B.M.KOTRAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4 . Perused the material on record.

(3.) The material on record indicates that the petitioners claim to be the owners of the subject land which was notified for acquisition by the respondents vide preliminary notification dated 06.02 . 2014 published in the official gazette pursuant to which the respondents also issued the final notification dated 09.04 .2015 which was also published in the official gazette which was followed by the impugned award dated 10.04.2017 . In addition to the other contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners, it is their specific contention that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the said Act of 2013') came into force with effect from 01.01 .2014 and Section 114 of the said Act of 2013 expressly repealed the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the said Act of 1894'). It is contended that upon coming into force of the said Act of 2013, the respondents were not entitled or authorized to take steps to acquire the subject lands under the said Act of 1894 which had been expressly repealed and all acquisition proceedings initiated after 01.01 .2014 would have to be done only under the said Act of 2013 and not by the repealed Act of 1894. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned preliminary notification published on 06 .02.2014 and the final notification dated 09.04.2015 followed by the impugned award dated 10.04.2017 in order to contend that the impugned notifications and award which are purported to have been issued under the Repealed Act of 2013 were without jurisdiction or authority of law and that the same deserve to be quashed.