MAQSOOD ALI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have sought for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority under the preliminary notification dtd. 28/11/1977 in respect of Sy.No.126/A of Badepur, Kalaburagi taluk and district measuring 12 acres 11 guntas has lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth referred to as the 'Act, 2013' for short). The petitioner have also sought for a direction to re-determine the compensation as per the Act, 2013.

(2.) The petitioners contend that they were the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.126/A measuring 24 acres 23 guntas situated at Badepur, Kalaburagi taluk and district, which was proposed for acquisition in terms of a preliminary notification under Sec. 15 of the City Improvement Trust Board Act and published in the official gazette on 2/12/1976. Later, the respondent No.4 issued a notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1984' for short) on 28/11/1977 for the purpose of a housing and development scheme, followed by a notification under Sec. 6 of the Act, 1894. The State Government by an order dtd. 18/4/1980 appointed respondent No.3 to perform the duties of a collector under the Act, 1894 which was published in official gazette on 21/4/1980, and an award was passed on 27/11/1992. The Urban Development Authority in terms of its letter dated 29/21-051997 requested the Government to approve the enhanced market value of Rs.75,000.00 per acre, in view of the Urban Development Authority fixing the value of the adjacent land at Rs.75,000.00 per acre. The possession of the property was taken over on 1/12/1992 which was evidenced by a notification under Sec. 16(2) of the Act, 1894. The petitioner contends that the notice under Sec. 12(2) of the Act, 1894 was served on 30/12/1992. The petitioners had filed a Reference Application under Sec. 18(2) of the Act, 1894 on 15/2/1993 seeking enhancement of compensation which was referred to the Reference Court and numbered as LAC Nos.1503/1996, 1044/97 and 1045/1997. The State Government later de-notified 12 acres 12 guntas of land out of 24 acres 23 guntas land in Sy.No.126/A in terms of a notification dtd. 5/6/1999. The petitioners contend that the Urban Development Authority therefore, acquired only 12 acres 11 guntas in Sy.No.126/A. The petitioners claimed that they filed an affidavit dtd. 3/7/1999 before the Urban Development Authority undertaking to withdraw all the cases filed by them against the authority releasing 12 acres 12 guntas of land. Accordingly the reference applications were withdrawn. The petitioners contend that by representations dtd. 22/2/2001 and 27/6/2001, they requested the authority to pay the compensation. Later by a letter dtd. 9/6/2003 they submitted several documents to claim the compensation. The petitioners contend that they were not paid the compensation till they filed the present writ petition. Therefore, they contend that the acquisition has lapsed in view of Sec. 24(2) of Act, 2013. They contend that the authority in its resolution dtd. 28/10/2017 had admitted that the compensation was not paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for the aforementioned reliefs.

(3.) The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who contend that the petitioners have suppressed the material facts namely that on 21/12/1996 the petitioners had requested the Urban Development Authority to de-notify 50% of the land, out of the total extent and consented for acquisition of balance land. The petitioners also agreed to accept the compensation of the acquired land at the rate fixed by the authority and that they would withdraw all the pending reference cases filed under Sec. 18(2) of the Act, 1894. The undertaking so given is marked as Annexure-R1. It is contended that the proposal was accepted by the Authority. After obtaining necessary approval from the State Government, a notification dtd. 8/10/1998 was issued which is enclosed as Annexure - R2. Accordingly, the authority de-notified 12 acres 12 guntas of the land located on the southern side of Sy.No.126/A by a notification dtd. 5/6/1999 and acquired 12 acres 11 guntas of land. Pursuant to the said settlement, the petitioners executed an affidavit dtd. 3/7/1999 undertaking to withdraw all the cases filed against the authority and agreed to forego all claims in respect of acquired land regarding compensation or damages caused due to acquisition. They contended that the entitlement of the petitioners was as per the award dtd. 27/11/1992. The respondents contend that the petitioners are now taking advantage of the award claiming that the same is not in accordance with law. It is also contended that as agreed by the petitioners, they withdrew the reference cases filed under Sec. 18(2) of the Act, 1894. The petitioners also addressed a letter dtd. 8/1/2001 seeking distribution of the amount awarded as per the share mentioned therein. Therefore, it is contended that these facts have been suppressed and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the award is passed much prior to Act, 2013 coming into force and award notice was also served to the petitioners and therefore, the acquisition cannot lapse under Sec. 24(2) of the Act, 2013. They contend that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & ors. - 2020 (8) SCC 129, the word 'or' found in Sec. 24(2) of the Act, 2013 has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. It is therefore, contended that the acquisition does not lapse as the award was passed and possession was already taken over by the authority. Extensive reference are made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority referred supra. The respondents therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.