B. SHARADAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed by the unsuccessful Petitioner in W.P. No. 6530/2008, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2009, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has declined to quash the preliminary and final notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 20.03.1986 and 04.05.1987 vide Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the writ petition respectively by rejecting the contention of the writ Petitioner that the award is passed after a lapse of two years and contrary to the provisions of Section 11A of the Act and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.

(2.) THE material facts of the case leading up to this appeal are as follows :

(3.) THE learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the schedule property are liable to be set aside as no further proceedings could be taken in the acquisition case in view of the stay of dispossession of the Petitioner - Appellant herein from the land in question granted by this Court as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited in the writ petition itself viz., Government of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. Vasantha Bai, AIR 1995 SC 1778 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Lichho Devi and others, AIR 1997 SC 3474 as stay of dispossession should be interpreted as stay of further proceedings in the case. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the acquisition proceedings are also vitiated on the ground that under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, the Collector is required to obtain orders from the State Government for proceeding further with the acquisition subsequent to the final notification, which is mandatory and subsequent ratification by the State will not cure the defect of non -compliance of Section 7 of the Act, as held by the High Court of Bombay in 2009 (111) Bom. LR.16 (Harakchand Misirimal Solanki V. The Collector, Land Acquisition, Pune And Ors.). Therefore, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside and the said contention could not be urged in the earlier writ petitions as there was no occasion for contending the said ground in view of de -notification of the land in question issued under Section 48(1) of the Act. The learned senior counsel further submitted that even though the acquisition proceedings have become final, in view of the above said facts and the question of law that is/raised in this appeal, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside as sought for in the writ petition and the learned single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition.