HEGGAPPANAVARA MARKHANDAPPA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who own. certain lands in Ranebennur taluka of the Dharwar district, have challenged in these writ petitions notifications issue by the Stats Government on 4th Septembr, 1969 and 8th September, 1970 produced in the cases as Exts.'A' and F' respectively issued under the Mysore Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in so far as they pertain to acquisition of petitioners' lands. They have also prayed for the quashing of the communication from the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri Sub-Division, Haveri produced in the cases as Ext.'H', wherein it is stated that fresh proceedings will be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act for awarding compensation to the owners whose lands have been acquired under the impugned notifications.

(2.) The first contention of Shri S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that the acquisition of the 'petitioners' lands by the impugned notifications under the Act is fraud on power. It was submitted that the acquisition of about 700 acres of land belonging to different persons under the impugned notifications was solely for the purpose of providing land for M/s. Harihar Poly-fibres and not for achieving any of the purposes of the Act. It was submitted that if land is required for an ordinary company for the purpose of establishing its own, industry in a particular place, the ordinary provisions of the Land Acquisition Act could have been invoked. It was submitted that whereas under the ordinary provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, possession of the land could be taken only after the award is made and the amount is tendered, under the Act the authorities are empowered to take possession even before the compensation amount is determined and the same is tendered to the citizens whose lands are acquired.

(3.) The learned Advocate General, at the outset, took the stand that the petitioners, being guilty of laches and acquiescence, should not be permitted to assail the acquisition made under the impugned notifications. The notification under S.28(1) of the Act was published in the Gazetta of 4th September, 1969 and the notification under S,28(4) of the Act was published in the Gazette of 8th September, 1970. These writ petitions were filed by the petitioners in April, 1972. It is also clear from the pleadings that even before the final notification was issued under S.28(4) of the Act, the petitioners did deliver possession of the lands some time in June, 1969. It is not possible to draw any inference that the delivery of possession of the lands by the petitioners and others in June, 1969 was a result of either undue influence or coercion or force. This is, therefore, a case where the petitioners, after the law was set into motion, voluntarily delivered possession of the respective lands. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the Administrative Officer of the Mysore Industrial Areas Devlpt. Board, Bangalore that after the lands were vested in the Board and were made over to M/s. Harihar Polyfibres, erection of the industrial unit commenced to the knowledge of the petitioners, involving huge expenditure. As already mentioned, the writ petitions were filed some time in April, 1972, whereas the notification was issued under S.28(4) of the Act in September, 1970. These circumstances, in my opinion, justify the contention of the learned- Advocate General that the petitioners are guilty of laches and acquiescence.