Karnataka High Court

M Suresh Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 September, 2022

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

-1-

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w
WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017,
WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
®
WRIT PETITION NO. 11551 OF 2019 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 25329 OF 2017 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 25759 OF 2017 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 11550 OF 2019 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 11553 OF 2019 (LA-RES)

IN W.P.NO.11551/2019
BETWEEN:

1. M. SURESH KUMAR
S/O A.R. MUTHUKUMAR
AGE: MAJOR

2. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O MUTHU KUMAR
AGE: MAJOR

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.231/1
2ND CROSS, 29TH MAIN
BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560068
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MITHUN.G.A, ADVOCATE)

AND:
Digitally signed
by POORNIMA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SHIVANNA
Location: HIGH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
COURT OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT
KARNATAKA
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE
-2-

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w
WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017,
WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
VISHVESWARAIAH CENTRE
3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001

3. THE SECRETARY
THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE
FOR FRUITS & VEGETABLES
AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD
BINNYPET, BANGALORE-560023

... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA.K.R, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
DR. NANDA KIRSHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE PRELIMINARY
NOTIFICATION AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 20.05.2002 AND
02.08.2003 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURES-A & B DEEMED TO
HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SECTION 11A OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 FOR BEING NOT MADE AN AWARD WITHIN
STIPULATED PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER OF
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY
CONSTITUTION BENCH IN 2010(2) SCC 533 AT PARA 11 AND
FURTHER TO HOLD THAT THE ACQUISITION DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN
LAPSED EVEN OTHERWISE UNDER THE NEW ACT, UNDER SECTION
24(1)(A) READ WITH SEC. 25 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 AS NO AWARD
UNDER THE NEW ACT HAS BEEN PASSED WITHIN 12 MONTHS BY
INITIATING FRESH ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE NEW
ACT UPON COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW ACT AND ETC.

*****
-3-

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w
WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017,
WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

IN W.P.NO.25329/2017
BETWEEN:

1. SRI. N. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE K.R. NARAYANA REDDY
AGED:MAJOR
R/AT NO.147, OLD MADIWALA
BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU

2. SRI. N. CHANDRA REDDY
S/O LATE K.R. NARAYANA REDDY
MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/AT NO.147, OLD MADIWALA
BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU'

3. SRI. N. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE K.R. NARAYANA REDDY
MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/AT NO.147, OLD MADIWALA
BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU

4. SMT. MADHAVI SIMPI REDDY
W/O SHYAMASUNDER REDDY
MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/AT NO.147, OLD MADIWALA
BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VIKRAM BALAJI AND SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU.
-4-

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w
WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017,
WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU.

3. THE DIRECTOR
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE
MARKETING COMMITTEE
INFANTRY ROAD
BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE
BENGALURU.

4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
BENGALURU.

5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
PODIUM BLOCK, VISHVESWARAIAH KENDRA
3RD FLOOR, BENGALURU-560 001

6. THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS
AND VEGETABLES
AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD
BINNYPET, BENGALURU-560 023
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.NITHYANANDA.K.R, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
DR. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS PER THE PRELIMINARY
NOTIFICATION AND FINAL NOTIFICATIONS DATED 20.5.2002 &
2.8.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & B ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN
LAPSED UNDER SECTION 11-A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT OF
1894 FOR NOT MAKING AN AWARD WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO
-5-

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w
WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017,
WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

YEARS FORM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE CONSTITUTION BENCH
REPORTED IN [2002] 3 SCC 533, PARA 11 AND FURTHER DECLARE
THAT THE ACQUISITION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER
SECTION 24 & 25 OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND
TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND
RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 24 AND 25 OF THE
ACT, CENTRAL ACT 30 OF 2013 AND ETC.

*****
IN W.P.NO.25759/2017
BETWEEN:

VENKATASWAMAIAH
@ K. VENKATASWAMAPPA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT NO.68, 11TH MAIN
BTM 1ST STAGE, DRC POST
BENGALURU-560029
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SHILPA RANI AND ANUSHA.L, ADVOCATES OF BALAJI ASSTS.)

AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE, M.S.BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560001
-6-

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w
WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017,
WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

3. THE DIRECTOR
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE
INFANTRY ROAD, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE
BENGALURU-560001

4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
BENGALURU

5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
PHODIUM BLOCK
VESHVESWARAIAH KENDRA, 3RD FLOOR
BENGALURU-560001

6. THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET
COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS & VEGETABLES
AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD
BINNYPET, BENGALURU-560023
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.NITHYANANDA.K.R, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
DR. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED PER THE FINAL 1/02.03
AND NO.KAM DT. 20.05.2002 AND 02.08.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE A
AND B ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER S. 11A OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT OF 1894 FOR NOT MAKING AWARD WITHIN
PERIOD 2 YEARS THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE CONSTITUTION BENCH
REPORTED IN 2003 (2) SCC 533, PARA 11, AND FURTHER DECLARE
THAT THE ACQUISITION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED U/S 24
& 25 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY
IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT OF
2013 AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.24 AND 258 OF THE ACT, CENTRAL ACT 30
OF 2013 AND ETC.

