LAWS(KAR)-2005-8-30

V GUNDA REDDY Vs. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Decided On August 01, 2005
V.GUNDA REDDY Appellant
V/S
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 33566/2004 is the owner of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 43/2 measuring 0-24 guntas, 44/1b measuring 1-00 acre and 46/2 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas. The petitioner in w P. No. 33567/2004 is the owner of Sy. Nos. 7/3 measuring 2 acres 01 guntas and 30/2 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas. All the lands are situated at Koodlu village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal taluk, Bangalore Urban District. They have filed these petitions seeking to quash the notification at Annexure-H dated 22-8-2003 issued under Section 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for having allegedly taken over possession of the said lands pursuant to the acquisition made for the benefit of Aircraft Employees Housing co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Society), which is the fourth respondent in these petitions.

(2.) THE necessary brief facts leading to these writ petitions are stated as follows: the preliminary Notification was issued on 5-9-1988 under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition act of 1961 (hereinafter in short called as 'act') proposing for acquisition of certain lands for public purpose in favour of Aircraft Employees Housing Co-operative Society for formation of residential layout and distribution of sites to its members. The Final Notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act was issued on 28-9-1989. The acquisition proceedings had been challenged by the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 279080-09/1993 before this Court on various grounds. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the fourth respondent Housing Society entered into an agreement with them on 16-5-1998 agreeing to acquire only 2 acres 35 guntas out of 3 acres 35 guntas in Sy. Nos. 7/3 and 30/2. It was also agreed by it to pay compensation of Rs. 23 lakhs for the said 2-35 acres of the owner. It was further agreed to give-up the remaining 1-00 acre of land to the owner. A specific recital is made in the said agreement that lands in Sy. Nos. 43/lp, 44/1p and 46/2 totally measuring 3 acres 05 guntas are not included in the acquisition notifications. The society also agreed that the owner can utilize the roads, water supply and sewarage facilities formed by the society in the layout that would be formed in survey numbers of lands acquired by it, But, for the reasons best known to the society the said agreement was not brought to the notice of this Court when the said petitions were dismissed on 4-9-1999 on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the Society that possession of the lands were taken by the State Government and handed over to the society and it has formed the layout and allotted the sites in favour of its members, which statements are all false and were made with and ulterior motive, which was a fraud played upon this Court so as to dismiss the writ petitions and therefore the learned Counsel for the petitioners placing reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court submits that the order passed in those petitions are null and void abinition in law. Therefore it is stated by the petitioners that the society has no manner of right whatsoever over these lands to take possession of the same under Section 16 (1) and publish the notification under Section 16 (2) of the Act, after a long lapse of 14 years.

(3.) IT is stated by the petitioners that even though the aforementioned lands had been notified by the Special Deputy Commissioner for acquisition in the preliminary notification, in the final notification the same have not been notified. No Award is passed in respect of the said lands as required under Section 11 of the Act, after following the procedure contemplated under Sections 10, 11 and notice of award as required under Section 12 (2) is not served upon the petitioners. Despite that, the impugned notification is issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who is not authorized in law to do so. Being aggrieved by the same, these two writ petitions are filed seeking to quash the said impugned notification in both the writ petitions.