SHABEERABI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the Act], a statute of the bygone era, a relic of the past, which can play havoc with the lives and livelihood of land owners, particularly farming community in this country, has continued to rule roost even after our country became independent and has become republic, but the colonial concept of 'eminent domain' has plagued the citizens, has weighed heavily on the judges and courts and the power of compulsory acquisition of private lands in the name of public purpose has gone on merrily, in our country and more often than not such acquisition of private land being not necessarily for a public purpose, but in the name of a public purpose, private interest being catered and fed.

(2.) Acquisition of lands initially embarked for a specific purpose, which is a public purpose and with a definite scheme and project, lose their significance and teeth over a period of time, as the acquisition proceedings are sketched endlessly and what with matters being litigated before courts, stay orders being passed and thereafter a first appeal and then a second appeal, a further appeal to Supreme Court etc etc. A cat may have nine lives but in our country litigation lasts even generations together!

(3.) One poor victim in this quixotic world of acquisition of private lands in the name of a public purpose is the land owner, particularly as the rate of compensation in favour of a private land owner gets determined or freezes to be as it prevailed in the market on the date of issue of preliminary notification by the state government, which in the present case happened on 9-10-1997 as per notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Then followed a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which is popularly known as final notification, issued on 30-4-1999. However, it is not forthcoming as to when the awards were passed, but these writ petitions have been filed on the premise that awards had been passed beyond the period of two years from the date of issue of declaration and that on such premise a good number of writ petitions had come to be allowed by this Court at the instance of other land owners whose lands also figured in the very notifications and therefore it is prayed that these writ petitions may be allowed.