*****
-7-

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w
WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017,
WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

IN W.P.NO.11550/2019
BETWEEN

M. SURESH KUMAR
S/O A.R. MUTHU KUMAR
AGED:MAJOR
R/A NO.331/1, 2ND CROSS
29TH MAIN ROAD
NEAR GAYATHRI APARTMENT
BTM I PHASE, BANGALORE-560068
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MITHUN.G.A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE

2. THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
VISHVESWARAIAH CENTRE
3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001

3. THE SECRETARY
THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKETING COMMITTEE FOR
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD
BINNYPET, BANGALORE-560023
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.NITHYANANDA.K.R, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
DR. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-8-

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w
WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017,
WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE PRELIMINARY
NOTIFICATION NO.LAQ/SR/1/2002-2003 DATED 20.05.2002 ISSUED
BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FINAL
NOTIFICATION IN BEARING SL.NO.3/BHU/SWA/BE/2003 DATED
02.08.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-B RESPECTIVELY, IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER
SECTION 11A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 FOR BEING
NOT MADE AN AWARD WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF 2 YEARS
FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AS
PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY CONSTITUTION BENCH IN 2010(2)
SCC 533 AT PARA 11 AND FURTHER TO HOLD THAT THE
ACQUISITION DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED EVEN OTHERWISE
UNDER THE NEW ACT, UNDER SECTION 24 (1)(A) READ WITH SEC
25 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN
LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT
2013 AS NO AWARD UNDER THE NEW ACT HAS BEEN PASSED
WITHIN 12 MONTHS BY INITIATING FRESH ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE NEW ACT UPON COMMENCEMENT OF THE
NEW ACT AND ETC.
*****

IN W.P.NO.11553/2019
BETWEEN:

1. SRI. KRISHNA REDDY
S/O H. THIMMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

SRI. T.R.RAMASWAMY REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

2. CHETANA REDDY
D/O LATE T.R. RAMASAWAMY REDDDY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.310
R.S. GREENWOOD APARTMENTS
NEAR CANARA BANK, ANEKAL TALUK
-9-

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w
WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017,
WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BENGLAURU-560099

3. SRI.R.T.VENKATASWAMY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS

A. B.N.RATNA
W/O R.T. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

B. ROOPESH R V
S/O LATE R.T. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

BOTH (A) AND (B) ARE
R/AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT

4. SRI. R.T. SRINIVASA REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS

A. R.S.DEEPTHI
D/O LATE R.T.SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED 25 YEARS

B. R.S. DIVYA
D/O LATE R.T. SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED 23 YEARS

BOTH (A) AND (B) ARE
R/AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT

5. SRI. R.T.NARAYANA REDDY
S/O H. THIMMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
- 10 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w
WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017,
WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

6. SRI. R.T. GOPALA REDDY
S/O H. THIMMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

PETITIONERS NO.1, 2, 5 AND 6 ARE
R/A RAMASAGARA VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MITHUN.G.A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
VISHVESWARAIAH CENTRE
3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001

3. THE SECRETARY
THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE
FOR FRUITS & VEGETABLES
AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD
BINNYPET, BANGALORE - 560 023
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA.K.R, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
DR. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE PRELIMINARY
- 11 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w
WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017,
WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

NOTIFICATION AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 20.05.2002 AND
02.08.2003 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURES A & B DEEMED TO
HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SEC.11A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1894 FOR BEING NOT MADE AN AWARD WITHIN STIPULATED
PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE, AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY CONSTITUTION
BENCH IN 2010(2) SCC 533 AT PARA 11 AND FURTHER TO HOLD
THAT THE ACQUISITION DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED EVEN
OTHERWISE UNDER THE NEW ACT, UNDER SEC.24 (1)(A) READ
WITH SEC 25 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND
TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND
RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 AS NO AWARD UNDER THE NEW ACT HAS
BEEN PASSED WITHIN 12 MONTHS BY INITIATING FRESH
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE NEW ACT UPON
COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW ACT AND ETC.

*****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.07.2022, THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1. The petitioners in W.P.No.11551/2019 are before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. To declare that the acquisition proceedings as per the preliminary notification and final notification dated 20.05.2002 and 02.08.2003 respectively vide Annexures-A & B deemed to have been lapsed under section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for being not made an award within stipulated period of 2 years from the date of Order of Learned Single Judge, as per the law laid down by Constitution Bench in 2010(2) SCC 533 at para 11 and further to hold that the acquisition deemed to have been lapsed even otherwise under the new Act, under

- 12 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

Sec.24(1)(a) read with sec.25 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 as no award under the new Act has been passed within 12 months by initiating fresh acquisition proceedings under the new act upon commencement of the new act; and

b. Without prejudice to their right, further declare that acquisition proceedings under Sec.24 and 25 of the Central Act 2013 being not passed any award within two years or otherwise, within one year under Act 2013, according to law, there is no acquisition in the eye of law and the one on which the Respondents are contending that they are entitled to pass the award not sustainable in law and accordingly quash the acquisition proceedings initiated according to the Endorsement in Case No. LAQ No. (8)SR 4/02-03 dated 22.12.2018 that was handed over to the Petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police, Hebbagodi on 05.01.2019 in respect of the land in question in the interest of justice and equity.

c. To declare that in terms of the Judgement of the Full Bench held in (Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others) reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, the land acquisition is deemed lapsed under Sec.24(2) of the 2013 Act, as there is no award being passed prior to commencement of the New Act 2013 nor Possession being taken till date, in the interest of justice and equity.

"The Petitioner No.1 is the son of 2nd Petitioner. The Petitioner No.1 is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.142 measuring 5-00 acres situated at Goolimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The 1st Petitioner and 2nd Petitioner jointly owned Sy. No.143 measuring 5 Acres. 2nd Petitioner has executed the General Power of Attorney dated 23.08.2007 in favour of 1st Petitioner for challenging this acquisition by him. The 2nd Petitioner is the mother of 1st Petitioner, however, on the basis of the power of attorney in respect of 2½ Acres, that

- 13 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

being jointly in Possession with the 1st Petitioner, by means of power of attorney, the Petitioners are filing this petition challenging acquisition of Sy. No.142 and 143 of Gulimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The Petitioners while being in Possession of the same, the Respondents having published a Notification bearing NO.LAQ/SR/1/02-03 dated 20-5-2002 followed by a final Notification came to be published in the Gazette vide Notification No. RD/3/LAW-Be/03 dated 02.08.2003. The said notification being published after one year, same came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.11298/2005. Copy of the Preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A and copy of the final notification dated 02.08.2003 is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-B. Copy of the General Power of Attorney dated 23.08.2007 in favour of the Petitioner No.1 is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-C".

