M V KASTURI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the request of all the counsel appearing, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioners were the owners of a portion of the land bearing Sy. No. 49/1 totally measuring 15 acres, which was subsequently phoded (sic) as Sy. Nos. 49/1, 49/2 and 49/3 of Marlur Village, Kasaba Hobli, tumkur District. The petitioners were the owners of 1 acre 21 1/2 guntas of the said lands. By virtue of a Preliminary Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition act, ('act' for short) dated 6-8-1991 and the final Notification dated 15-5-1992, the lands of the petitioners were acquired. Thereafter, the State issued a notification under Section 48 of the Act on 2-8-1993, denotifying from acquisition the said lands. The third respondent herein, filed Writ Petition No. 44142/1993, questioning the order of denotification, which came to be dismissed. The Writ Appeal filed against the said order was also rejected and consequently, the third respondent approached the hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, by the order dated 11-12-2000, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2001 (1) SCC 610 : 2001 AIR - Kant HCR 2273 (State Govt. Houseless Harijan Employees Association v. State of Karnataka and others), quashed the notification issued under Section 48 (1) of the Act.

(3.) ON the other hand certain land owners, questioning the acquisition proceedings, filed writ Petitions No. 20194-20223/2002, and the learned single Judge, by the order dated 7-5-2002 dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches by reserving liberty to the petitioners therein to approach this Court for the purpose of seeking permission to make an application under Section 18 (3) of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Writ Appeals no. 3361-3380/2002, wherein the appellate court by order dated 30-8-2002, dismissed the writ Appeals. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by the order dated 1-11-2002, dismissed the special Leave Petitions, which were filed against the order passed by the learned single judge of the appellate Court. Hence the acquisitions stood confirmed.