PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land belonging to the petitioners in Sy.No.79/2 of Aurad(B) village, Bidar District was acquired by the Government of Karnataka for the purpose of formation of APMC Yard in terms of the Preliminary Notification dated 03.02.1977 followed by final notification dated 28.07.1978. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings failed before this Court in W.P.No.2364/1980 and the intra Court Appeal in W.A.No.514/1990. The petitioner followed it up with a suit in O.S.No.100/1990 for declaration that he is the owner and possessor of the suit land as there was no development on the acquired land and was not allegedly used for the purpose for which it was acquired. Respondent No.4 is stated to have passed a resolution on 15.02.1993 giving up half portion of the land and the said resolution was accepted by petitioner No.1 who filed a compromise petition on 04.03.1993 in O.S.No.100/1990. In compliance with the compromise, respondent No.4 transferred five acres of land to the petitioners. In so far as the award is concerned, the petitioners claimed that the award was passed on 14.11.1979 but the award amount was not paid to the petitioners and the notification under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was not served on the petitioners. On enquiry, the petitioners learnt that the compensation amount was deposited in a revenue deposit on 11.01.1980 in the Treasury of the Government of Karnataka. He therefore contended that the compensation amount was not paid to the petitioners and that in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition has lapsed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the challenge to the notification on the ground of non-payment of compensation under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is fully covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others,2020 SCCOnlineSC 316.

(3.) The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has held that deposit is one of the modes of payment of compensation and it is not necessary that the beneficiary has to physically tender the compensation to the land losers. The claim of the petitioners that they were not served with the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is ex-facie not believable as the petitioners had been beneficiary of a compromise petition in O.S.No.100/1990. At any rate, such a contention could not be raised after nearly a long lapse of time. Be that as it may, if the petitioners are entitled to any remedy on this ground under the Land Acquisition Act, they may pursue it but there is definitely no ground available for the petitioners to seek the quashing of the notification or claiming that the acquisition has lapsed in view of the nonpayment of compensation in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court referred supra.