2. The petitioners in W.P.No.25329/2017 are before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated as per the preliminary notification and final notifications dated 20.5.2002 & 2.8.2003 vide ANNEXURE-A & B are deemed to have been lapsed under section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for not making an award within a period of two years from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge as per the law laid down by the Constitution Bench reported in [2002] 3 SCC 533, para 11 and further declare that the acquisition is deemed to have been lapsed under section 24 & 25 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and further declare that acquisition proceedings under section 24 and 25 of the Act, Central Act 30 of 2013.

- 14 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

b. Issue a writ certiorari quash the communication dated: 07.01.2021 addressed from the deputy secretary (Revenue department) addressed to regional commissioner and declare that 07.01.2021 is not an award within meaning of award as defined under The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 ACT No.30 OF 2013.

c. Pass any other appropriate order or orders or directions as deems fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest justice and equity.

AMENDED PRAYER INSERTED AS PER ORDER DT. 04.07.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT

d. Issue of writ of certiorari quashing the award dt.

25.08.2020 bearing number AQ (8) SR 14/2002- 2003 (ANNEXURE V) passed by the Respondent No.5 herein the Special Land Acquisition officer u/s. 11 of 1894 Act land bearing No.106/1 an extent 11 Acres and 12 Guntas land situated in Goolimangala Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, and in the event of prayer (a) the writ petition is not granted by this Hon'ble court, the respondents maybe directed to pass fresh award u/s 30 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 in strict compliance and provisions of 2013 Act and the GOs issued from time to time on the subject of granting compensation in accordance with law.

"The Petitioners are the absolute owners of the proper bearing Sy.No.106/1 measuring 9 acres 12 guntas situate Gulimangala village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. The land was notified along with other survey numbers, totally 42 acres 31 guntas of land. The State Government proposing to issue a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was published in the official

- 15 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

gazette dated 20.5.2002. A copy of the said notification dated 20.5.2002 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A".

3. The petitioner in W.P.No.25759/2017 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated as per the preliminary notification and final notifications No.LARQSR 1/02.03 and No.KAM dt. 20.05.2002 & 02.08.2003 vide ANNEXURE A & B are deemed to have been lapsed under s. 11A of the Land acquisition act of 1894 for not making an award within period of 2 years from the date of the order of the learned single judge as pre the law laid down by the constitution bench reported in 2003 (2) SCC 533, para 11, and further declare that the acquisition is deemed to have been lapsed u/s. 24 & 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement of 2013 and further declare that the acquisition proceedings under s.24 and 258 of the act, central act 30 of 2013.

b. Pass any other appropriate orders or directions as deemed by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstance the case in the interest of justice and equity.

AMENDED PRAYER INSERTED AS PER ORDER THIS HON'BLE COURT DT. 04.07.2022

c. Issue Writ of Certiorari quashing the Government 07.01.2021 (ANNEXURE N) and award dt. 25.08.2020 bearing number AQ (8) SR 14/2002- 2003 (Annexure-M) passed by the Respondent No.5 herein the special land acquisition officer u/s.11 of the 1894 Act the land bearing No.106/2 an extent 11 Acres and 12 Guntas land situated Goolimangala Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore

- 16 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

District, and in the event prayer (a) if the writ petition is not granted by this Hon'ble Court, the respondents maybe directed to pass fresh award u/s 30 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement 2013 in strict compliance and provisions 2013 Act and the Gos issued from time to time on the subject of granting compensation in accordance law.

"It is submitted by the Petitioner that Sy.No.106/2 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas of land situate at Gulimagala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District, originally belonged to Pilla Reddy and Pilla Reddy sold the property in favour of Krishnappa vide Sale Deed dated 30.10.1937. Copy of the Sale Deed is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A. The said Pilla Reddy died on 06.03.1973. Even though the Sale Deed took place on 30.10.1937, after the death of Pillary Reddy, the pahanis stood in the name of grandsons of Pilla Reddy viz., Jayarama Reddy and C.L. Venogopal Reddy, children of late Lakshmaiah Reddy. Therefore, after the death of Krishnappa, the Petitioner being the son of Krishnappa, moved an application for change of pahanis in his name. However, the Tahsildar has mutated the revenue entries in the name of Jayarama Reddy, Venugopala Reddy, grand children of Pilla Reddy vide order dated 12.4.2012. This order dated 12.04.2012 was challenged by the Petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru in Revision Petition No.34/2013-14".

4. The petitioner in W.P.No.11550/2019 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. To declare that the acquisition proceedings as per the preliminary notification No.LAQ/SR/1/2002-2003 dated 20.05.2002 issued by the second respondent

- 17 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

vide Annexure-A and final notification in bearing SL.No.3/Bhu/Swa/be/2003 dated 02.08.2003 vide Annexure-B respectively, in so far as petitioner is concerned deemed to have been lapsed under section 11A of the land acquisition act, 1894 for being not made an award within stipulated period of 2 years from the date of the order of learned single judge, as per the law laid by Constitution Bench in 2010(2) SCC 533 at para 11 and further to hold that the acquisition deemed to have been lapsed even otherwise under the new Act, under Sec.24 (1)(a) read with Sec 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 as no award under the new act has been passed within 12 months by initiating fresh acquisition proceedings under the new act upon commencement of the new act; and

b. Without prejudice to their right, further declare that acquisition proceedings under Sec.24 and 25 of the Central Act 2013 being not passed any award within two years or otherwise, within one year under Act 2013, according to law, there is no acquisition in the eye of law and the one on which the Respondents are contending that they are entitled to pass the award not sustainable in law and accordingly quash the acquisition proceedings initiated according to the Endorsement in Case No.LAQ No.(8)SR 4/02-03 dated 22.12.2018 vide Annexure-H that was handed over to the Petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police, Hebbagodi on 05.01.2019 in respect of the land in question in the interest of justice and equity; and

