J.N. SUKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND M/S. NTI EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order. The petitioner in WP 12333/2011 claims as the owner in possession of land bearing Survey No. 70/4, measuring 21 guntas, of Kodigehalli, Yelehanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It is claimed that the petitioner has inherited the same. Reliance is placed on copies of the Pahanies indicating the name of the petitioner's fattier and the Khatha standing in the name of his grandfather, for the years 1976 onwards, at least till the year 1997. It is the petitioner's case that the said land has been notified for acquisition under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (Hereinafter called the "LA Act", for brevity.) as on 4 -1 -1985. It was proposed to be acquired for the benefit of the NTI Employees Housing Co -operative Society Limited (Hereinafter called the "NTI Society", for brevity) the fourth respondent herein. This was followed by a Final Declaration under Section 6(1) of the LA Act, as on 25 -9 -1986. It is the grievance of the petitioner that there was no notice of the Award nor has any compensation been paid. However, a notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act, dated 18 -4 -1991 had been issued, declaring that possession of the land had been taken and that the same was also handed over to the NTI Society. It is however, asserted that the petitioner had always continued in possession and that even as on the date of the petition the petitioner was cultivating the land. It is claimed that it is only when the office bearers of the NTI Society sought to take possession of the petitioner's land, in November 2010, that he became aware of the acquisition proceedings. And it is in the above background that the petitioner has approached this court.

(2.) THE main grounds on which the acquisition proceedings are sought to be questioned are the following:

(3.) WHILE on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Government Pleader would contend that the present writ petitions are clearly barred by delay and laches. It is pointed out that the preliminary notification is dated 4.1.1985. The final notification is dated 25.09.1986 and the award is dated 31.01.1989. Notifications under Section 16(2) of the LA Act are of the year 1991 and November 1992 and therefore, the present writ petitions filed in the year 2010 and later, are hopelessly barred by delay and laches, as there is a delay of more than 25 years. It cannot be said that the petitioners were unaware of the acquisition at all. Earlier, writ petitions were filed by some of the petitioners in W.P.No. 7710/2007, which was dismissed on 5.07.2011. In the enquiry held under Section 5 -A, 55 landowners had filed objections It is on account of which the extent of land was reduced to 184 acres and 1 guntas from 210 acres and 37 guntas in the final notification. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners had no notice of the acquisition proceedings. In respect of several others, as for instance, Petitioners 1 to 5, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18 to 22, 28, 29, 32 and 35 in W.P.No. 1998 to 2032/2010, are land owners in respect of a total extent of 32 acres of land and these lands were acquired on the basis of the consent of the said petitioners and the notified kathedars have been paid compensation. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioners having had no notice of the acquisition is misleading and cannot be an explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the petitions. In terms of the notification issued under Section 16(2), the State Government has taken possession of the lands on 27.03.1991 and 3.11.1992. The possession of the lands has been handed over to the NTI Society on 5.11.1992 and as on the date of the petitions, the Society had -developed the layout. This has been endorsed and acknowledged in several proceedings before this Court, as for instance in a public interest petition before a Division Bench in W.P.No. 24386/1999 disposed of by judgment dated 29.09.2000, and further in W.P.No. 37086/1995 disposed of on 16.07.1996 as well as in W.A.No. 2499/2000 disposed of on 22.08.2000 where there is reference to this circumstance.