Karnataka High Court
Smt. Pampamma W/O Arjunappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 April, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2861
WP No. 205103 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO.205103 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PAMPAMMA W/O ARJUNAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.,
1. ARJUNAPPA S/O URUKONDAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.,
1A) M. ERAYYA S/O ARJUNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O NEW MYASARWADI VILLAGE
TQ AND DIST: RAICHUR.
1B) M. KAMALA W/O LATE M. CHANDRASHEKHAR
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
by RENUKA R/O NEW MYASARWADI VILLAGE
Location: High TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR.
Court Of
Karnataka
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2861
WP No. 205103 of 2015
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT
BOARD,
DHARWAD-585301.
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT
BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T. R., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND GRANT ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: QUASH THE
AWARD DATED 17.04.2007 PASSED IN FILE NO.
KIADB/1075/2007-08 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
INSOFAR AS THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.154/1 MEASURING 2
ACRES 5 GUNTAS OF CHIKKASUGUR VILLAGE, RAICHUR
DISTRICT AND THE VERY ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN
TERMS OF THE SAID AWARD, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH
IS AT ANNEXURE-B. GRANT A DECLARATION, DECLARING
THAT THE ENTIRE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS HAVE LAPSED
IN RESPECT OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER BEARING
SY.NO.154/1 MEASURING 2 ACRES 5 GUNTAS, THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE AWARD DATED 17.04.2007 PASSED IN FILE
NO.KIADB/1075/2007-08 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
AT ANNEXURE-B.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2861
WP No. 205103 of 2015
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Ganesh S. Kalburgi, learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 and Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The writ petition is filed with the following
prayer:
"Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and
grant any other appropriate writ in the following
terms:
(i) Quash the award dated 17.04.2007 passed in
file No. KIADB/1075/2007-08 passed by the
respondent No.2 insofar as the land bearing
Sy.No.154/1 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas of
Chikkasugur Village, Raichur District and the
very acquisition proceedings in terms of the
said award, the certified copy of which is at
Annexure-B.
(ii) Grant a declaration, declaring that the entire
acquisition proceedings have lapsed in
respect of the land of the petitioner bearing
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2861
Sy.No.154/1 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas, the
subject matter of the Award dated
17.04.2007 passed in file
No.KIADB/1075/2007-08 passed by the
respondent No.2 at Annexure-B.
(iii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
to grant in the circumstances of the case, in
the interest of justice."
3. The case of the writ petitioners is that their land
in Sy.No.154/1 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas was notified
under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 on 27.12.1991 and there is an
enormous delay in passing the final award on 17.04.2007
and therefore, acquisition is to be quashed.
4. In support of arguments, he placed reliance on
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated
23.03.2022 in W.A.No.557/2021 (LA-KIADB). The learned
counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this
Court to paragraph Nos.6 and 7 which reads as under:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2861
"6. The right to hold the property is a
constitutional right which is guaranteed under
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and no
citizen can be deprived of his property without
following the due process of law. It is well settled
legal proposition that where a stature does not
provide for time limit for doing an Act, such and Act
has to be done within a reasonable time, and what
would be reasonable time has to be decided in the
facts and circumstances of the Act. [See: 'MEHER
RUSI DALAL V UNION OF INDIA', (2004) 7 SCC
362, 'P.K. SREEKANTAN V P. SREEKUMARAN
NAIR', (2006) 13 SCC 574 AND 'K.B. NAGUR V
UNION OF INDIA', (2012) 4 SCC 483].
Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have to
ascertain whether the Notification under Section
28(1) of the Act stands vitiated in law on account of
the delay caused in issuing the final notification
under Section 28(4) of the Act within reasonable
time, in the light of submission made by learned
senior counsel for respondent no.2.
7. In the instant case, the preliminary
notification was issued on 07.08.2006. It is
pertinent to mention here that the appellants did
not file objections before the learned Single Judge to
explain the delay caused in land acquisition
proceeding. In the absence of any explanation on
behalf of the appellant, the learned Single judge has
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2861
rightly held that there was an inordinate delay in
completion of the proceedings and even after a
lapse of 14 years, neither final notification has been
issued not any steps were taken to complete the
land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the learned
Single judge in the facts of the case and in the
absence of any explanation on behalf of the
appellant about the delay in concluding the land
acquisition proceeding has rightly held that the
notification dated 07.08.2006 issued under Section
28(1) of the Act insofar as it pertains to the land of
Respondents 1 to 3 stood lapsed on account of
efflux of time and has rightly quashed the same. For
the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
ground to differ with the view taken by learned
Single judge."
5. Based on the principles of law enunciated in the
aforesaid judgment, the petitioners want the acquisition is
to be quashed.
6. Per contra, Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned
counsel for respondent No.1 contended that in the case
which the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon is
a case where no final notification was not all as passed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2861
even after the period of 14 years and therefore, the
learned Single Judge held that the acquisition lapses which
was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. But in
the case on hand already final notification has been made
and also award came to be passed and therefore, the said
decision is not applicable and sought for dismissal of the
writ petition.
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader
supports the arguments on behalf of KIADB.
8. In view of the rival contentions, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously. In the case
on hand, preliminary notification of acquisition was made
on 27.12.1991, however, general award came to be
passed on 04.12.2007, there is an enormous delay and till
toady, no money is deposited.
9. Mere passing the award and keeping it in the
file of respondent No.2 is not the compliance of the
provision of law. Therefore, effectively there is no award
passed, inasmuch as the amount is not deposited as per
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2861
the award and mere issuance of notice under Section
12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is not sufficient
compliance.
10. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
The Writ Petition stands disposed of by
directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 forthwith to
deposit the award amount and consider the
application filed by the petitioners under Section
28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and dispose of
the same in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible, but not later than four
months from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