- 18 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

"It is submitted that Sri. Rama Nathan S/o Ramaswamy along with two others namely, Deivanai and Alagammai are the owners of land bearing Sy. No.144 measuring 5 Acres situated at Gulimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The Petitioner has been given power of attorney by them by executing a General Power of Attorney dated 20.05.2004 for filing aforesaid acquisition. Hence, the Petitioner is the Power of Attorney holder of Ramanathan & others. It is how, the Petitioner based on the power of attorney is challenging the same in his name as a P.A. holder. The Petitioner is the son- in-law of the said Rama Nathan. Based on this power of Attorney, earlier, in fact, he filed Writ Petition bearing W.P. No.11302/2005, which finally reached the Supreme Court and disposed off in S.L.P. No.2834-2842/2014, pursuant to which, as liberty was given by the Supreme Court, the Petitioner is challenging the same as power of attorney holder of them. He is the power of attorney authorized by them for challenging the said acquisition. The Petitioner while being in Possession of the same, the Respondents having published a Notification bearing NO.LAQ/SR/1/02-03 dated 20-5-2002 followed by a final Notification came to be published in the Gazette vide Notification No. RD/3/LAW-Be/03 dated 02.08.2003. The said notification being published after one year, same came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.11302/2005. Copy of the Preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A and copy of the final notification dated 02.08.2003 is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-B. A Copy of the Power of Attorney is produced as ANNEXURE C.

5. The petitioners in W.P.No.11553/2019 are before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

- 19 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

a. To declare that the acquisition proceedings as per the preliminary notification and final notification dated 20.05.2002 and 02.08.2003 respectively vide Annexures A & B deemed to have been lapsed under Sec.11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for being not made an award within stipulated period of 2 years from the date of the Order of Learned Single Judge, as per the law laid down by Constitution Bench in 2010(2) SCC 533 at para 11 and further to hold that the acquisition deemed to have been lapsed even otherwise under the new Act, under Sec.24 (1)(a) read with Sec 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 as no award under the new act has been passed within 12 months by initiating fresh acquisition proceedings under the new act upon commencement of the new act; and

b. Without prejudice to their right, further declare that acquisition proceedings under Sec.24 and 25 of the Central Act 2013 being not passed any award within two years or otherwise, within one year under Act 2013, according to law, there is no acquisition in the eye of law and the one on which the Respondents are contending that they are entitled to pass the award not sustainable in law and accordingly quash the acquisition proceedings initiated according to the Endorsement in Case No.LAQ No.(8)SR 4/02-03 dated 22.12.2018 that was handed over to the Petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police, Hebbagodi on 05.01.2019 in respect of the land in question in the interest of justice and equity.

- 20 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

"The Petitioners are the owner of the land, bearing Sy. No. 69 measuring 4-00 Acres 05 Guntas and Sy.No.145 measuring 5-00 acres 03 Guntas of Goolimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. These Petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Petitioners while being in Possession of the same, the Respondents having published a Notification bearing NO.LAQ/SR/1/02-03 dated 20-5- 2002 followed by a final Notification came to be published in the Gazette vide Notification No. RD/3/LAW-Be/03 dated 02.08.2003. The said notification being published after one year, same came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.11300/2005. Copy of the Preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A and copy of the final notification dated 02.08.2003 is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-B".

6. A preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'L.A.Act') came

to be published on 20.05.2002 seeking to acquire the

various lands including the lands subject matter of

the above writ petitions. A final notification came to

be published on 02.08.2003.

7. Alleging that the final notification was published one

year after the publication of the preliminary

notification. Several writ petitions were filed in WP

- 21 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

No.11298/2005, WP No.11832/2005, WP

No.10876/2005, WP No.11300/2005, WP

No.11302/2005 and WP No.11299/2005. All of which

came to be disposed of by common judgment dated

22.11.2010. This Court taking into consideration that

the acquisition was for a public purpose in order to

save the acquisition came to a conclusion that if an

award is passed on the current valuation of the

property, the interest of the land owners would be

safeguarded and as such, passed the following

order:

ORDER

i. Writ petitions are partly allowed.

ii. The Writ Petitions in so far as it relates to quashing of preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 and the final notification dated 02.08.2003 are hereby dismissed.

iii. The impugned award dated 30.01.2005 is hereby quashed.

iv. The Land Acquisition Officer is hereby directed to pass a fresh award by taking into consideration the market value of the lands in question as on today.

- 22 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

v. If the Petitioners are dissatisfied with the compensation to be determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is open for them to seek enhancement of compensation as per law. Ordered accordingly.

8. The said order came to be challenged by the

petitioners-land losers by way of writ appeal in WA

Nos.33-34/11.

9. The beneficiary of the land acquisition namely the

Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC)

had also filed writ appeals in WA Nos.45/2011,

47/2011 and 52/2011 challenging the quashing of

the award passed. All the above Writ Appeals were

taken up for consideration together and disposed by

a common order dated 5.9.2011.

10. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said

writ appeals vide order dated 05.09.2011. The writ

appeals filed by the land losers in WA Nos.33-

34/2011 were dismissed so also the writ appeals filed

by the APMC in WA Nos.45/2011, 47/2011 and

52/2011 dismissed.

- 23 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

11. Aggrieved by the same, the land losers filed a Special

Leave Petition in SLP Nos.2834-2842/2014 which

came to be disposed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide

order dated 17.4.2017. The Hon'ble Apex Court came

to a conclusion that the observation of the Division

Bench was justified and did not call for any

interference.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court however while adverting to

some of the contentions raised as regards the Right

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013 ("LARR Act" for short) observed that the said

contentions would require examination of facts and

due opportunity. As such, it was left open to the

aggrieved to pursue their remedies in accordance

with law before the appropriate forum.

13. It is thereafter that the above petitions have been

filed seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

- 24 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

14. Sri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioners in WP No.25329/2017

and WP No.25759/2017 submits as under:

14.1. The acquisition having been challenged once

earlier, this Court vide its order dated

22.12.2010 though dismissed the challenge to

the preliminary and final notifications had

directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a

fresh award by taking into consideration the

market value of the land in question as on the

date of the judgment and in the event of the

land losers being dissatisfied with the same,

they could seek for enhancement of the

compensation.

14.2. Thus, he submits that the same was required to

be done by the Land Acquisition Officer upon

the orders being passed in the Writ Petition on

- 25 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

22.11.2010 which had not been done until

07.01.2021.

14.3. Writ Appeals which were filed in WA Nos.33-

34/2011 and other connected matters came to

be disposed by the Division Bench of this Court

on 5.9.2011. Though the Division Bench came

to the conclusion that the acquisition is liable to

be quashed, it was saved in public interest

since the Government would have to start the

acquisition proceedings from the beginning and

as such, the Division Bench affirmed the orders

passed by the learned Single Judge.

14.4. Even while the matters were pending before the

Division Bench of this Court, there was no order

of stay of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge and the time for passing the

award had not been extended by the Division

Bench. As such, it was but required of the

- 26 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

authority concerned to pass the award within

the time prescribed.

14.5. On a Special Leave Petition being filed before

the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court

also did not intervene in the matter and

dismissed the Special Leave Petition by its

order dated 17.4.2017. Thus, he submits that

the award ought to have been passed in terms

of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894

(L.A. Act for short) within a period of two years

from the date of the judgment in WP

No.11298/2005 and other connected matters

i.e., 22.11.2010, despite which no award has

been passed within the said period of two

years.

14.6. Even otherwise, he submits that the Division

Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeals

on 5.9.2011. Assuming that the respondents

- 27 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

were awaiting the orders passed in the writ

appeals, the award ought to have been passed

within two years from 5.9.2011. Alternatively,

the said award not having been passed, he

submits that the acquisition proceedings are

required to be quashed.

14.7. Alternatively, he submits that on coming into

force of The Right to Fair Compensation And

Transparency In Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013

(hereinafter for short LARR Act) on 1.4.2013 in

terms of Section 25 thereof, an award would

have to be passed within a period of 1 year

from the date of the LARR Act coming into

force. In this regard, he relies upon Section

25 of the LARR Act which is reproduced

hereunder for easy reference:

25. Period within which an award shall be made.-The Collector shall make an award within

- 28 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under section 19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:

Provided that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months if in its opinion, circumstances exist justifying the same:

Provided further that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.

14.8. No award having been passed in terms of

Section 11 of the L.A.Act within the prescribed

time and alternatively since no award having

been passed within the prescribed time under

Section 25 of the LARR Act, the acquisition

proceedings have spent itself on account of no

award having been passed and as such, he

submits that the acquisition is required to be

quashed.

- 29 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

15. Sri. K.G.Raghavan, leaned Senior Counsel appearing

for the petitioners in WP.No.11551/2019,

WP No.11550/2019 and W.P.No.11553/2019 submits

as under:-

15.1. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of

the properties subject matter of the above Writ

Petitions. Though an award had been passed on

30.01.2005, the same has been set aside and

fresh award was required to be passed, which

was passed only on 07.01.2021. Even the

award dated 07.01.2021 was passed under

Section 11 of the L.A.Act and not under the

LARR Act.

15.2. Thus, he submits that the award not having

been passed within a period of two years from

the date of order of the learned Single Judge

and within 1 year from the date of which LARR

Act coming into force, the entire acquisition

- 30 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

proceedings would have to be quashed, on

account of the same having lapsed both in

terms of Section 11 read with Section 11A of

1894 Act and Section 25 of LARR Act, 2013.

15.3. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Kolhapur Municipal

Corpn. v. Vasant Mahadev Patil reported in

2022 (5) SCC 758 more particularly para 37

thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy

reference:-

37. Therefore, once the reservation of land under the development plan is deemed to have lapsed by operation of law and it is released from reservation, no writ of mandamus could have been issued by the High Court directing the Corporation to still acquire the land and to issue a declaration under Section 19 of the 2013 Act (as in the meantime, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been repealed and the 2013 Act has been enacted). Once by operation of law, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed, it is lapsed for all purposes and for all times to come.

15.4. Relying on the aforesaid para, he submits that

the acquisition having lapsed by operation of

- 31 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

law, it is deemed to have lapsed for all times to

come and as such, the same would have to

enure to the benefit of the petitioners.

16. Dr.Nanda Kishore, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.6-APMC would submit that:

16.1. The time period under Section 11A of the L.A.Act

had not commenced in view of the matter being

pending before the Division Bench and thereafter

before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The proceedings

before the Hon'ble Apex Court having been

disposed only on 12.04.2017 on which date the

LARR Act 2013 was in force, there was a period

of five years from the date of the order of the

Hon'ble Apex Court available for the respondent

to pass an award. Hence, neither Section 11A of

the L.A.Act, 1894 nor Section 25 of the LARR

Act, 2013 are applicable to the present facts.

- 32 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

16.2. Assuming but not conceding that the ground of

lapsing was available to the petitioners, the

same ought to have been raised before the

Hon'ble Apex Court. The same not having been

raised before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it cannot

be raised before this Court. By relying on Article

144 of Constitution of India and the decision of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TIRUPATI

BALAJI DEVELOPERS (P) LTD., AND OTHERS VS.

STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in

(2004) 5 SCC 1, more particularly, para 29

thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy

reference:

29. While quoting the several authorities and references as hereinabove we should not be misunderstood as calling "the Supreme Court a superior court and the High Court an inferior court"; all that we wish to say is that jurisdictionally, and in the hierarchical system, so far as the exercise of appellate jurisdiction is concerned, undoubtedly, the Supreme Court is a superior forum and the High Court an inferior forum in the sense that the latter is subjected to jurisdiction, called "appellate jurisdiction", of the former.

