BYRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS these two writ petitions are preferred challenging the very same award and the notification under Sections 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, they are taken up for consideration together, heard and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 12348 of 2000 is one Sri Byrappa, S/o. Late Doddakempaiah. Whereas, the petitioner in W. P. No. 36585 of 2001, Smt. Kempamma is the wife of Muniyappa and daughter of Late Doddakempaiah. In other words, the petitioners are brother and sister.

(3.) LAND bearing Sy. No. 218/1 measuring 2 acres 17 guntas was notified for acquisition by the first respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 9-5-1988. The said lands were notified in the name of Munipujamma, the original owner of the said property. Doddakempaiah along with his daughter Smt. Kempamma purchased the aforesaid lands under a registered sale deed dated 14-5-1970. As the mutation entries had not been effected in their names, a notification was issued in the name of the previous vendor. After the final notification, objections were filed on 14-2-1989 by the petitioners herein bringing to the notice of the authorities that they are the owners of the property and the notification is not issued in their names and also opposing the acquisition on several grounds. Overruling the aforesaid objections an award came to be passed on 31-3-1989 in favour of the said Munipujamma. After the passing of the award, notification under Section 16 (2) of the Act was issued on 30-8-1989 which was published in the Gazette on 7-9-1989 stating that the possession of the lands has been taken on 28-8-1989. The petitioners challenged the said award before this Court in W. P. No. 25040 of 1990. This Court declined to quash the preliminary and final notification, but quashed the award passed in favour of Munipujamma and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass fresh award in the names of the petitioners. The said order came to be passed on 1-4-1991. Aggrieved by the said order of this Court the petitioners preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which came to be dismissed on 16-2-1996 affirming the order passed by this Court. Subsequently, on 28-8-1989 the impugned award came to be passed in favour of the petitioners. After the passing of the award, the petitioners have preferred these two writ petitions challenging the award on the ground that as per Section 11-A, as the award is not passed within two years from the date of final notification, or at least from the date of the order passed by this Court, namely, 1-4-1991, the entire acquisition proceedings lapses. Therefore, not only they have sought for quashing of the preliminary notification, final notification and award, in the alternative they have sought for a declaration that the entire acquisition proceedings has lapsed.