Karnataka High Court
The Secretary vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2025
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.1031 OF 2022 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2022 (LA-RES);
WRIT APPEAL NO.1030 OF 2022 (LA-RES);
WRIT APPEAL NO.1033 OF 2022 (LA-RES);
WRIT APPEAL NO.1037 OF 2022 (LA-RES)
IN W.A.No.1031/2022:
BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY
THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKETING COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD
BINNYPET, BENGALURU-560 023
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
VISHVESWARAIAH CENTRE
3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
-
2
3. SRI. KRISHNA REDDY
S/O H. THIMMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
4. SRI. T.R. RAMASWAMY REDDY
S/O H. THIMMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
5. SRI. R.T. VENKATASWAMY
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
5(a). B.N. RATNA
W/O LATE R.T. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
(DEAD), BY LR RESPONDENT No.5(b)
V.O. DATED 28.05.2024
5(b). SRI. ROOPESH R.V.
S/O LATE R.T. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YERS
RESIDING AT RAMASAGRA VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 099
6. SRI. R.T. SRINIVASA REDDY
SINCE DEAD, BY LR'S
6(a). R.S. DEEPTI
D/O LATE R.T. SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
6(b). R.S. DIVYA
D/O LATE R.T. SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT. RAMASAGRA VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 099
7. SRI. R.T. NARAYANA REDDY
S/O H. THIMMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
-
3
8. SRI. R.T. GOPALA REDDY
S/O H. THIMMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESPONDENTS No.3, 4, 7 & 8 ARE
RESIDING AT RAMASAGRA VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 099
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE &
SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R8)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.09.2002 IN W.P.
No.11553/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.
IN WA No.1029 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET
COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD
BINNYPET, BENGALURU-560 023
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
-
4
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE DIRECTOR
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE
INFANTRY ROAD
BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE
BENGALURU-560 001
4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 009
5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
PHODIUM BLOCK
VISHVESWARAIAH CENTRE, 3RD FLOOR
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
6. SHRI. VENKATASWAMAIAH
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT No.68, 11TH MAIN
BTM 1ST STAGE, DRC POST
BENGALURU-560 029
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE &
SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.09.2002 IN W.P.
No.25759/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.
-
5
IN WA No.1030 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY
THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING
COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD
BINNYPET, BENGALURU 560023
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPT. OF AGRICUTURE PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE
INFANTRY ROAD
BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE
BENGALURU-560 001
4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 009
5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
VISHVESWARAIAH CETNRE
3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK
-
6
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
6. SRI. N. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE K.R. NARAYANA REDDY
AGE: MAJOR
R/T No.147, OLD MADIWALA
BTM LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 068
7. SRI. N. CHADNRA REDDY
S/O LATE K.R. NARAYANA REDDY
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/AT. No.147, OLD MADIWALA
BTM LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 068
8. SRI. N. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE K.R. NARAYANA REDDY
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/AT No.147, OLD MADIVALA
BTM LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 068
9. SMT. MADHAVI SIMPI REDDY
S/O SHYAMASUNDAR REDDY
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/AT No.147, OLD MADIVALA
BTM LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 068
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE &
SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. ANUSHA L., ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 & ALSO
FOR R7 TO R9)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.09.2002 IN W.P.
No.25329/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.
-
7
WA NO 1033 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY
THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING
COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD
BINNYPET, BENGALURU-560 023
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
VISHVESWARAIAH CENTRE
3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
3. SRI. M. SURESH KUMAR
S/O A.R. MUTHU KUMAR
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT. No.331/2, 2ND CROSS
29TH MAIN ROAD
NEAR GAYATHRI APARTMENT
BTM 1ST PHASE
BENGALURU-560 068
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE &
SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
-
8
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.09.2022 IN WP
No.11550/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.
WA NO 1037 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING
COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD
BINNYPET, BENGALURU-560 023
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
VISHVESWARAIAH CENTRE
3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
3. SRI. M. SURESH KUMAR
S/O A.R. MUTHU KUMAR
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT. No.231/1
2ND CROSS, 29TH MAIN
BTM LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 068
4. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O A.R. MUTHU KUMAR
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT. No.231/1
-
9
2ND CROSS, 29TH MAIN
BTM LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 068
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE &
SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.09.2022 IN WRIT PETITION
Nos.11551/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 06.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-
10
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
These Writ Appeals arise from a common judgment of
the learned Single Judge dated 06.09.2022 passed in Writ
Petition No.11551/2019 c/w. Writ Petitions No.25329/2017,
25759/2017, 11550/2019 and 11553/2019.
