MOHAMAD SHAFIQ BAGADADI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The purchasers of lands after Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have preferred these writ petitions seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed and also as no award is passed within the stipulated period under Section 11-A of the Act, acquisition has lapsed and for other consequential reliefs. Petitioners claims to be the owners of properties mentioned herein below by virtue of registered sale deeds obtained by them from their respective owners of the said properties in question. The particulars as under:

(2.) All these lands are carved out of Sy. Nos. 315 and 318 of Mahalbagayath Village, Bijapur Hobli, Bijapur. The mutation entry has been effected in their names on the basis of the sale deeds. They claim that they are in possession of these lands. Originally, the said lands were sought to be acquired by the respondents-authorities for the purposes of providing house sites to the public of the area. Petitioners contend that the very object for which the acquisition is sought to be made was itself was not as per the scheme of the Act. There was no legal sanction for the said scheme and therefore, the very acquisition proceedings are not maintainable in law and are liable to be quashed. The preliminary notification was issued on 3-5-2006. The final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act has been issued on 6-2-2006. As the authorities have given up several survey numbers covered under the said scheme, it shows even the petitioners' lands are not essential and not necessary for the authorities. Award has not yet been passed till the date of filing of the writ petitions. Two years is the period prescribed for passing of such an award under Section 11-A of the Act. As no award has been passed within the stipulated period, the acquisition has lapsed. The representation was made to the authorities for dropping the acquisition proceedings. The second respondent-authority on consideration of various aspects passed a resolution on 23-1-2010 resolving to send a proposal to the Government to withdraw the acquisition of the said lands for the reasons described in the resolution. Ignoring all these aspects, the Assistant Commissioner is attempting to take possession of the lands on the direction issued by the second respondent. The said direction is contrary to law. In view of the fact that the acquisition has lapsed, authorities have no right to take possession of the land and therefore, the writ petitions are filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted when no award is passed within two years as stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act, the acquisition proceedings has become void. It is thereafter, petitioners have purchased the properties from the owners. The second respondent beneficiary has passed a resolution requesting the Government to drop acquisition proceedings therefore, the purpose for which the acquisition was initiated does not exist today. In fact, the lands which are similarly situated and notified for acquisition under the very same notification has already been denotified. Under those circumstances, not only the purchaser can maintain the writ petition seeking for the declaration that the acquisition proceedings has lapsed, they are also entitled to the benefit of the lapsed acquisition.