HANUMAKKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lured by the ruling of the Supreme Court in H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore v Syed Khader and Others, the appellants herein had filed Writ Petition Nos. 42784 to 42796 of 1995 on 6-12-1995 praying for quashing of Annexures-A and B by which the land measuring 153 acres was acquired vide notifications issued in the year 1985, in respect of which an award was passed on 29-2-1986. Out of total 83 land owners, 13 appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground of proceedings being violative of the judgment of the Supreme Court in H.M.T.'s case, supra. Appellants are owners to the extent of 37 acres out of the total land acquired.

(2.) The writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed by the learned Single Judge mainly on account of delay, laches and acquiescence attributable to them. It was found on facts that the notification proposing to acquire the lands for public purpose was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 30th January, 1985 which was published in the Official Gazette on 1st February, 1985. A final notification was issued on 21st August, 1985 and a notice in terms of Section 6(1) of the Act came to be issued and published in the Official Gazette on 5th September, 1985. The award passed on 29th February, 1986 was approved by the Government on 27th September, 1986. Possession of the land was taken after the land owners including appellants received the awarded amounts in the year 1986-87. The respondent-Society thereafter formed a layout and allotted sites in favour of its members. A large number of members are stated to have raised constructions on the sites allotted to them and were found to be actually residing there. Counsel for the respondent-Society produced some photographs before the learned Single Judge which showed the structure of huge buildings on the sites allotted to its members. The learned Single Judge relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in S. Vasudeva v State of Karnataka, dismissed the writ petitions.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in H.M.T.'s case, supra, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petitions only on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence attributable to the appellants. Learned Counsel submits that in case the writ petitions filed by the appellants are decided against them, faith of the appellants and general public in the institution of judiciary would be shaken. Appellants have also gone to the extent of stating that dismissal of their writ petitions would change the basic structure of the Constitution of India.