2. We have heard Shri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned
senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Nanda Kishore, learned
advocate for the appellant/beneficiary in W.A.No.1029/2022,
W.A.No.1030/2022, W.A.No.1033/2022 and W.A.
No.1037/2022 and Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, learned
Special Counsel for the appellant/beneficiary in W.A.
No.1031/2022. Shri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned
Advocate General along with Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa,
learned Additional Government Advocate for
respondents/State, Shri K.G. Raghavan, learned senior
counsel as instructed by Shri. Mithun G. A, Shri S.S.
Naganand, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri.
Mithun G. A, and Sri V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior
-
counsel as instructed by Shri. Pratham N and Smt. Anusha
L., advocate appearing for the respondents/landowners.
3. The Writ Petitions were filed seeking a declaration
that the acquisition proceedings initiated as per Preliminary
Notification dated 20.05.2002 followed by Final Notification
dated 02.08.2003 have lapsed under Section 11A of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the 1894 Act'), for not
making an award within two years from the date of the
order of the learned Single Judge in an earlier round of writ
petitions requiring the passing of such awards.
4. The learned Single Judge considered the
contentions raised and framed the following questions for
consideration:-
"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?"
5. After considering all the contentions raised, the
statutory provisions and the decisions on the point, it was
held that mere filing of a Writ Petition, Writ Appeal or
Special Leave Petition would not extend the period fixed
under Section 11A of the 1894 Act for making an award. It
was further found that in case of an acquisition initiated
prior to coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, ('the 2013 Act' for short), the time
-
period for passing the award under Section 25 of the 2013
Act, will have to be reckoned from 01.01.2014. It was
further found that the beneficiary cannot contend that the
acquisition is saved, since the delay is on account of the
default of the State and/or SLAO. The Writ Petitions were
accordingly allowed and the Preliminary Notification dated
20.05.2002 and the Final Notification dated 02.08.2003,
were quashed. The awards, if any, were also quashed
reserving liberty to the beneficiary to initiate such
proceedings, if any, against the State for damages caused to
the beneficiary.
6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant would contend that the appellant is the Special
APMC for Fruits and Vegetables, which is the beneficiary of
the acquisition and that the acquisition was for an urgent
public purpose, that is, the formation of a Vegetable Market,
which is a pressing need of the City of Bengaluru. It is
contended that the Preliminary Notification was issued on
20.05.2002 and a Final Notification on 02.08.2003. An
award was passed on 30.01.2005 and the beneficiary had
-
deposited the entire amount of Rs.2,31,057,507/- towards
the cost of the acquisition. After the award was passed, but
before possession of the lands could be taken over, the Writ
Petitioners had filed the first round of Writ Petitions
challenging the acquisition stating that the final
notification/declaration was not issued within one year from
the date of Preliminary Notification under Section 6(1) of the
1894 Act. On 22.11.2010, W.P.No.11298/2005 and
connected matters were disposed of upholding the
acquisition proceedings but quashing the award dated
30.01.2005 and directing as follows:-
"i. Writ petitions are partly allowed.
ii. The Writ Petitions in so for 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.
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."
7. The appellant as well as the landowners filed writ
appeals challenging the judgment but the appeals were
dismissed on 05.09.2011. The operative portion of the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.As.No.33-
34/2011 reads as follows:-
"47. While the acquisition proceedings are liable
to be quashed, they are being saved (not upheld) in
public interest. If the acquisition proceedings are
quashed, the Government has to start from the scratch
by issuing the preliminary notification. This course would
entitle the writ petitioners to claim and would make the
APMC liable to pay the compensation by determining the
market value prevailing as on the date of the issuance of
the fresh preliminary notification.
48. For all the aforesaid reasons, we affirm the
learned Single Judge's order. In the result, all these
appeals are dismissed. Review Petition No.302/2011 is
allowed by modifying the order dated 08.06.2011 in W.A.
