SHIVASHANKAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. These writ petitions are disposed of by this common order, having regard to the issue involved being common.

(2.) OF the several grounds urged, one of the grounds is to the effect that, there is no scheme framed prior to the acquisition of the land and therefore, the entire acquisition is vitiated and would also contend that this Bench has already taken a view in W.P. 21156/2012 c/w W.P. 6927 -28/2012 disposed of on 09.01.2014 that, in circumstances where the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the KHB, as a local authority, can only acquire land pursuant to a Scheme duly approved by the State Government, as contemplated under Section 3(f)(vi) of the LA Act. Since there is no scheme as such framed, the present petitions would have to be allowed, without having to address the other grounds that are raised in the writ petitions.

(3.) BY way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the question of delay in challenge to the proceedings would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Notwithstanding that the present petition was filed in the year 2011, as on the date of the petition, possession of the land in question had not been taken by the respondents pursuant to the acquisition proceedings. Since this Court was not inclined to grant any interim prayer, it is during the pendency of these proceedings that possession has been taken and therefore, the delay in the present case on hand cannot be said to be inordinate or working to the prejudice of the respondents. The primary requirement of a scheme preceding the acquisition proceedings, would vitiate the same and would therefore reiterate his prayer. Given the above circumstances, it has to be kept in view by this Court that notwithstanding the strength of the challenge, if the delay in bringing the petition is in circumstances where there has been substantial development and involvement of third party interests, or if the petition being allowed, would interfere with the effective implementation of the scheme, in its entirety, in that, the roads and other common areas to be formed of the Layout would be upset in the event of the petition being allowed. The court would proceed with circumspection in either assuming that there is delay which defeats the petition or in considering the prayer of the petitioners.