HANUMAKKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 52037 of 2013 and 38501-38507 of 2014 connected with Writ Petition No. 13881 of 2013 and Writ Petition Nos. 58079 of 2016, by which the petitions were dismissed, the writ petitioners are in appeal.

(2.) The petitioners filed the writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, mainly assailing the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') dated 05.09.1988 and notification dated 28.04.1989 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. The learned Single Judge heard and passed orders in respect of Writ Petition Nos. 52037 of 2013 and 38501--38507 of 2014 connected with Writ Petition No. 13881 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 58079 of 2016. But the present appeal is in respect of only writ petition Nos. 52037 of 2013 and 38501-38507 of 2014.

(3.) The petitioners insofar as the present appeal is concerned, claim that they are the owners of land bearing Survey Number 6/1 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas, Survey Number 22/1 measuring 3 acres 15 guntas, Survey Number 74 measuring 8 guntas, Survey Number 84 measuring 12 guntas, Survey Number 44/1 measuring 9 guntas, Survey Number 44/2 measuring 14 guntas Survey Number 44/3 measuring 19 guntas and Survey Number 44/4 measuring 14 guntas of Singasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The lands of the petitioners along with other lands were the subject matter of acquisition under notifications issued under the Act for the purpose of Aircrafts Employees House Building Cooperative Society Limited. The acquisitions were made under two preliminary notifications dated 15.04.1988 and 05.09.1988 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Subsequently final notifications under Section 6(1) were issued on 28.04.1989 and 28.09.1989 respectively. It is alleged in the writ petitions that the 4th respondent--Society played fraud in the process of acquisition of the land from the petitioners, in that it entered into an agreement with real estate agent for the purpose of acquisition. It was the case of the petitioners that the acquisition is not for public purpose and possession was not taken in accordance with law. The 4th respondent--Society has committed serious irregularity and it is stated that possession has not been handed over. The respondents contended that the petitioners had consented for acquisition and they have received compensation from the Society before the consent award was passed. The possession of the lands were taken in the year 1992 and notification under Section 16 of the Act was issued. The 4th respondent states that it has formed layout by obtaining sanctioned plan and has allotted the sites to its members. The learned Single Judge on hearing both the sides by order under appeal dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners had earlier challenged the acquisitions which were upheld by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence the petitioners are in appeal.