KRISHNAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, claiming to be owners of three pieces of land measuring 9 guntas each are before this Court seeking a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the ' LA Act ' for short) have stood lapsed, insofar as the petition schedule properties are concerned and for other relief.

(2.) Preliminary notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, was issued on 4/1/1985 and final notification under Sec. 6(1) of the Act, was issued on 25/9/1986. It is the contention of the petitioners that a suit for partition was filed amongst the family members in O.S.No.417/1985 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and in terms of the compromise decree drawn by the Civil Court, on 17/4/1985, Sri Muniyellappa, Sri Chikkamuniyellappa and Sri Junjappa were allotted 9 guntas of land each in Sy.No.62/2 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore. The petitioners claim through the said three persons. It is admitted by the petitioners herein that they had earlier filed W.P.Nos.9673-9675/2011 and 23467/2011 seeking to quash the acquisition notifications and the award dtd. 28/1/1989 and 31/1/1989. They had also challenged the notifications dated 12/15/4/1991 and 04/6/11/1992 issued under Sec. 16(2) of the L.A. Act. However, it is the contention of the petitioners that after the new Act viz., The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2013' for short) was enacted and provision was made in Sec. 24(2) of the Act, 2013, deeming certain acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, as lapsed, the petitioners are before this Court seeking such declaration in terms of the prayer made in the writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the provisions contained in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 24 of Act, 2013, are fully attracted in the present case. It is contended that although the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1985 and notification under Sec. 16(2) of the L.A Act was issued on 18/4/1991 and 17/12/1992, nevertheless, actual physical possession of the lands belonging to the petitioners were never taken. The petitioners continue to be in physical possession of 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/2. It is contended that no material is available on record to show that physical possession was actually taken in terms of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129. It is contended that no panchanama was drawn to show that physical possession of the lands in question were taken.