CHINNAMMA, WIFE OF CHIKKANNA Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA), JHANSI LAKSHMIBAI ROAD, MYSORE, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA), JHANSI LAKSHMIBAI ROAD, MYSORE, THE SP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order as the grounds urged in these petitions are identical, as are the facts and circumstances. Each of the petitioners have furnished particulars of the lands and the manner in which the same have been acquired. The lands in question are various parcels of agricultural land of Lalithadripura village, Varuna hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. It transpires that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Urban Development Authority, Mysore, had issued a notification dated 15 -7 -1997, under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KUDA Act', for brevity), duly published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 24 -7 -1997, proposing to acquire 431.08 acres of land of Lalithadripura village, for the formation of a housing colony known as the Lalithadrinagar Extension. Thereafter, a final notification under Section 19(1) of the KUDA Act dated 18.1.2002, was issued declaring that 345.11 guntas of land were needed for the above purposes. It is contended that Awards were passed in respect of the lands so acquired, spread over the period between November 2003 to July 2004 and the same had been duly approved by the government. It is further stated that possession of the lands had been taken during the year 2005. It is the said acquisition which is under challenge in these proceedings. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Award passed in each of their cases, is well beyond the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act', for brevity). The acquisition proceedings are also vitiated on account of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner is the designated competent acquiring authority. In the instant case, such authority having been delegated in favour of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, is bad in law. That the notified khatedars were not in fact the actual Khatedars and hence the proceedings are without notice to the actual persons in possession of the respective properties. It is claimed that actual physical possession of the lands in question of each of these petitioners was never taken, as the concerned officer had not visited the lands in question and taken physical possession as required under Section 16(1) of the Act. That in terms of Section 27 of the KUDA Act, the Scheme under which the lands are acquired, should be implemented within a period of five years from the date of final notification. It is claimed that it has not been so implemented.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the respondent - authority that the several grounds raised in the petitions are not tenable. It is contended that though the petitioners claim to be absolute owners of the respective properties, in so far as the authority is concerned, it is pointed out that Section 17(5) of the KUDA Act contemplates service of notice on every person, whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue on any building or land, which is proposed to be acquired. It is settled law that in such circumstances, the acquiring authority is not obliged to conduct a roving enquiry to ascertain the particulars of any and all persons who may seek to claim a interest in the property, other than the person who is shown as the Khatedar at the relevant point of time. It is asserted that the authority has strictly followed the procedure in issuing notices to all such persons whose names were reflected in the available and relevant records of the local authorities. In so far as the contention that the awards passed in respect of the land are contrary to Section 11A of the LA Act is concerned, it is pointed out that the said section would have no application to the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the KUDA Act, as held by the apex court in the case of Munithimmaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2002 SC 1574 . As regards the contention that the authority has failed to execute the Scheme within a period of five years from the date of final notification and hence the Scheme has lapsed etc., it is pointed out that there must be proof regarding the failure on the part of authority to execute the scheme substantially. A substantial execution depends upon the magnitude of the scheme, the nature of the work that is executed and that which remains to be executed. There must be a dereliction of duty by the authority without justification and not mere delay in performing any such duty. On the other hand it is asserted by the respondent that the authority has proceeded with all due diligence in the proceedings. It is contended that the award was passed on 24.05.2003. The award notice under section 12 of the KUDA Act was required to be issued to as many as 164 persons, which involve considerable time. After waiting for considerable time for the claimants to receive the award, the possession of the land was taken on various dates between 03.11.2003 and 21.07.2004. Possession of the land in Sy. No. 24/1 and 24/2 was taken on 25.05.2005. The total extent of land notified in the notification issued under Section 19 KUDA Act was 345 acres 11 guntas. The total extent of land of which possession was taken was 335 acres. The extent of land, of which possession is yet to be taken is 10 acres 11 guntas.

(3.) FURTHER , it is contended that the grant of approval of the Government was sought on 23.08.2007 to split up the civil work for formation of the layout into eight components. The Government on 23.06.2008 had directed the Mysore Urban Development Authority to furnish the revised proposals and accordingly, the revised proposal was sent on 30.07.2008 for taking up of the First Stage of Lalithadripura and one package excluding the electrification work. It is claimed that the Government had accorded approval to the proposal on 29.08.2008. On the basis of the approval accorded by the Government, tender was called on 06.09.2008. Since there was only one bidder, the tender was cancelled. Fresh tender was called for on 25.02.2009. Since this tender process was challenged before this Court in W.P.No. 1556/2009, the same was cancelled and a fresh tender was ordered to be called on 14.09.2009. The fresh tender was called on 16.12.2009. Tendering process have been completed and the work order had been issued to the Contractor with a direction to complete the work within 11 months from 12.4.2010. For the tendering process alone, the authority had spent Rs. 12.17 lakh. In addition, the compensation amount paid is indicated by the respondents in tabular form thus: Further, the respondents have filed before this Court progress reports of the implementation of the work from time to time. A report was filed on 3.1.2011 and a further report by way of a statement dated 2.7.2011 was filed. The same reads as under: - The respondents had filed on 03.01.2001 a consolidated statement relating to the formation of Lalithadrinagara Layout at Mysore indicating extent of the work done for implementation of the scheme. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 20.06.2011, the respondents had submitted to the Court that the respondents will file further reports showing the upto date position of formation of layout. Accordingly, this report is being filed. The civil engineering works relating to formation of the layout has divided into two Zones, North Zone and South Zone and the details regarding different Zones are separately given. North Zone: 1. Formation of roads - - 3190 Rmtr. Completed i.e., 3.10 Kms. 2. Overhead tank - - Construction is in progress. 3. Ground level reservoir - - RCC columns have been erected. 4. Number of bore wells dug - - 1 South Zone: 1. Earth work for leveling of the ground - - 110 Kms. Completed. 2. Formation of road - - 10.76 Rmtr. 3. Construction of box drains - - 21.25 Kms. 4. Construction of short basement for park - - 3224 Mtrs.