Gajanana Dhondiba Kamble vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6935 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 21STDAY OF DECEMBER2021

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

             W.P.No.15499/2012 (LA-RES)

Between:

1.   Gajanana Dhondiba Kamble S/o DhondibaKamble
     Age 75 years, Occ: Agriculturist
     R/o Kasanal Village, ChikkodiTaluk
     Belgaum District

2.   Abbas Maruthi Naik S/o Maruthi Naik
     Age 50 years, Occ: Agriculturist
     R/o Kasanal Village,ChikkodiTaluk,
     Belgaum District

3.   Babu Ramu Dhanagar S/o Ramu Dhanagar
     Age 35 years, Occ: Agriculturist
     R/o Kasanal Village,ChikkodiTaluk
     Belgaum District

4.   Sadashiv Shankar Dhanagar S/o Shankar Dhanagar
     Age 32 years, Occ: Agriculturist
     R/o Kasanal Village,ChikkodiTaluk
     Belgaum District

5.   Ganapu Nana Kumbar S/o Nana Kumbar
     Age 75 years, Occ: Agriculturist
     R/o Manakapur Village,ChikkodiTaluk
     Belgaum District

6.   Chaya Chandrakant Nangre W/o Chandrakant Nangre
     Age 50 years, Occ: Agriculturist
     R/o Manakapur Village, Chikkodi Taluk
                                  :2:



       Belgaum District

7.     Ravasab Annu Dhanagar S/o Annu Dhanagar
       Age 54 years, Occ: Agriculturist
       R/o Manakapur Village, Chikkodi Taluk
       Belgaum District

8.     Appasab AnnuDhanagar S/o Annu Dhanagar
       Age 50 years, Occ: Agriculturist
       R/o Manakapur Village, Chikkodi Taluk
       Belgaum District

9.     Janaba Pandu Dhanagar S/o Pandu Dhanagar
       Age 55 years, Occ: Agriculturist
       R/o Manakapur Village, Chikkodi Taluk
       Belgaum District

10.    Appasaheb Babu BanneS/o Babu Banne
       Aged about 53 years, Occ: Agriculturist
       R/o Manakapur Village, Chikkodi Taluk
       Belgaum District
                                                      ... Petitioners
(By Shri F.V. Patil, Advocate)

And:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Represented by its Principal Secretary
       Revenue Department
       Multistoried Building
       Dr.B.R.AmbedkarVeedhi
       Bangalore-560001

2.     The Special Deputy Commissioner
       Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Reconstruction
       Major Irrigation Projects, Belgaum

3.     Chief Engineer
       Karnataka Niravari Nigama Ltd.
       Irrigation North Belgaum
       Rep. by its Managing Director, Belgaum
                               :3:



4.   The Special Land Acquisition Officer
     Attached to Hidakal Dam Hukkeri Taluk
     Belgaum District

5.   Executive Engineer
     Dudhaganga Canal Division No-01
     Warna Bhavan, Tarabai Park Kolhapur
     Taluk-Kolhapur, Kolhapur District
     Maharashtra State

6.   Deputy Engineer
     Dudhaganga left bank Canal
     Sub Division No-03 Warna Bhavan
     Tarabai Park Kolhapur, Taluk-Kolhapur
     Kolhapur District, Maharashtra State

7.   State of Maharashtra.
     Rep. by its Principal Secretary
     Dept of Revenue
     Mantralaya, Mumbai
                                                  ... Respondents
(By Shri V.S. Kalasurmath, HCGP for R1, R2 & R4;
 Shri Ramesh N.Misale, Advocate for R3 & R5 to R7)

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to declare that the acquisition
proceedings initiated by respondent NO.2 to acquire the land
bearing Sy.No.120 measuring 15 acres 13 guntas, Sy.No.119
Hissa 1A, measuring 14 acres 37 guntas, Sy.No.7, Hissa 1A+B,
measuring 4 acres 14 guntas and Sy.No.7, Hissa 1B, measuring
4 acres 14 guntas of Kasanal Village and Chikkodi Taluk,
Belgaum District and the land bearing Sy.No.124/5, measuring 3
acres 01 guntas, Sy.No.123/4, measuring 3 acres 08 guntas,
Sy.No.122/11 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas, Sy.No.123/4,
measuring 3 acre 08 guntas, Sy.No.123/4 measuring 3 acres 08
guntas, Sy.No.122/2+11K+12K, measuring 0.23 guntas,
Sy.No.117/7, measuring 2 acres 01 guntas, and Sy.No.117/8,
measuring 5 acres 17 guntas of Mnakapur Village Chikkodi Taluk,
Belgaum District have been lapsed in view of non passing of the
award within tow years from the date of publication of the
declaration as per Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
                                :4:



      This petition coming on for preliminary hearing B-Group,
this day, the Court made the following:

                              ORDER

1. In this writ petition, acquisition for establishing a

canal under Dudhganga Irrigation Project is called in

question.

2. In this petition, the lands of the petitioner situate

in Manakapur village and Kasanal Village are involved.

3. Shri F.V. Patil, learned Counsel, put forth two

contentions:

(a) The declaration issued under Section 6 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the

Act') was beyond the period of one year

stipulated in the proviso to Section 6 of the Act

and

(b) The award that had been passed was also

beyond the period of two years stipulated in

Section 11-A of the Act.

4. In order to appreciate the contention of the

learned counsel Shri F.V. Patil, the following dates would be

relevant in respect of Manakapur Village:

01.12.2005 The date of publication of 4(1) notification. 23.12.2005 The date of publication of the substance of the notification in the Chavadi.

