MUNEERAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is listed for "Hearing- Interlocutory Application", with the consent of the learned counsels on both sides, the mater is heard and disposed of finally.

(2.) In these writ petitions the petitioners seek to challenge the preliminary notification dated 13.10.1998 passed under Section 4(1) and final notification dated 13.11.1989 under section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition and all further act or action of the respondents are illegal, unsustainable and lasped in respect of Sy.No.19, measuring 0-05 guntas and Sy.No.22, measuring 2 acres 04 guntas situated at Tippasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that late Sri.Chinnappa along with several other land owners had filed W.P.Nos.7287-7300/1993 with the very same prayer challenging the acquisition proceedings. This Court by order dated 03.01.1996 considered the grounds agitated by the petitioners therein inter-alia that the land owners were not given sufficient opportunity to contest their case; there was no enquiry as contemplated under Section 5 A of the Act; that the final notification was issued after lapse of one year from the date of preliminary notification; that the petitioners belong to backward community and they are illiterate persons and they were not heard in the acquisition proceedings, etc. After considering the rival contentions, this Court held that there was no merit in the contentions of the petitioners. This Court looked into the material placed before the Court and came to a conclusion that the enquiry was conducted and opportunity of hearing was also given to the petitioners. The land owners had appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and a detailed enquiry was conducted and thereafter the final notification was issued by the State government. It has been noticed that the submissions and evidence placed by the respondent-BDA before the Court was not countered by the petitioners. It was noticed that the petitioners had suppressed the material facts in the petitions. Finally, it was observed that the petitioners were aware of the acquisition proceedings as far back as 1989 and approached this Court after lapse and delay of 4 years and therefore it was held that the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. Consequently, the writ petitions came to be dismissed.