REKHA S SHIVA CHICKKU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the notification dated 21.04.204 at Annexure-'C' issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and notification dated 03.02.2005 which is produced at Annexure-'D' by contending that acquisition has lapsed in the instant case on account of non-compliance with Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act').

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the scheduled land bearing Sy.No.87/2 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas at Devanoor Village of Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk was an ancestral property of one Javaraiah and after his death his successors along with the father of the petitioners succeeded to the said property. During the minority of the petitioners, their grand father had sold 21 guntas of the said land to one Mohammed Umar Madani on 26.04.2003. Thereafter the Commissioner of the 3rd respondent issued notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 on 21.04.2004 (hereinafter referred to as '1987 Act') proposing to acquire the scheduled land. The said notification was challenged in W.P.No.34808/2004 by the purchaser-Mohammed Umar Madani. Thereafter on 03.02.2005 in exercise of the power conferred under Section 19(1)(2) of the 1987 Act, final notification was issued. After issuance of the preliminary notification, petitioners' grand father had also filed W.P.No.1973/2006 before this Court. The said writ petition was however disposed of on 08.01.2007 reserving liberty to the petitioners' grand father to file objections to the preliminary notification. The 3rd respondent thereafter issued notice dated 12.04.2007 and on 24.11.2007 an award was made in respect of the scheduled land as per Annexure-'H'. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions contending that the award has been made beyond two years from the issuance of the final notification and therefore there being violation of Section 11-A of the LA Act the acquisition has lapsed.

(3.) THE other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Section 11-A is applicable to the provisions of 1987 Act and therefore the provisions of Section 11-A of the LA Act have to be read into the provisions 1987 Act and having regard to the same the award being made beyond a period of two years in the instant case the acquisition has lapsed.