Naveen Kumar S/O Parasmal vs State Of Karnatakaand Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3334 Kant

                              1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

                          BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI


     WRIT PETITION No.201742/2015 (LA-KIADB)

Between:

Naveen Kumar
S/o Parasmal
Aged about 52 Years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Chikka Sugur
Taluk & Dist. Raichur-584 101
                                                ... Petitioner
(By Sri Ganesh Kalaburagi for
     Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)

And:

1.     State of Karnataka
       Rep. by Addl. Chief Secretary
       Department of Industries & Commerce
       Vidhana Soudha
       Bangalore-560 001

2.     The Special Land Acquisition Officer
       Karnataka Industrial Areas
       Development Board
       Dharwad-580 001
                                              ... Respondents
(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP for R1;
     Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, Adv. For R2)
                              2




       This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue an
appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and also grant
other appropriate writ declaring that the acquisition
proceedings in respect of land bearing Sy.No.162/1,
measuring 7 acres 7 guntas of Chikkasugur village, Taluk
Raichur belonging to the petitioner by virtue of the
notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Act, 1966 dated 27.12.1991 in No.C1-
1-146-SPQ-1991 emanating the award dated 17.04.2007
in file No.KIADB/LAQ/1075/07-08 passed by the
respondent No.2, the copy of which is at Annexure-A and
etc.

      This petition coming on for Hearing, this day, the
Court made the following:-

                          ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking

for declaration that the acquisition proceedings in

respect of land Sy.No.162/1, measuring 7 acres 7

guntas of Chikkasugur village, Tq. Raichur by virtue of

notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter

called as the 'Act of 1966') dated 27.12.1991 and the

award dated 17.04.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent

stands lapsed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the

respondent has issued a notification dated 27.12.1991

under Section 28(1) of the Act, 1966 published in the

Karnataka Official Gazette on 09.04.1992 for

acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.162/1 and several

other lands for the purpose of establishing the

industrial area. An Final notification was issued under

Section 28(4) of the Act, 1966 on 24.09.1966 was

published in the Karnataka Gazette on 14.11.1996.

The 2nd respondent has passed the award dated

17.04.2007 determining the market value of the lands

acquired. By notice under Section 12(2) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioner was asked to

receive the compensation amount. After the

acquisition proceedings, the name of 2nd respondent is

appearing in the RTC on the basis of notification

issued under Section 28(4) of the Act, 1966. It is

contended that the compensation amount was not

paid to the petitioner and award was passed after

lapse of around 11 years from the date of final

declaration, the physical and actual possession of the

land of the petitioner was not taken over. Hence, it is

contended that as per Section 24(2) of the Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

(for short, the New Act, 2013) when a physical and

actual possession of the land is not taken over by the

acquiring body/ State and/or when the compensation

amount is not paid to the owner of the land loser, the

entire acquisition proceedings stands lapsed. Hence,

the petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground

that the entire acquisition proceedings stands lapsed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and also the

learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that as per Section 24(2) of the New Act

2013, the respondents have not passed the award

within five years from the date of final declaration.

Hence, the acquisition proceedings stands lapsed. On

these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader and counsel for respondent No.2 submit that

the petitioner has accepted the award passed by the

2nd respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer and

filed the protest application and the reference

application was forwarded to the reference Court and

the same was registered as LAC No.122/2008. Once

the petitioner having accepted the award passed by

the 2nd respondent - SLAO and participated in the land

acquisition proceedings before the reference Court,

the petitioner has no right to challenge the award.

Hence, they submit that the writ petition filed by the

petitioner be dismissed.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the

parties.

7. The land of the petitioner was acquired by

the 2nd respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer

under the provisions of the Act, 1966. The 2nd

respondent thereafter passed the award. The

petitioner being dissatisfied with the market value

fixed by 2nd respondent, filed the protest application

and the protest application was registered as LAC

No.122/2008, in which proceedings the petitioner

participated before the reference Court. The reference

Court disposed of the reference application vide

judgment dated 20.01.2015. The petitioner has

accepted the award passed by the 2nd respondent -

SLAO as well as by the reference Court. The petitioner

suppressing the said facts filed instant writ petition on

09.03.2015 i.e., after disposal of reference

application. The petitioner has no right to challenge

the award passed by 2nd respondent - SLAO.

8. Insofar as Section 24(2) of the New Act,

2013, the said issue was considered by the Division

Bench of this Court in Sri K. Srinivas Murthy and

another vs. State of Karnataka, Department of

Commerce and Industries and Others, reported in

ILR 2020 KAR 4195, wherein the Hon'ble Division

Bench of this Court held that if the acquisition

proceedings are initiated under the Act of 1966, the

provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 is not applicable.

9. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I

do not find any grounds to interfere with the

impugned award. Accordingly, the writ petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE BL