No.46/2011 in terms of the instant order."
8. Thereafter, both sides preferred Special Leave
Petitions before the Apex Court challenging the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court. The SLP was dismissed on
-
17.04.2017, upholding the acquisition proceedings. While
the matter was pending in SLP, the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into effect
on 01.01.2014. It is contended by the learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant that though specific
contentions had been raised with reference to the lapsing of
the acquisitions, the Apex Court, while dismissing the SLP
had left open only the contention as to the applicability of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is therefore contended
that all other questions which stood raised in the earlier
round of Writ Petitions stood concluded as against the writ
petitioners. It is contended that thereafter, the present
batch of Writ Petitions were filed in 2017 and 2019, again
raising contentions as to the lapsing of the acquisition, which
have now been allowed by the learned Single Judge. It is
therefore contended that the prayers are barred by the
principle of constructive res judicata and the liberty having
been reserved by the Apex Court only to raise contentions in
-
terms of the 2013 Act, the learned Single Judge could not
have been considered the contentions raised afresh.
9. Further, it is contended that since the award had
admittedly been passed on 25.08.2020, the directions of the
Apex Court stood complied with and there was only a delay
in passing the award and no lapsing of the acquisitions as
alleged by the petitioners. It is further contended that there
was an inordinate delay on the part of the writ petitioners in
approaching the Court as against an acquisition which was
initiated on 20.05.2002 since the Writ Petitions were filed
only in 2017 and 2019. Further, it is contended that even in
case, it is found that there was an undue delay on the part
of the appellant in passing the award, the proper course
open to this Court would be to save the acquisition by
directing the payment of the compensation taking note of
the land value as exists at present and the quashing of the
Notification is not proper.
10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant placed the following decisions in support of his
contentions:-
-
• Gurmeet Singh v. Dhirendra Kumar, reported in
(2005) 13 SCC 434;
• Deepak Malik and Others v. Rakesh Batra, reported
in (2005) 13 SCC 113;
• Tirupati Balalji Developers (P) Ltd. and Others v.
State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2004) 5 SCC
1;
• Bharat Builder Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Parijat Flat
Owners Coop. Housing Society Ltd., reported in
(1999) 5 SCC 622;
• New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v.
Harkishan (Dead) through Legal Representatives
and Others, reported in (2017)3 SCC 588;
• M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka and
Others, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 408;
• Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi,
Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation v. Mahesh and Others,
reported in (2022) 2 SCC 772;
• Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory and
Others, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 477.
• Asgar and Others v. Mohan Varma and Others,
reported in (2020) 16 SCC 230;
• Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma
(Dead) by LRs and Others, reported in (2011) 2 SCC
54;
-
• Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis
Victor Coutinho (Dead) by LRs, reported in (1980) 3
SCC 223;
• Bombay Metropolitan Region Development
Authority, Bombay v. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. and
Others, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 642;
• M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Others,
reported in (1981) 3 SCC 36;
• Mithilesh Kumari and Another v. Prem Behari
Khare, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 95;
• Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited v.
M. Prabhakar and Others, reported in (2011) 5 SCC
607; and
• Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v.
Government of Karnataka and Others, reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 20.
11. Shri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate
General appearing for the State submits that since the
acquisition in question was admittedly for an important
public purpose. The learned Single Judge was not justified in
having interfered with the same on technical grounds. It is
submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge that
the acquisition has lapsed would result in undue delay in
-
completing the proceedings which are initiated for a larger
public purpose and will also lead to higher financial burden
for the State and the beneficiary. It is contended that the
mere delay in complying with the directions in the judgment
of the learned Single Judge in the earlier round of Writ
Petitions does not result in lapsing of the entire acquisition.
Since the Courts, in the first round of litigation had
permitted the passing of a fresh award, the delay is only in
passing the award as directed and the provisions of Section
11A of the 1894 Act would have no application in the
situation.
12. The learned Advocate General appearing for the
appellant placed the following decisions in support of his
contentions:-
• Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and
Others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129;
• General manager, Department of
Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram v. Jacob
s/o Kochuvarkey Kalliath (Dead) by LRs and
Others, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 662;
• Director of Inspection of Income Tax
(Investigation), New Delhi and Another v. Pooran
-
Mal & Sons and Another, reported in (1975) 4 SCC
568; and
• Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra reported
in (1997) 1 SCC 134.
