropriately.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners claiming to be erstwhile owners of land measuring 5 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.2/2 and 3 acres in Sy.No.5/7 totally measuring 8 acres 12 guntas situated in Makali Village, Nelamangala Taluk which was subject matter of acquisition in terms of the final notification dated 25.04.1977 issued by respondent No.1 for the benefit of respondent No.4 are before this Court for the second time seeking following reliefs:

"a) Call for the records on the file of the Respondents culminating the Preliminary Notification and Final Notification impugned;

b) Issue a write of Certiorari, Similar Writ, Order or Direction and quash The Preliminary Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Respondents bearing No.LAQ 25R.1121/1967-68 dated 24.04.1976, as at Annexure A;

c) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Similar Writ, Order or Direction and quash the Final Notification issued under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Respondents bearing No.RD.110 AQB 1977 dated 25.04.1977, as at Annexure B;

d) Issue a Writ of Prohibition, Similar Writ, Order or Direction and direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Properties by the Petitioners;

2. Appropriate at this juncture to note that the petitioner had on earlier occasion approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.12221/2011 challenging the preliminary and final notification on the ground of award having not been passed. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 06.06.2011 dismissed the said petition. Being aggrieved by the same petitioners preferred appeal in W.A.No.5992/2011 by order dated 31.01.2012. The Division Bench of this Court at paragraph 4 has observed as under:

''4. We are not inclined to grant permission to withdraw the writ petition. Writ petition was considered and decided on merits and while dismissing the writ petition learned Judge in paragraph 7 observed that necessary particulars/essential facts were not mentioned in the petition and, therefore, petitioners cannot contend that there has been any delay in passing the award. In view thereof, we are allowing the appellants to withdraw the appeal with liberty to the appellants to file appropriate proceedings in the event they get necessary particulars/essential facts so as to contend that acquisition of the land of the appellants has lapsed. In other words, if the appellants get reply from the concerned information officer to their application under RTI Act, stating that award has not been passed and/or if copy of the award is furnished and if it supports their contention that acquisition of the land of the appellants had lapsed, it is open to the appellants to file appropriate proceedings. ''

and disposed of the petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court. Pursuant to the liberty so reserved petitioners apparently had made applications under the Right to Information Act regarding award if any having been passed and possession of the land having been taken.

3. In response to which the respondent authorities had apparently provided information regarding award having been passed and possession having been taken as per Annexures "Q", "R", "S", "T", "U". Based on these documents, the petitioners have approached this Court yet again questioning the entire process of acquisition and also invoking the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as `Act, 2013').

4. Sri Chintan Chinnappa, learned counsel appearing for the p