CHIKKABORAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 6 acres 17 guntas in Sy. No. 109/1a of Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The said land was proposed for acquisition along with other lands for the formation of Bogadi extension by issuing a notification dated 25-6-1987 under Section 17 (1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as 'act' ). This was followed by a final notification dated 25-6-1988 issued under Section 19 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, an award was passed on 11-1-1989, but possession was not taken immediately after passing of the award. The petitioner has no grievance so far as the acquisition is concerned in view of his own letter written by him to the 2nd respondent-Development Authority. The petitioner is aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings only because there is an unreasonable delay in taking possession for the purpose of implementing the scheme. In the case on hand, the award was passed on 11-1-1989 and the award notice was also issued on 13-9-1991. After the passing of the award and after issuance of notice of award, the possession of the land of the petitioner was taken only on 23-3-2002 i. e. , almost after a lapse of more than 13 years from the date of passing of the award. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though an award was passed, compensation was not paid to the petitioner. On these facts, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed consequent on not implementing the scheme within five years from the date of the final notification.

(2.) SECTION 27 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act reads as follows:

(3.) SRI H. C. Shivaramu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the decision in the case of Kanthamma and Another v State of Karnataka and Another1 and the decision of the Division Bench in the case of M. B. Ramachandran v State of Karnataka and Others, and submitted that if the Authority has taken steps to execute the scheme, within five years from the date of the final notification, that itself is sufficient to hold that there is substantial execution of the scheme and therefore, there fs no lapse of acquisition proceedings. In the above said two decisions, it is held that for the scheme to lapse, there must be proof regarding the failure on the part of the Authority to execute the scheme substantially within five years from the date of the publication of notification under Section 19 (1) of the Act in the Official Gazette. The Division Bench has also held that the B. D. A. could execute the scheme only after the possession has been obtained and the possession could be obtained only after the award is passed. In the instant case, the award was passed on 11-1-1989 and there is no order preventing the 2nd respondent or the State Government from taking possession of the land from the landowner. The very object of introducing Section 27 of the Act is to execute the scheme immediately after the publication of final notification. In the instant case, though the award is of the year 1989, possession has not been taken for over a period of more than 13 years. From this, it is seen that there is negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the officers of the State Government and the Authority. Further, when they have not taken any steps to take possession within five years from the date of the final notification, it can be reasonably presumed that the Authority does not require the land in question for the purpose of execution of the scheme. Therefore, in my opinion, the above said decisions are of no assistance to the respondents as there is an unreasonable delay on the part of the respondents in taking possession of the land from the landowners.