B SHARADAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition, Petitioner is challenging the notifications published under Sections 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition act dated 20. 3. 1986 and 04. 05. 1987 vide Annexures 'a' and 'b' respectively on the ground that the entire acquisition proceedings stood lapsed as no award under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was passed within a period of two years.

(2.) PETITIONER was the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 19/2 of kadirenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. This land was proposed for acquisition under Section 4 (1) of the Act in favour of the 4th respondent - M/s. Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha niyamitha, Bangalore vide Notification dated 20. 03. 1986 published in the gazette on 24. 04. 1986. This was followed by Final Notification under section 6 (1) of the Act dated 04. 05. 1987 published in the Official Gazette on 05. 05. 1987. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the petitioner in W. P. No. 8958/1987. In the said writ petition, an interim order of stay of dispossession was granted by this Court on 19. 06. 1987 produced vide Annexure 'c' to the Writ Petition. This challenge made to the acquisition proceedings by the petitioner has culminated in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha vs. Narayanamma (Smt.) (Since Deceased) By L. Rs. and Others, (2003) 1 scc 228 and the acquisition proceedings are held valid. It is also relevant to note here that during the pendency of the challenge made to the acquisition proceedings by the petitioner there was a proceeding dated 15. 7. 1989 issued under Section 48 (1) of the Act for de-notifying the land of the petitioner from acquisition and the matter ultimately went up to the Apex Court. The Apex Court remanded the matter back and the government ultimately declined to delete the land from the purview of acquisition, which was again challenged in W. P. No. 6073/2004, wherein the learned Single Judge remitted the matter back to the State Government for fresh consideration vide Order dated 15. 07. 2005. The same was challenged by the 4th respondent-Society in W. A. No. 3667/2005. The appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court with an observation that as far as the question of fraud is concerned it was open for the owners or the petitioners to agitate their grievance before the State Government which is the Authority competent to look into and decide the matter regarding existence of fraud. This order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been confirmed by the Apex Court.

(3.) IT is relevant to state here that the Land Acquisition Officer had passed an award on 29. 09. 1988, which came to be approved by the State government on 20. 02. 1989. It is also relevant to emphasize that the interim order passed by this Court staying dispossession of the petitioner from the land was granted on 19. 6. 1987, that is to say, prior to passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. In fact the petitioner had filed a claim petition, without prejudice to his contentions, regarding the illegality in the Notifications acquiring the land, seeking determination of compensation. The petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer in the proceedings which culminated in the passing of the award. The factum of passing of the award was also brought to the notice of the Court by the 4th respondent-Society by filing Statement of Objections on 19. 08. 1991 in W. P. No. 8985/1989, which is produced vide Annexure R-1 to the writ petition. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said Statement of objections, the 4th respondent-Society has stated about the passing of the award.