AKKALAPPA, Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are seeking the relief of declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land measuring 4 acres 30 guntas at Sy.No.51 of Vajarahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk have lapsed.

(2.) Sri A.Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the preliminary notification and the final notifications were issued on 23.08.1988 and 25.09.1989 respectively and that the award was passed on 23.06.1990. But no amounts whatsoever are released to the petitioners. He submits that the Assistant Commissioner, vide his letter, dated 15.11.1990 (Annexure-R4) addressed to the Revenue Secretary has quantified the total amounts payable towards the compensation as Rs.1,85,47,231/-. He submits that the said letter itself shows that out of Rs.1,85,47,231/-, the payment made by the beneficiary is only Rs.1,44,35,622.50. He submits that the said letter states that the direct payments are made to the GPA holder to the tune of Rs.60,99,250/-. He submits that the petitioners have not executed any general power of attorney in favour of anybody in respect of the lands in question. He further submits that neither the petitioners nor their father had authorized anybody to receive the compensation on their behalf.

(3.) He submits that the possession of the lands in question is with the petitioners only. He relies on the photographs in Annexure 'G' series for showing the status of the lands in question. He relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER vs. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2014 SC 982 for advancing the submission that if the compensation amounts are not paid, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be declared as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He also relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of SEETHARAM AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS passed in W.A.Nos.818-849/2014 C/w. W.A.No. 958/2014 disposed of on 13.04.2017. He submits that the Division Bench has returned a categorical finding that a middleman, one M.Krishnappa conducted himself as if he is the owner of the land and entered into a purported agreement with the third respondent Society. He submits that the fraud has been played by the middleman. Para 15 of the said judgment read out by the learned counsel is extracted hereinbelow: