MAHALAKSHMI KESHAVA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge who has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings started with the issue of preliminary notification dt. 16/19 May, 1984, and ending with the declaration dt. 29th April, 1987, published in the Karnataka Gazette dt. 10th Sept., 1987, have lapsed and for issue of a mandamus to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to desist from taking further steps in the acquisition proceedings.

(2.) IT is undisputed that the declaration under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter called "the Act" ), was published on 10th Sept., 1987 ; that the petitioner/appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 1553 of 1987, challenging the acquisition proceedings ; that a stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the final notification has been granted by the High Court in that writ petition and that the stay was in operation from 7th Oct., 1987, to 24th July, 1990. IT is also not disputed that, in the meanwhile, the first respondent for certain reasons, thought of dropping the acquisition proceedings. The fourth respondent, Union of India, represented by the Chief CIT for whom the land was proposed to be acquired, on coming to know about the proposal to drop the acquisition proceedings filed a writ petition in Writ Petition No. 5624 of 1992 seeking a direction to the first respondent to proceed with the acquisition proceedings and to pass an award. In that writ petition, on the application of the fourth respondent, the High Court has issued an order on 4th March, 1992, staying the further proceedings in pursuance of the declaration of the notification under s. 6(1) of the Act. IT is under these circumstances that the Land Acquisition Officer has not been able to pass the award within two years from 24th July, 1990, on which date the stay obtained by the appellant in his writ petition came to an end.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the above contention raised by learned counsel, it would be better to refer to s. 11A of the Act, which reads as hereunder :