13. For the respondents/land losers, Shri.
K.G.Raghavan, learned senior counsel submits that the
contentions raised in the first round of litigation was
specifically that the declaration under Section 6(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not within the prescribed
time and that the acquisition was bad for non compliance of
the prescribed procedure including the proper publication of
the Notification, issuance of individual notices and
consideration of the contentions raised. The said contentions
were considered and it was found that the proceedings for
acquisition were clearly initiated by procedural irregularities.
Though, the acquisition was saved relying on the decision of
the Apex Court in Barangore Jute Factory's case (supra),
the awards were quashed. During the pendency of the first
batch of Writ Petitions, there was a stay of proceedings
operating. Judgment was rendered on 22.11.2010.
-
Thereafter, there was no stay and the award was admittedly
passed only on 25.08.2020.
14. It is submitted that the Division Bench as well as
the Apex Court had clearly found that there was
manipulation of records placed before the Court to make it
appear that there was a later Notification under Section 4(1)
of the 1894 Act and this aspect is clearly mentioned in
paragraph No.10 of the Judgment of the Apex Court. It is
submitted that an acquiring authority, who had indulged in
sharp practices before the Court cannot seek any equity
before this Court in these proceedings. It is further
contended that the question whether the acquisition had
lapsed by operation of statute by not passing the award
within the time as permitted by this Court and the Apex
Court was not directly and substantially in issue in the
earlier round of the Writ Petitions and is therefore a fresh
cause of action and the Writ Petitions were maintainable.
15. The learned senior counsel has placed the
following decisions in support of his contentions:-
-
• Gokak Patel Volkart Limited v. Collector of
Central Excise, Belgaum, reported in (1987) 2 SCC
93;
• Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South
India Trust Association, CSI Cinod Secretariat,
Madras, reported in (1992) 3 SCC 1;
• J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Others,
reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291;
• Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and Others v. State
of T.N. and Others, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533;
• Bhimandas Ambwani (Dead) through LRs v.
Delhi Power Company Limited, reported in (2013)
14 SCC 195;
• Sajan P.M. S/o Late Madhavan v. The Land
Acquisition Officer, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine
Ker 29722;
• Central Bank of India and Others v. Dragendra
Singh Jadon, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 378;
• Pyare Lal and Others v. Union of India and
Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine All 2857; and
• Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another v.
Bimal Kumar Shah and Others, reported in (2024)
10 SCC 533.
16. Shri S.S.Naganand, learned senior counsel
appearing for the private respondents submitted that res
-
judicata is a question which must be decided on facts and
not on law. He contended that the cause of action being
separate and the issues raised also being distinct, there
would be no question of res judicata, constructive or
otherwise. It is further contended that though the
beneficiary is a person interested in the acquisition
proceedings, the beneficiary cannot maintain a appeal
against the judgment holding that the acquisition has
lapsed, without the acquiring authority challenging the
same. Further, reliance is placed on paragraphs No.19 and
20 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.11298/2005 and connected matters, the judgment
of the Division Bench as well as the findings of the Apex
Court in the earlier round of litigation.
17. The learned senior counsel would also place
reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court:-
• Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. and
Others v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Others,
reported in (1997) 5 SCC 772;
-
• Union of India and another v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer and others, reported in (1996)
6 SCC 454;
• Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi,
Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation v. Mahesh and Others,
reported in (2022) 2 SCC 772; (paragraph No.30)
• Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board,
Peermade and Another, reported in (1999) 5 SCC
590;
• Laxman Pandya and Others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others, reported in (2011) 14 SCC
94; and
• Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board v.
R. Parthasarathi and Others, reported in 2020 SCC
OnLine Mad 2962.
