REKAHA S., D/O. SRI SHIVA CHICKKU AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions, Petitioners have challenged the notification dated 21.04.2004 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 03.02.200!xin 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.) HAVING heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and on careful perusal of the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the preliminary notification is issued on 21.04.2004. The same is produced at Annexure - 'C to the writ petitions. The said notification is followed by the declaration/final -notification dated 03.02.2005 under Section 19(1)(2) of the 1987 Act. Though in the said notification a declaration is made on 03.02.2005, there is no material produced to demonstrate that the award made on 24.11.2007 is beyond the prescribed period of two years as stated in Section 11 -A of the LA Act. Merely because of the final notification issued on 03.02.2005 and the award passed on 24.11.2007, it cannot be held that there is violation of Section 11 -A of the Act. The date on which the declaration has been published in the Gazette or newspapers have to be taken into consideration and it is only from the date of such publication of the declaration that the said statutory period of two years has to be reckoned. In the absence of there being any materials to that effect, the contention of the counsel for the Petitioners that there has been a violation of the mandatory condition under Section 11 -A of the LA Act cannot be accepted.