- 33 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

16.3. This Court is bound by the orders passed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court by

its order dated 12.04.2017 having upheld the

acquisition, the question of this Court now

holding that the acquisition is lapsed would not

at all arise. In support thereof, he also relies

upon the decision in the case of GURMEET

SINGH VS. DHIRENDRA KUMAR reported in

(2005) 13 SCC 434 and Sompal Singh v. Sunil

Rathi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 1. By relying

upon the decision in Union of India v. Jaiswal

Coal Co. Ltd., reported in (1999) 5 SCC 733

and CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported

in (2007) 10 SCC 736, he submits that if this

Court were to entertain the above Writ Petition,

the same would be contrary to the orders passed

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the year 2017.

16.4. He submits that even if there is a delay in

passing of the award, the same is not

- 34 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

attributable to the beneficiary. The delay if any

is caused by the State and/or SLAO for which the

beneficiary should not be held liable and

usufructs of the acquisition not be denied to the

beneficiary.

16.5. The Writ Petitions are hit by delay and latches

inasmuch as the Hon'ble Apex Court having

disposed of SLP in the year 2017, the Writ

Petition having been filed in the year 2019 and

therefore, they are belated and on this ground,

he submits that the Writ Petitions are to be

dismissed.

17. Sri.Nityananda, learned AGA appearing for the State

would submit that:

17.1. The earlier proceedings having attained finality

before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the re-

adjudication of the matter by filing the present

Writ Petition is mischievous.

- 35 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

17.2. No relief that the acquisition is lapsed can be

sought for and as such, the acquisition

proceedings cannot be nullified in the manner

requested.

17.3. The competent authority had passed an award

on 20.12.2018 which was sent for approval to

Deputy Commissioner/Regional Commissioner on

24.12.2018, there being certain lacuna, the

competent authority was directed to represent

the award for approval, which was so submitted

on 27.05.2019. The matter was again referred

back to the competent authority, since there was

no reference as regards the deposit of the

amounts by the beneficiary. The competent

authority rectified the same and resubmitted the

award for approval on 26.08.2020, which came

to be approved on 07.01.2021. Therefore, the

competent authority has acted within the time

frame. The compensation has been calculated on

- 36 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

the basis of what has been directed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11298/2005 and

as such, the petitioners now cannot claim any

prejudice caused to them. The award being

passed within a reasonable period of time frame

and cannot be said to have lapsed under Section

25 of LARR of 2013. On these grounds, the Writ

Petitions are required to be dismissed.

18. Heard Sri.V.Lakshminarayana, learned Senior counsel

for the petitioners in W.P.No.25329/2017 and

W.P.No.25759/2017 and Sri.K.G.Raghavan, learned

Senior counsel for the petitioners in

W.P.No.11551/2019, W.P.No.11550/2019 and

W.P.No.11553/2019, Dr.Nanda Kishore, learned

counsel for APMC in all matters and Sri.Nityananda,

learned AGA for the State and Special LAO in all the

matters and perused the papers.

19. The points that would arise for consideration are:

- 37 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

1. Whether once a direction has been issued in a Writ Petition for an award to be passed, would the time period prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be applicable or would it get extended merely on the ground that a Writ Appeal had been filed and pending?

2. Whether the time for passing of an award would get extended since the proceedings were pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in a SLP?

3. What is the reference point of time for considering the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

4. What is the reference point of time for calculating the time period prescribed under Section 25 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

5. Whether in the given facts and circumstances, the acquisition proceedings in the present matter has lapsed?

6. Whether the beneficiary can claim that the delay in acquisition is by the State and/or SLAO and as such, the acquisition needs to be upheld to protect the interest of the beneficiary?

- 38 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

7. What order?

20. I answer the above points as under:

21. Answer to Point No.1: Whether once a direction has been issued in a Writ Petition for an award to be passed, would the time period prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be applicable or would it get extended merely on the ground that a Writ Appeal had been filed and pending?

and

Answer to Point No.2: Whether the time for passing of an award would get extended since the proceedings were pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in a SLP?

21.1. Both the above points being connected are

answered together as under:

21.2. Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

reads as under:-

11A. Period shall be which an award within made. -

The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the said declaration

- 39 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement.

Explanation - In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.

21.3. A perusal of the above provision would indicate

that the Collector is required to make an award

under Section 11 of L.A.Act within a period of

two years from the date of publication of the

declaration under Section 6 of L.A.Act.

21.4. It further provides that if no award is made

within that period, the entire proceedings for

acquisition would lapse. The explanation to the

said provision provides that in computing the

period of two years, the period which any

action or proceedings to be taken is stayed by

an order of the Court shall be excluded.

- 40 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

21.5. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

which speaks of declaration reads as under:-

6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. -

(1) Subject to the provision of Part VII of this Act, [appropriate Government] is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2)], that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders [and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (I) irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5A, sub- section (2)];

[Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1)

(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or

(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification:]

- 41 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

Provided further that] no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.

21.6. In terms of Section 6 of L.A.Act, a declaration

made therein is required to be published in the

Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers

circulating in the locality in which the land is

situated and the said declaration is stated to be

a conclusive evidence that the land is required

for public purpose.

21.7. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

reads as under:-

11. Enquiry and award by Collector. -

[(1)] On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objection (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land [at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub- section (1)], and into the respective interests of

- 42 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of-

(i) the true area of the land;

(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and

(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, or whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him:

[Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorize in this behalf:

Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.

[(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement.

(3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or

- 43 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act.]

21.8. In terms of Section 11, the Collector after

enquiry into the objections, if any etc., after

ascertaining the true area of the land, the

compensation which in his opinion should be

allowed for the land as also apportionment of

compensation is required to determine the

compensation in the form of an award.