18. Shri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contends
that the question of res judicata does not arise in the
present case at all. It is contended that there is a clear
distinction between the prayer to quash a Notification and a
contention that the acquisition has lapsed by operation of
law. It is contended that the first batch of Writ Petitions
filed before this Court was on the allegation that the final
-
notification/declaration under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act
was not within time from the issuance of the Preliminary
Notification. The learned Single Judge found that the
Preliminary Notification was on 20.05.2002 and the
declaration under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act was on
02.08.2003, that is after the period of one year and
therefore the acquisition stood lapsed and no award could
have been passed thereafter. The Awards were therefore
quashed. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) was directed to
pass a fresh award taking into consideration the market
value of the lands as on the date of the judgment that is
22.11.2010. This finding was affirmed in Appeals, which
came to be dismissed on 05.09.2011. As on the said date,
the time provided to pass the award had not lapsed.
19. Though the matter was taken up by both sides
before the Apex Court, there was no interim order passed by
the Apex Court. Therefore, the time provided to pass the
award expired during the pendency of the SLPs. Section 11A
of the 1894 Act, being admittedly applicable and the
language of the Section being clear, it is urged that in the
-
absence of an order of stay, the time would have continued
to run and the acquisition, therefore, stood lapsed. It is
contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents that even if the dismissal of the SLP is taken as
the starting point for time under Section 11A of the 1894
Act, no award was passed within the time provided and
thus, the acquisitions again stood lapsed. It is contended
that the lapsing of the acquisition by not passing of an
award within the time provided even after the dismissal of
the Writ Appeal is a fresh cause of action and the principle of
constructive res judicata can have absolutely no application.
It is further contended that the written submissions placed
before the Apex Court cannot be construed as pleadings and
the arguments raised before the Apex Court cannot be held
against the petitioner in these proceedings since the earlier
cause of action being completely distinct and different from
the present one. It is further contended that the time
provided under Section 11A of the Act, cannot be extended
by the Courts especially where what is being construed is a
provision in a beneficial legislation.
-
20. Though it is contended by the learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondents that the appellant is
not the beneficiary of the acquisition in question, we notice
that the respondents themselves had made the appellant a
party to the Writ Petitions as the beneficiary of the
acquisition and therefore the said contention need not be
considered.
21. The learned senior counsel would also place
reliance on the following judgments:-
• Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia and Another v.
Land Acquisition Officer and Another, reported in
(2003) 5 SCC 83;
• Sri. Doddanarasimha Reddy v. State of Karnataka,
by Order dated 13.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.16351
of 2014 (LA-RES);
• Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by LRs v. State of U.P. and
Others, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 85;
• Ashok Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and
Another, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 470;
• Reliance Power Limited, Formerly R.E. Generan
Limited v. Babu Singh and Others, reported in (2014)
10 SCC 785;
-
• Jayamma and Others v. Deputy Commissioner,
Hassan District, Hassan and Others, reported in
(2013) 7 SCC 554;
• A.S. Naidu and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and
Others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 801;
• Union of India and Others v. Mahendra Girji and
Others, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 682;
• Singareni Collieries Company Limited v. Vemuganti
Ramakrishan Rao and Others, reported in (2013) 8
SCC 789;
• Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra and
Others, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1;
• Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh and
Others, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 258;
• Smt. Nagu Bai and Others v. State of Karnataka,
reported in ILR 2001 KAR 1169;
• State of Telangana and Others v. D. Mahesh Kumar
and Another, reported in (2018) 15 SCC 703;
• State of Maharashtra and Others v. Moti Ratan
Estate and Another, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 552;
• Raj Kumar Gandhi v. Chandigarh Administration and
Others, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 763;
• Khub Chand and Others v. State of Rajasthan and
Others, reported in (1967) 1 SCR 120;
-
• Kaliyappan v. State of Kerala and Others, reported in
(1989) 1 SCC 113;
• R.B. Dealers Private Limited v. Metro Railway,
Kolkata, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 658;
• Union of India and Another v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer and Others, reported in (1996) 6
SCC 454;
• The Special Agricultural Produce Market Committee
for Fruits and Vegetables v. N. Krishnappa and
Others etc., by Order dated 17.04.2017 passed in
Civil Appeal Nos.5248-5274 of 2017;
• M. Suresh Kumar and Another v. The State of
Karnataka and Others, by Order dated 06.09.2022
passed in W.P.No.11551 of 2019 (LA-RES) and
connected matters;
• Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar and Others,
reported in (2012) 12 SCC 443;
• Delhi Development Authority v. Simla Devi and
Others, reported in (2018) 17 SCC 268;
• Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited and Others v.
