[Cites 46, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Jamnalal Bajaj Seva Trust vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2026
-1-
WA No. 250 of 2025
C/W WA No. 260 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2025 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 260 OF 2025 (LA-RES)
IN WA No. 250/2025
BETWEEN:
JAMNALAL BAJAJ SEVA TRUST
13TH KM,MAGADI ROAD,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BENGALURU-560091
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
COL. B K NAIR
Digitally ...APPELLANT
signed by (BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
NIRMALA
DEVI SRI. RAJESWARA P N, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEAPRTMENT
MS BUIDLING BENGALURU -560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
-2-
WA No. 250 of 2025
C/W WA No. 260 of 2025
KRISHI BHAVAN
BENGALURU -560001
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
VISVESWARAYA CENTRE
III FLOOR PODIUM BLOCK,
DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU -560001
4. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE
YESHWANTHPURA
BENGALURU -560022
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN.V. RON, AAG A/W
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. NANDA KISHORE, MR. CHETAN RAMESH AND
MR. ARVIND RAMESH, ADVOCATES FOR C/R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 03/02/2025 IN WP NO.3884/1999, PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC.
IN WA NO. 260/2025
BETWEEN:
JAMNALAL BAJAJ SEVA TRUST
13TH KM, MAGADI ROAD,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BENGALURU-560091
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
COL B K NAIR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. RAJESWARA P N, ADVOCATE)
-3-
WA No. 250 of 2025
C/W WA No. 260 of 2025
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU -560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
KRISHI BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560001
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
VISWESWARAYYA CENTRE
III FLOOR PODIUM BLOCK,
DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
4. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET
COMMITTEE,YESWANTHPURA
BENGALURU 560022
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN.V.RON, AAG A/W
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. NANDA KISHORE, MR. CHETAN RAMESH AND
MR. ARVIND RAMESH, ADVOCATES FOR C/R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 03.02.2025 IN WP No. 37140/2000 (LA-RES), PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-4-
WA No. 250 of 2025
C/W WA No. 260 of 2025
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
1. The present appeals are filed by the writ petitioner impugning
the common order dated 03.02.2025, whereunder the learned
Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions.
2. The facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that
the appellant - a Public Charitable Trust (Trust) was registered
under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and established in the
year 1942 with the object of helping any person or institution for
relieving distress, improving health and physical condition,
promoting spiritual, intellectual and social welfare, imparting
educational training in all or any of its branches, advancing moral
welfare, general welfare of mankind, more particularly, women,
children, villagers, illiterate backward classes and suppressed
people of the world. The Trust claims to have been established
based on the inspiration received from the preachings of Mahatma
Gandhi and Vinoba Bhave.
Brief Facts
3. The Trust claimed to be the owner of various lands in
Srigandada Kaval village and Herohalli village, Yeshwanthpura
Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
4. Pursuant to a requisition made by respondent No.4 -
Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bengaluru (APMC)
established under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural
Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (Act,
1966) for the purpose of establishing a Mega Market, a preliminary
notification dated 02.09.1994 (gazetted on 03.09.1994) was issued
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act)
notifying a total extent of 172 acres 22 guntas in Survey Nos.12/1,
12/ 2, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 42 and 43 of Srigandada Kaval
village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk (subject 'A'
property). The preliminary notification was stated to have been
published in the local Kannada newspaper on 17.09.1994 and
affixed in the Village Chavadi on 11.10.1994. A final notification
was issued on 10.10.1996 under Section 6 of the LA Act. The final
notification was published in the English daily newspaper - Indian
Express on 30.10.1996 and in Kannada daily newspaper -
Samyuktha Karnataka on 31.10.1996 and in the Village Chavadi on
06.12.1996. The draft award was prepared on 12.08.1998 for a
compensation of Rs.9,14,14,827/-.
5. The Trust filed Writ Petition No.3884/1999 challenging the
acquisition made in respect of the subject 'A' property and sought
for the following reliefs:
(i) Declare that the entire acquisition proceedings
commencing with the issue of a preliminary
notification gazette on 3.9.1994 marked as
Annexure-A in the writ petition have lapsed on
account of the award not having been made within
a period of two years in terms of Section 11A of the
Land Acquisition Act.
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order
or direction to quash Annexure-A, the preliminary
notification LAQ (2) SR/32/94-95 DATED 2.9.1994
PUBLISHE DIN TH Karnataka Gazette dated
3.9.1994 and Annexure the final notification No.
RDD 21 LAQ 96 dated 10.10.1996 published in the
Karnataka Gazette dated 31.10.1996.
6. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide interim order dated
8.2.1999 stayed dispossession of the writ petitioner from subject 'A'
property.