21.9. A reading of Section 6 of L.A.Act., would

indicate that the date on which the publication

is made in the gazette and/or the local

newspapers would be conclusive proof that the

land is required for public purpose. Upon the

said publication, the Collector is required to

make an enquiry and pass an award in terms of

Section 11 of L.A.Act and the period in which

- 44 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

the award is to be passed is fixed at two years

from the date of publication of declaration in

terms of Section 11A of L.A.Act. The only

deduction and/or extension of time is that as

prescribed in the Explanation to Section 11A of

L.A.Act whereunder the period of stay if any by

a Court could be excluded. Thus, merely

because a Writ Petition is filed challenging the

acquisition would not by itself extend the period

fixed under Section 11A of L.A.Act.

21.10. As a corollary, in the event of the Writ Petition

being dismissed/allowed, a Writ Appeal being

filed, when it is dismissed/allowed and a Special

Leave Petition being filed challenging the order

passed in a Writ Appeal, merely because a Writ

Petition or a Writ Appeal or a Special Leave

Petition being filed would not by itself extend

the period prescribed under Section 11A of the

L.A.Act.

- 45 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

21.11. For the Explanation to come into effect and/or

extension of time to take place, it is required

that a positive order of stay be granted by the

Court insofar as any action/proceedings to be

taken in pursuance of the declaration. This in

my considered opinion will also have to be such

that the same would come in the way of

passing an award under Section 11 of L.A.Act

since if the order of stay does not come in the

way of passing of an award, there is nothing

which could be said to have prevented the

Collector from passing such an award.

21.12. Thus, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 by holding

that mere filing of a Writ Petition, Writ Appeal

or Special Leave Petition would not extend the

period fixed under Section 11A of L.A.Act for

making an award. The award would continue to

require to be made within a period of two years

from the date on which the final declaration

- 46 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

was published. It is only in the event of an

order of stay being granted by any Court which

had an effect of staying any action or

proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the

declaration that the period during which the

stay order was in operation would be excluded

or as a corollary, the period fixed under Section

11A of L.A.Act would be extended by the time

period during which the stay was operational.

22. Answer to Point No.3: What is the reference point of time for considering the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

22.1. This aspect has already been adverted to in

answer to Points No.1 and 2 above. A perusal

of Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of L.A.Act which

has been reproduced hereinabove, indicates

that the last date of publication and giving of

such public notice, shall be the date of

publication of the declaration.

- 47 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

22.2. Thus, there could be two situations which could

arise viz., there could be one final declaration

which is published. If that be so, then the date

on which the said final declaration was

published would be the date of the declaration.

However, if there are multiple final declarations

published, for example, if there are five final

declarations published, then it is the date on

which the last declaration i.e., 5th declaration

was published, which would be the reference

point of time for considering the period fixed

under Section 11A of L.A.Act.

23. Answer to Point No.4: What is the reference point of time for calculating the time period prescribed under Section 25 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

23.1. Section 24(1) of LARR Act reads as under:-

24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything

- 48 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,--

(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

23.2. Section 25 of LARR Act reads as under:-

- 49 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

25. Period within which an award shall be made.-The Collector shall make an award within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under section 19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:

Provided that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months if in its opinion, circumstances exist justifying the same:

Provided further that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.

23.3. In terms of Section 24(1) of LARR Act where

the land acquisition proceedings are initiated

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if no

award under Section 11 of the L.A.Act has been

made, then the provision of LARR Act for

determination of compensation would apply.

23.4. In the event of award being made under

Section 11 of L.A.Act, then the land acquisition

proceedings shall continue under the provisions

- 50 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

of the Land Acquisition Act as if the said Act has

not been repealed.

23.5. Thus, if no award under Section 11 of L.A.Act

has been passed prior to LARR Act coming into

force, then by applying the provision of LARR

Act, the compensation would be required to be

determined by the Collector that is to say that

the enquiry in terms of Section 23 of LARR Act

would have to be made by the Collector and the

award rendered.

23.6. The time period in such a situation would have

to be calculated in terms of Section 25 of LARR

Act by deeming the final declaration to have

been published on the date on which the LARR

Act came into force i.e., on 01.01.2014 and the

period prescribed under Section 25 of LARR Act

would be applicable thereto requiring the award

to be passed within the period of 12 months

- 51 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

from the date of publication of the declaration

in such case being the deeming fiction of the

publication of the declaration being 01.01.2014.

23.7. The said period could be extended by a period

of 12 months by the Appropriate Government if

the circumstances exist justifying the same by

recording reasons. In the event of the award

not being rendered within the said period, then

the land acquisition would lapse.

23.8. Hence, I answer Point No.4 by holding that

reference point of time for calculating time

period prescribed under Section 25 of LARR Act

for an acquisition initiated prior to LARR act

coming into force would be the date on which

the LARR Act came into force being on

01.01.2014.

24. Answer to Point No.5: Whether in the given facts and circumstances, the acquisition proceedings in the present matter has lapsed?

- 52 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

24.1. In furtherance to the answers above and

applying the said answers to the above points

to the present case, it is seen that the

preliminary notification was issued on

20.05.2002, the final notification came to be

published on 02.08.2003, which came to be

challenged before this Court and this Court by

way of common judgment dated 22.11.2010

quashed the award dated 30.01.2005 and

directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a

fresh award by taking into consideration the

market value of the lands as on today (i.e.,

date of the judgment being 22.11.2010). The

learned Single Judge has also reserved the right

of the land loser to challenge the acquisition by

seeking for enhancement.

24.2. The said order dated 22.11.2010 came to be

challenged by the APMC in W.A.Nos.45, 47 and

- 53 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

52 of 2011 and the land losers had challenged

in W.A.Nos.33-34/2011.

24.3. Admittedly, there was no order of stay passed

by the Division Bench in the said Writ Appeals.

The Writ Appeals came to be dismissed on

05.09.2011. The learned Single Judge having

directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a

fresh award on the market value of the land as

on the date of judgment being 22.11.2010, at

best, the Land Acquisition Officer by taking the

benefit of Section 11A of L.A.Act ought to have

passed an award within a period of two years

from 22.11.2010 i.e., by 21.11.2012.