Deepak Aggarwal and Others, reported in (2023) 6
SCC 512;
-
• Government (NCT of Delhi) and Another v.
Mahendra Singh and Others, reported in (2017) 11
SCC 382;
• Mallavva w/o Ramappa Sheelavantar and Others v.
The State of Karnataka and Others, by Order dated
15.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.103235 of 2021 (KLR-
RR/SUR);
• Laxmi Devi v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in
(2015) 10 SCC 241;
• Soorajmull Nagarmull v. State of Bihar and Others,
reported in (2015) 10 SCC 270;
• R. Rajashekar and Others v. Trinity House Building
Cooperative Society and Others, reported in (2016)
16 SCC 46;
• State of Haryana and Another v. Devander Sagar
and Others, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 746;
• Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 665;
• Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade v. State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 266;
and
• U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and
Another, reported in (1998) 2 SCC 467.
-
22. We have considered the contentions advanced as
also the statutory provisions and the decisions relied on.
The only question we are called upon to decide is whether
the detailed findings of the learned Single Judge on facts
and law require interference in this intra-Court appeal.
23. The admitted facts are that the acquisition was
initiated as early as in the year 2002, under the provisions
of the 1894 Act. The initial award passed in the year 2005
stood quashed by this Court, which was upheld upto the
Apex Court. Therefore, it is clear that an award, as known to
law ought to have been passed by the acquiring authority
under the provisions of the statute. The land belonging to a
private person cannot be appropriated by the State or the
acquiring authority otherwise than by due process of law.
With the quashing of the award dated 30.01.2005, it was
imperative on the acquiring authority to make an award, in
accordance with law, within the statutorily permissible
period available in law.
24. We notice that the initial challenge raised to the
acquisition was on the ground that the declaration under
-
Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act was beyond the time and that
there were violations of the statutory requirements in the
publication of the notifications under Section 4 as well as the
declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. In the initial
batch of writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has found
as follows:-
"19. I am in respectful agreement with the law
declared by the Kerala High Court in M. Syed Mohammed
Shafi's case and therefore the last date of publication in
the Chavdi on 5.8.2002 is to be taken into consideration
for the purpose of computing the period of one year
specified in Section 6(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute
that the final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act
was issued on 2.8.2003. Therefore, the final notification
issued on 2.8.2003 is within the period of one year from
the date of preliminary notification published in the
Chavdi of the village on 5.8.2002. Therefore, the
contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that
there is delay in issuing final notification is hereby
rejected.
20. The defect in publishing the preliminary
notification in Kannada daily EE SANJE evening edition,
not serving personal notice on some of the petitioners
under Section 5-A enquiry after Bangalore bundh day on
12.09.2002 and the non-consideration of the objections
filed by the petitioners in detail by the Land Acquisition
Officer in his 5-A enquiry report may be grounds for
quashing the impugned notifications. If the impugned
-
notifications are quashed, the same is not a legal
impediment for the respondents to initiate fresh
acquisition proceedings and in that event the
respondents may require to pay the present market
value as compensation. x x x x x"
25. Thereafter, relying on the decision of the Apex
Court in Barangore Jute Factory's case (supra), the
learned Single Judge upheld the Notifications, but, quashed
the award dated 30.01.2005 and directed the passing of a
fresh award by taking into consideration the market value as
on the date of the judgment.
26. In appeal, the Division Bench specifically
considered the matter, summoned the records and held at
paragraphs No.41 and 42 of the judgment in W.As.No.33-
34/2011, as follows:-
"41. For yet another reason too, we find it hard
to believe that the substance of the preliminary
notification was displayed in the chavadi on 05.08.2002.
When some of the land-losers filed the applications under
the Right to Information Act and sought to know whether
the statement containing the substance of the
preliminary notification was affixed in the village
panchayat, they got the endorsement that the original
file pertaining to the land acquisition is not available.
-
42. For the two aforesaid reasons, we find it
hard to accept that the final notification, dated
02.08.2003 is within one year from the date of the last of
the publications of the preliminary notification, dated
20.05.2002. Thus, the acquisition proceedings do suffer
from the failure to comply with the statutory
requirement. Strictly speaking, the acquisition
proceedings are to be quashed on the ground of the
publication of the final notification beyond 1 year from
the date of the last of the publications of the preliminary
notification."