12.02.2006 The date on which the declaration was made by the Government.

08.02.2007 The date of publication of the declaration in the Gazette.

5. As could be seen from the above, the substance

of the notification was published in the Chavadi on

23.12.2005. By virtue of the use of the expression "the last

of the dates of such publication and giving of such public

notice being hereinafter referred as the date of publication

of the notification" in Section 4(1) of the Act, for the

purpose of computing limitation of one year envisaged

under the proviso to Section 6 of the Act, 23.12.2005 will

have to be construed as date of publication of the 4 (1)

notification.

6. In order to be compliance of the time limit

stipulated in the 1stproviso to Section 6, the declaration

under Section 6 would have to be made within one year

from the date of publication of the notification i.e., the

declaration was required to be made on or before

23.12.2006.

7. As could be noticed from the said proviso, the

end point of limitation is the making of declaration and not

the publication of the declaration.

8. In the instant case, the declaration was made on

12.02.2006 and was subsequently published in the Gazette

on 08.02.2007.As the date on which the declaration was

made would alone be relevant for the purpose of

determining the period of one year and as stated above the

declaration was made on 12.12.2006 i.e., within one year

from the date of publication of the 4 (1) notification

23.12.2006, it would be clear that the declaration was made

well within the period of one year from 23.12.2005. It is

therefore clear that the declaration under Section 6 has

been made within one year as provided under the proviso to

Section 6 and the argument of the learned counsel that

issuance of declaration was beyond the stipulated date,

cannot be accepted.

9. In respect of the contention regarding passing of

the award within the time stipulated under Section 11-A of

the Act, in respect of Manakapur Village, the following dates

would be relevant.

08.02.2007 The date of publication of declaration in the Gazette.

24.05.2007 The date of publication of the substance of the notification in the Chavadi.

11.05.2009 The date of the award made by the SLAO. 23.05.2009 The date on which the award was approved by the Deputy Commissioner.

10. As could be seen from the above dated, the

substance of the declaration was published in the Chavadi

on 24.05.2007 and this would have to be construed as the

date of publication of the declaration. This would mean that

the award ought to have been passed on or before

24.05.2009.

11. In the instant case, the award has been made on

23.05.2009 i.e., just one day before expiry of two years.

This would therefore establish that the award had also been

passed within the period of two years as stipulated in

Section 11-A of the Act. The argument of the learned

Counsel in this regard would also have to fail.

12. In respect of Kasanal Village, he following dates

would be relevant to appreciate the contention of the

learned counsel Shri F.V. Patil.

01.12.2005 The date of publication of 4(1) notification.

23.12.2005 The date of publication of the substance of the notification in the Chavadi.

06.12.2006 The date on which the declaration was made by the Government.

08.02.2007 The date of publication of the declaration in the Gazette.

13. As could be seen from the above, for the

purposes of one year contemplated under the proviso to

Section 6 of the Act, the starting point of limitation would

be 06.12.2006, the date on which the substance of the

notification was published in the chavadi and the ending

point of limitation would be 06.12.2006, the date on which

the declaration was made by the State Government. Since

the declaration was made within one year from 23.12.2005

i.e., on 6.12.2006, the declaration has been made within

one year in compliance of the time stipulated under the

proviso to Section 6 of the Act.

14. In respect of the contention regarding passing of

the award within two years in respect of Kasanal Village, the

following dates would be relevant.

08.02.2007 The date of publication of declaration in the Gazette.

26.06.2007 The date of publication of the substance of the notification in the Chavadi.

16.06.2007 The date of the award made by the SLAO. 24.06.2009 The date on which the award was approved by the Deputy Commissioner.

15. As could be seen from the above list of dates, on

16.06.2007 i.e., 10 days prior to the expiry of two years

from the date of publication of substance of the notification

(26.06.2007) in the Chavadi an award has been made and

thus the award has been made within the period of 2 years

as contemplated under Section 11-A of the Act.

16. In view of the judgment rendered by the Division

Bench of this Court in Karnataka Housing Board,

Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore V. State of Karnataka and

another reported in ILR 1998 KAR 940, wherein it is held

as follows:

"5. The purpose and object of publication of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act is to afford the affected person an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Even though the provisions of these sections are mandatory yet are not required to be interpreted on a hyper technical and sensitive pleas. A distinction has to be made between the words 'making' the declaration and 'publication' which are not synonymous. The starting point of limitation for the purposes of Section 6 is the date of the publication of notification under Section 4(1) and for the purpose of Section 11-A the publication of the declaration under Section 6. In other words, the starting point of the limitation for the purposes of Section 6 is the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 and the point is making of the declaration, as distinguishable from its publication. Similarly, the starting point of limitation for the purposes of Section 11 of the Act would be the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and end point would be the making of the award. There is no dispute that the date of the publication of the notifications and declaration shall be the last of the dates of the publication of the notification or the declaration in the manner prescribed under the aforesaid two sections. Making of declaration under Section 6 means the signing of the declaration by the competent authority and publication of the declarations is the follow-up action which is resorted without loss of time. Time limit provided under sub- section (1) of Section 6 shall not be applicable to the publication of notification under sub-section 2."

17. It cannot be in dispute that the date on which

the declaration was made would be the date to be reckoned

with for computing the limitation and not the date of its

publication in the gazette for the time limit prescribed under

Sections 6 and 11-A of the Act.

18. In view of the fact that the declarations under

Section 6 were made within one year as provided under the

proviso to Section 6 of the Act and the award was also

made within a period of two years as provided in Section

11-A of the Act, there is no merit in the two contentions

advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vnp*& Kgk