CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question preliminary notification dated 25-03-1992 and final notification dated 29-01-1996 and consequent actions taken thereto qua the property of the petitioner.

2. Heard Smt. Sadhana M. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4.

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

3.1. Since the challenge in the subject petition pertains only to the acquisition proceedings, it would suffice if the facts are narrated from the stage of preliminary notification being issued.

3.2. The subject acquisition proceedings are initiated in the year 1992 by issuance of a preliminary notification dated 25-03-1992 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act’ for short) for the purpose of construction of a layout by the 3^rd respondent/Association. The petitioner’s land is listed at Sl.No.10 of the notification. Four years later, a final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act comes to be issued on 29-01-1996. Pursuant thereto, a general award came to be passed on 07-02-1998 under Section 11 of the Act and an award notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was subsequently issued on 09-02-1998 to several persons, including the petitioners grandfather - Munihanumaiah. On 10-03-1998, a General Power of Attorney (GPA) comes to be executed by Munihanumaiah, along with his legal heirs, in favour of Venkatappa, authorizing him to act on their behalf in all matters relating to 2 acres of the land in Sy.No.28. It is the averment of the petitioner that subsequently, a corrigendum dated 16-03-2000 was issued, dropping 2 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.28 from acquisition. Between 26-06-2004 and 16-07-2004, correspondences are exchanged between the respondents with regard to demolition of existing buildings and to take vacant possession of the lands in Sy.Nos.27/6 and 28. Although, by an order dated 27-12-2004, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (‘SLAO’ for short) holds that the compensation ought to be paid only to Munihanumaiah and not to the GPA holder, on 14-02-2005 it is seen that, Venkatappa, acting as GPA holder, received a sum of ₹4,32,199/- towards compensation for 2 acres of land in Sy.No.28.

3.3. In the interregnum, the land adjoining the petitioner’s property in Sy.No.28 had been purchased by the Rajajinagar Housing Society from members of the petitioner’s family for the purpose of forming a layout. A suit in O.S.No.7773 of 2004 is filed by the Rajajinagar House Building Co-operative Society (‘Rajajinagar Housing Society’ for short) against the 3^rd respondent, seeking a decree of permanent injunction from interference with it’s property in Sy.No.28. The civil court, in its judgment and decree dated 29-11-2014 in O.S.No.7773 of 2004, passes an order restraining the 3^rd respondent from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the land. When the 3^rd respondent, on the basis of the acquisition proceedings attempts to trespass on the subject land in the year 2011, Munihanumaiah, the petitioner’s grandfather, files a suit in O.S.No.3395 of 2011 on 18-05-2011, seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner’s father, Muniswamappa, appears on behalf of the original plaintiff, Munihanumaiah, in the suit, which is ultimately decreed in favour of the petitioner’s grandfather. In the judgment dated 29-11-2017 passed in O.S.No.3395 of 2011, it is observed that the subject land, which was part of the total land measuring 2 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.28, had been excluded from the acquisition proceedings and was not acquired by the 3^rd respondent.

3.4. Execution proceedings in Ex.P.No.1868 of 2020 comes to be initiated by Muniswamappa, the petitioner’s father for enforcement of the decree passed in O.S.No. 3395 of 2011. In the said proceedings, the executing court, through its order dated 08-01-2021 grants police protection in favour of Muniswamappa for sa