RAMACHANDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) claiming to be still in lawful possession and enjoying their lands, the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings on the basis of notification No. Laq(1) sr 25/86-87 the appellants filed writ petitions in this court praying for quashing the aforesaid notification and declaration. They also prayed that the acquisition proceedings be declared to have lapsed on the grounds detailed in the writ petition. It was submitted that as the impugned notification was issued by the special deputy commissioner who had not been specially appointed to perform the functions of deputy commissioner as contemplated under Section 3(c) of the land acquisition ACT (hereinafter called "the act"), the impugned notification passed by him being without jurisdiction was void ab initio. The special land acquisition officer was also alleged to have not been specially appointed to perform the functions of deputy commissioner under the Act, all proceedings conducted by him were illegal in their entirety and liable to be ignored. It was submitted that the acquisition was not for the public purpose but in fact for a private purpose of the 4th respondent-society. The impugned notification was stated to be vague not containing the particulars with regard to the utilisation of land in question as also the object sought to be achieved by acquiring the land in question. The substance of notification giving proper notice in the locality was alleged to have not been published within the time stipulated for filing the objections under the act. It was further contended that notice under Section 4(2) of the ACT was issued on 5-1-1988 and notice in terms of Section 6(1) of the ACT was issued on 9-1-1989. It was contended that as the declaration in terms of Section 6(1) was issued after the expiry of a period of one year, the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed. The petitioners are stated to have not been provided opportunity to object under Section 5-a of the ACT effectively. It is alleged that as the entire cost of acquisition has been deposited by 4th respondent-society for being paid as compensation, the action taken by the respondents in effect and in essence is for the benefit of a private person and the acquisitions are not for a public purpose. It is alleged that provisions of chapter vii of the ACT and company rules had not been followed as was required. No legal enquiry in terms of Section 4 or Section 5-a of the ACT is alleged to have been conducted. The acquisition proceedings are stated to be mala fide as sponsored and initiated at the instance of respondent 4 only. The government is alleged to have not applied its mind and completely ignored the report of g.v. krishna rao who allegedly had highly deplored the activities of 4th respondent and recommended to the state government for stopping the acquisition proceedings. The publication of the substance of the public notice in the official gazette is stated to be mandatory requirement of law which was not followed in the instant case. The entire proceedings are stated to be illegal without jurisdiction, contrary to law, facts and probabilities of the case.

(2.) the appellants had further submitted that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 11-a of the Act, because according to them the award was not made within two years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the act. It is submitted that the final notification dated 9-1-1989 was published in the gazette on 10-1-1989 and that after the government had approved the acquisition proceedings on 28-1-1991, no award was passed thereafter as was the mandate of law.

(3.) vide la. Iv the appellants prayed for the amendment of their writ petition by incorporating para 5-a to f. The amendment sought is to the effect that Sri G.K.Krishnappa who styled himself as the promoter of 4th respondent had no right, title and interest to execute the power of attorney dated 29-11-1985 over the lands acquired. Sri G.V.K. Rao while conducting the statutory enquiry under Section 64 of the Karnataka co-operative societies ACT is stated to have held that said Sri G.K.Krishnappa who was a intermediary had given the general power of attorney to the society though he had nothing to do with the lands. Said g.k. krishnappa is alleged to have been engaged by the 4th respondent-society as their agent for entering into agreement with the individual landlords in respect of 44 acres of land. The society with an oblique motive to allegedly defraud the landlords with the sole view of knocking out the property by misleading the executives of the state also obtained the power of attorney from said Sri Krishnappa in respect of the lands totally measuring 44 acres. On the basis of the said fraudulent power of attorney Sri H.S. Nagendra and M. Ramakrishna are stated to have participated in the land acquisition proceedings. The special land acquisition officer is alleged to have wrongly allowed them to participate in the acquisition proceedings. The state government without application of mind and without considering the bona fides of the 4th respondent is alleged to have directed the special deputy commissioner, bangalore, to initiate the acquisition proceedings to acquire the land in question. The appellants further claimed to have neither given consent for passing of the consent award nor the state government had accepted the same and executed the agreement as contemplated under Article 299 of the constitution of india. Sarvashree h.s. Nagendra and M. Ramakrishna are alleged to have taken a dual stand in the acquisition proceedings. It is further submitted that the agreement of sale entered into in the year 1984 had not been acted upon as Sarvashree h.s. nagendra and m. Ramakrishna had failed to perform their part of contract in time. The land acquisition officer is stated to have not paid any amount to the appellants towards the compensation amount.