24.4. The Writ Appeals having been disposed on

05.09.2011, the land loser filed the Special

Leave Petition in SLP Nos.2834-42/2014 which

came to be disposed by order of the Hon'ble

Apex Court dated 17.04.2017. The fact that has

- 54 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

to be taken into consideration is that neither

the State nor the beneficiary had challenged

the order passed by the Division Bench of this

Court in Writ Appeal. It is only the land loser

who had challenged the same by way of a SLP

Nos.2834-42/2014.

24.5. Thus, the State and the beneficiary of the

acquisition had accepted the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court. Even assuming

that the period prescribed under Section 11A of

L.A.Act would have to be calculated from the

date of judgment of the Writ Appeal viz.,

05.09.2011, the period of two years expired on

04.09.2013.

24.6. If the provision of Section 25 of LARR Act were

to be applied to the present case by applying

deeming fiction that the final declaration is

deemed to have published on 01.01.2014 i.e.,

- 55 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

the date on which the LARR Act came into

force.

24.7. By applying the principles of time period

contained in Section 25 of LARR Act, the award

ought to have been passed within 12 months of

01.01.2014 i.e., by 31.12.2014. If the time

were to be extended by another period of 12

months, the award could have been passed by

31.12.2015.

24.8. It is no one's case that the time period has

been extended by the Appropriate Government

by a reasoned order. Hence, further extension

of 12 months would not apply and as such, the

award ought to have been passed by

31.12.2014.

24.9. Lastly assuming that the date is to be

calculated from the date on which the Hon'ble

Apex Court disposed of the SLP Nos.2834-

- 56 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

42/2014 i.e., on 12.04.2017 even then the

award ought to have been passed on

11.04.2018. In the present case, the award

was finally passed on 07.01.2021 since the

approval was granted only on that date though

the proceedings for approval of the award

commenced on 20.12.2018.

24.10. Looked at from any angle, the present award

has not been passed within a period of two

years from the date of the order passed in the

Writ Petition i.e., 22.11.2010 by 21.11.2012.

No award has been passed within a period of

two years from the date of the order passed in

the Writ Appeal i.e., 05.09.2011 by

04.09.2013. No award has been passed within

12 months of LARR Act coming into force i.e.,

on 01.01.2014 by 31.12.2014. No award has

been passed within 12 months of the order of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.2834-

- 57 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

42/2014 dated 17.04.2017 i.e., by 16.04.2018.

In fact, the process of approval of the award

commenced only on 20.12.2018 which is much

beyond the period detailed herein above.

24.11. The authorities concerned were very much

aware of the time period being sacrosanct and

the authorities have failed to take advantage of

the benefit extended by the learned Single

Judge vide its order dated 22.11.2010 as also

by Division Bench vide order dated 05.09.2011.

24.12. Admittedly, the preliminary notification had

been published on 20.05.2002 and the final

declaration had been published on 02.08.2003.

Today we are in the year 2022. I am of the

considered opinion that the authorities have a

duty to act within the time frame prescribed

either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 till

the time that it was in force or under the Right

- 58 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act, 2013 from the date on which it came into

force. If the authorities do not comply with the

said time period, then the natural consequences

that flows is that the acquisition would have to

be declared to have lapsed.

24.13. As such I answer Point No.5 by holding that in

the given facts and circumstances, the

acquisition proceedings have lapsed.

25. Answer to point No.6: Whether the beneficiary can claim that the delay in acquisition is by the State and/or SLAO and as such, the acquisition needs to be upheld to protect the interest of the beneficiary?

25.1. The contention of the beneficiary is that the

passing of the award is not in control of the

beneficiary and that the award is required to be

passed by the State and/or SLAO. It is on that

- 59 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

basis it is contended that the acquisition

proceedings ought to be upheld.

25.2. Though in some acquisitions, an ascertained

person or entity could be the beneficiary, in

most acquisition, it could be in the general

interest for formation of layouts etc., where the

beneficiary is not ascertained. Even in case

where the beneficiary is ascertained, the

acquisition proceedings are required to be

initiated and completed by exercise of powers

of eminent domain by the State. No

compulsory acquisition can happen or resorted

to by a beneficiary on its own. Thus, from the

time of issuance of the preliminary notification,

conduct of enquiry, issuance of final

declaration, passing of an award, taking

possession of the property etc., all these

- 60 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

aspects have to be performed by the State or

SLAO.

25.3. The timelines which have been prescribed

under the Act are clear and it is for the State

and/or SLAO to adhere to such timelines

without default. If there is a default, the

acquisition would have to be struck down as

lapsed since the interest of the land loser would

suffer on account of State or SLAO not

discharging its functions in a time bound

manner.

25.4. The beneficiary cannot on the basis of its

interest being harmed contend that the

acquisition is required to be saved and/or that

on account of default by the State or SLAO, the

beneficiary cannot be deprived of usufructs of

the acquisition.

- 61 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

25.5. The remedy in such a case would only be for

the beneficiary to lay a claim against the State

claiming any damages that might have been

caused to the beneficiary, which civil remedy

the beneficiary would always have. Hence, I

answer Point No.6 by holding that the

beneficiary cannot claim that if there is delay in

acquisition by the State and/or SLAO, the

acquisition needs to be upheld to protect the

interest of the beneficiary. In the event of

there being any violation of time period

prescribed, irrespective of what was the cause

for the delay, the acquisition would lapse.

26. Answer to Point No.7: What order?

In view of the above, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Writ Petitions are allowed.

ii. The preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002

and final declaration/notification dated

- 62 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

02.08.2003 vide Annexures-A and B

respectively are quashed.

iii. Needless to say the awards if any passed would

also stand quashed.

iv. Liberty is reserved to the beneficiary to initiate

such proceedings as may be advised against

the State for recovery of damages if any caused

to the beneficiary.