27. However, the Division Bench, considering the
larger public interest urged, saved the acquisition and
upheld the direction of the learned Single Judge to pass
awards afresh taking note of the current market value of the
property. The judgment of the Division Bench was taken up
before the Apex Court by the land losers as well as the
beneficiary. The Apex Court in it's order dated 17.04.2017
in Civil Appeals No.5248-5274/2017, held at paragraphs
No.8 to 10, as under:-
"8. We have considered the submissions on
behalf of the parties. The original acquisition records had
also been summoned by us. The observations of the
Division Bench appear justified. But in the nature of the
order passed, moulding the relief keeping in mind the
-
larger public interest involved in the acquisition, and in
view of Barangore Jute Factory (supra), we are not
satisfied that the order of the High Court calls for
interference.
9. In Barangore Jute Factory (supra) the
acquisition suffered from statutory non-compliance. In
view of the larger public interest involved in the
acquisition, declining to set aside the acquisition the
relief was moulded in the interest of justice observing:-
"14.........No useful purpose will be
served by quashing the impugned
notification at this stage. We cannot be
unmindful of the legal position that the
acquiring authority can always issue a
fresh notification for acquisition of the
land in the event of the impugned
notification being quashed. The
consequence of this will only be that
keeping in view the rising trend in prices
of land, the amount of compensation
payable to the landowners may be more.
Therefore, the ultimate question will be
about the quantum of compensation
payable to the landowners. Quashing of
the notification at this stage will give rise
to several difficulties and practical
problems. Balancing the rights of the
petitioners as against the problems
involved in quashing the impugned
notification, we are of the view that a
better course will be to compensate the
landowners, that is, the writ petitioners
appropriately for what they have been
deprived of. Interests of justice persuade
us to adopt this course of action."
10. Since the contention with regard to the 2013
Act will require examination of facts with due
opportunity, we do not consider it necessary to deal with
the same in the present proceedings and leave it open
-
for the aggrieved to pursue their remedies in accordance
with law before the appropriate forum, if so advised."
28. Even if we accept all the contentions raised by the
learned senior Counsel for the appellant, it was for the
beneficiary to have prevailed on the Government to pass the
award within the statutory time limit, in case the public need
was so pressing. We fail to see what prevented the
acquiring authority and the beneficiary from taking
appropriate steps to pass the award within time. Having
already suffered a finding that the notification was liable to
be quashed for non compliance of statutory timelines, the
appellant ought to have taken appropriate steps to see that
the remaining timelines are strictly adhered to. This was not
done. More so, we notice that the acquiring authority who
was duty bound to pass the awards in time has not even
filed an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge.
29. The learned Single Judge has considered all the
contentions raised in detail and has found that even if all the
contentions raised by the beneficiary are accepted, the
-
awards should have been passed at least within the
permissible time limit from the date of dismissal of the SLP
that is 17.04.2017. There is no dispute that the award is
passed only on 25.08.2020. We have no hesitation to hold
that the contentions raised in the appeals with regard to
extension of time limits are totally devoid of merits. We are
also of the opinion that the cause of action which led to the
present batch of Writ Petitions is totally different and the
principle of constructive res judicata can have no
application, where the cause of action as well as the issues
raised are entirely different. The issue raised in this batch of
writ petitions that the acquisition had lapsed on account of
the award not being passed within the statutory time limit as
prescribed in Section 11A of the 1894 Act was never in issue
in the previous round of litigation.
30. The contention that the writ petitions were
belated also cannot be accepted since the cause of action for
filing of the present batch of writ petitions arose only when
the award was not passed within time as provided under the
Act. At the relevant time, the parties were still in Court on
-
the question whether the earlier award was sustainable or
not. Therefore, the said contention also cannot be accepted.
The further contention raised that the acquisition is to be
saved in public interest and that the land value as on today
can be reckoned also cannot be accepted in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case.
31. Having given our anxious consideration to the
contentions raised, we are of the opinion that there is
absolutely no ground made out for interference with the
findings of the learned Single Judge, which are well-
reasoned and legally sustainable. The writ appeals therefore
fail and the same are accordingly dismissed.
Pending IAs, if any, in all the appeals, shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*
