MUNISWAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) It is pertinent to mention that the first of these writ petitions in WP 30622/1999 was disposed of by an order dated 28.10.2006, whereby the learned single judge had allowed the petition, holding that the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act', for brevity) in respect of the petitioner's lands were vitiated. The same had been challenged in an appeal in WA 159/2007 by the respondent, Karnataka Housing Board (KHB). It was contended that in allowing the petition on the ground that the issuance of the final declaration and the passing of the award was beyond the period prescribed, respectively, the learned single judge had not taken into consideration the last of the publication of the notifications, under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the LA Act, in daily newspapers but had proceeded only with reference to the date of the notification published in the Gazette. The appeal was allowed on that ground. It was then opined by the Division Bench that the learned single judge had not considered the matter on merits and expressed that since the Bench had had occasion to consider another appeal, WA 1244-45/2009, on the question whether there was compliance by the Housing Board with regard to the provisions of Sections 18 to 24 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KHB Act', for brevity) and whether the Board had complied with the said provisions before initiating the acquisition proceedings and had remanded the matter for a fresh consideration by the learned single judge, the present matter was similarly remanded by a judgment dated 26.4.2013.

(3.) The petitions in WP 28218/1998, WP 18650-18654, WP 47616/2004, 50971/2004, WP 46250/2004, WP 45613- 45614/2004 and WP 47604/2004 were all petitions that had been referred to the Division Bench by a learned single judge, on the footing that there were two conflicting judgments, of learned single judges of this court, on the requirement or otherwise of a housing scheme under the KHB Act, duly sanctioned by the government, before initiating the acquisition proceedings. The same had been referred to the division bench in view of the fact that the decision rendered by one of the single judges, to the effect that there was no necessity for the Housing Board to obtain prior sanction of a housing scheme under Section 24 of the KHB Act before initiating the acquisition proceedings under the LA Act, was pending in appeal in WA 1244 45/2009 before the said Division Bench. That appeal was disposed of by a judgment dated 26.4.2013. The division bench had considered the tenor and scope of Sections 17 to 24 of the KHB Act and held as follows, while remanding the matters for fresh consideration :-