7. During the pendency of the said writ petition (i.e.,
WP.No.3884/1999) a preliminary notification dated 13.04.1999 was
issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Karnataka
Amendment Act 33/1991 to the LA Act notifying a total extent of
104 acres 5 guntas of land in Survey Nos.30, 31, 32, 41 to 49, 51
and 52 of Herohalli village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North
Taluk. Enquiry under Section 5A of the LA Act was dispensed with.
A final notification was issued under Section 6(1) of the LA Act
read with Section 17(1) to 17(4) of the Karnataka Amendment Act
33/1991 to the LA Act, was issued on 26.10.1999 (gazetted on
18.11.1999) in respect of 100 acres 11 guntas of land (subject 'B'
property) out of 104 acres 5 guntas of land, which was notified
under the preliminary notification. Possession was directed to be
taken as contemplated under Section 17 (1) of the LA Act within 15
days.
8. The Trust filed Writ Petition No.37140/2000 challenging the
acquisition of subject 'B' property seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other writ or
order, quashing the impugned notification at
Annexure-B dated 13.04.1999 gazetted on
17.04.1999 in LAC(2) SR 2/99-2000 issued by the
second respondent and also the notification at
Annexure-C dated 26.10.1999 gazetted on
18.11.1999 in No. Kam. E.68.AQ8-99 issued by the
first respondent.
OR
(ii) In the alternative direct the respondents to pay
compensation to the petitioner in terms of the
proceedings of the meeting dated 29.04.1999 Vide
Annexure-D.
9. It is the contention of the APMC and the State that
possession of 65 acres 19 guntas of land forming part of the
subject 'B' property was taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer
(LAO) and handed over to the APMC vide Official Memorandum of
Possession dated 06.10.2000 and an award was passed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) on 26.03.2002 in respect
of subject 'B' property and the award provided for payment of the
compensation to the Trust after excluding 34 acres 14 guntas of
acquired land by treating the same as phut kharab belonging to the
government. In the award, a further extent of 35 acres was
excluded, which was the subject matter of Writ Petition
No.708/2000 filed by one Vishwaneedham Trust. A learned Single
Judge of this Court had granted an interim order in Writ Petition
No.708/2000 staying the dispossession of the writ petitioner. The
Trust accepted the compensation under protest and also filed LAC
No.1/2003 seeking for enhancement of the compensation.
10. As noted above, Writ Petition No.3884/1999 was with respect
to the subject 'A' property (172 acres 22 guntas) and Writ Petition
No.37140/2000 was with respect to subject 'B' property (100 acres
11 guntas).
11. The APMC filed IA.No.3/2008 seeking permission to put up a
wall around 65 acres of land, which was allowed vide order dated
12.2.2009.
12. During the pendency of the aforementioned writ petitions, the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) was
enacted. In both the writ petitions, the Trust filed applications for
amendment to declare that the acquisition proceedings are
deemed to have lapsed in view of the provisions of the RFCTLARR
Act, which amendments were granted.
13. It is also pertinent to note that the Land Reforms Tribunal
passed an order dated 28.11.2017 in the proceedings under the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (KLR Act) which was
challenged by the Trust before this Court and remanded to the
Tribunal on many occasions. Finally, the Tribunal by order dated
28.11.2017 declared that an extent of 354 acres 10 guntas of land
owned by the Trust was excess land under the KLR Act, which was
set aside by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated
30.6.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.55344/2017. The order
passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division
Bench vide order dated 22.6.2022 passed in Writ Appeal
- 10 -
No.1089/2021. The Special Leave Petition filed by the State (being
SLP No.14524/2022) was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide
order dated 29.8.2022.
14. The writ petitions filed by the Trust in respect of subject 'A'
property and subject 'B' property (being WP.Nos.3884/1999 and
37140/2000) as well as Writ Petition No.708/2000 filed by
Vishwaneedham Trust were heard together along with Writ Petition
No.19579/2001, wherein the acquisition was challenged by the
Trust in respect of an extent of 3 acres 34 guntas of land. The
learned Single Judge framed the following points for consideration:
a. Whether the disposal of these petitioners should
deferred pending adjudication and determination by
the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk of the
excess holdings or otherwise under the provisions
of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 of the
very lands which are the subject matter herein.
b. Whether the possession of a portion of the lands
in question having said to have been given to
APMC can be said to be valid and in accordance
with law.
c. Whether the invocation of Section 17 of the LA
Act in the acquisition of a portion of the lands for
the same purpose was justified.
d. Whether the acquiring authority could keeping
abeyance the mandate to pay or deposit the
compensation amount pending disposal of the
- 11 -
proceedings before the Land Tribunal in respect of
the lands.
e. Whether the acquisition proceedings have
lapsed by virtue of the 2013 Act.
15. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.06.2014
allowed the writ petitions and held that the acquisitions have lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act. The said order of the
learned Single Judge was affirmed by a Coordinate Bench vide
order dated 13.9.2017. Review petitions filed to review the order
passed in writ appeals were also rejected by the Coordinate Bench
vide order dated 28.06.2019. The orders passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench in the writ appeals and the review petitions were
the subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal Nos.1345-46/2022. The Supreme Court, vide order dated
22.03.2022 set aside the finding that the acquisition had lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act and remanded the
matters to the learned Single Judge to adjudicate upon all other
contentions raised by the parties.
16. After remand, the learned Single Judge noticed the questions
that were framed for consideration in the writ petitions at the first
instance and held that questions (a) and (e) having already been
adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, only questions (b), (c) and
- 12 -
(d) would arise for consideration. The learned Single Judge, vide
the impugned order has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the
Trust. Being aggrieved, the present appeals are filed.
17. It is relevant to note here that in the first round of litigation
four writ petitions (being W.P. No. 3884 of 1999, W.P. No. 37140 of
2000, W.P. No. 708 of 2000 and W.P. No. 19579 of 2001) were the
subject matter of the order dated 24.06.2014 of the learned Single
Judge. W.P. No. 3884 of 1999 and W.P. No. 37140 of 2000 have
been filed by the Appellant - Trust. W.P. No. 708 of 2000 was filed
by Vishwaneedam Trust who was stated to be the tenant of the
Trust with respect to an extent of 35 acres. It is forthcoming from
the record that the disputes between the said writ petitioner and the
Trust were resolved and the said Writ Petition i.e., W.P. No. 708 of
2000 was disposed of as infructuous vide order dated 24.6.2014.
W.P. No. 19579 of 2001 was filed by the Trust which is with respect
to an extent of 3 acres 34 guntas of Herohalli village which was not
challenged before the Supreme Court. Hence, after remand only
W.P. No. 3884 of 1999 and W.P. No. 37140 of 2000 are the subject
matter of the impugned order.
- 13 -
Contentions:
18. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing for the
appellant - Trust in both the appeals assailing the order of the
learned Single Judge contends:
(i) that the Trust has continued in possession of the land
and the possession has not been taken. The mahazar
that is relied upon to contend that the possession has
been taken has been assailed, inter-alia, contending
that the same is in a printed format and does not
adequately demonstrate that possession has been
taken;
(ii) the acquisition process has not been completed within
the timelines as contemplated under the LA Act.
(iii) that the appellant being a Trust which is formed with
avowed objects, its land ought not to be acquired,
albeit, for the purpose of establishing a market yard;
(iv) the APMC, which is the beneficiary of the acquisition
has decided to establish the market yard at another
place as is forthcoming from the say of APMC, made
in collateral proceedings;
- 14 -
(v) There are no grounds to invoke the urgency provision
while issuing the notification which is the subject
matter of consideration in WP No.37140-146/2000;
(vi) That the compensation amounts received by the Trust
were under protest and have been re-deposited with
the Government;
(vii) The learned Single Judge has not adequately
appreciated the contentions put forth by the Trust,
which is the owner of the property while dismissing the
writ petition and the order of the learned Single Judge
is erroneous.
Hence, the learned counsel seeks for granting of the reliefs
sought for in the writ petition.
19. Learned Senior Counsels Sri K.G.Raghavan and
Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, appearing for the APMC, justifying the order
of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition contend:
(i) All the requirements of the LA Act have been complied
with and no fault can be found in the acquisition
process;
(ii) The purpose of the acquisition is for setting up of a
market yard by the APMC for marketing agricultural
- 15 -
products and the same being beneficial to the public,
the acquisition process ought not to be interdicted;
(iii) The possession of the property has been taken as is
forthcoming from the record and that the Trust has
also accepted the compensation. Hence, it is not open
to the Trust to challenge the acquisition;
(iv) Various meetings have taken place between the
representatives of the Trust, State Authorities as well
as representatives of the APMC for the purpose of
determining the compensation payable. The Trust
having acquiesced to the acquisition process, it is not
open to it to subsequently challenge the said
acquisition;
(v) The scope of judicial review vis-à-vis the reasons for
invocation of the urgency clause are very limited and
the reasons set out by the executive under normal
circumstances ought not to be interfered with.
(vi) The learned Single Judge has adequately appreciated
the relevant factual matrix of the matter as well as the
legal position and rejected the writ petition which ought
not to be interfered with in the present appeal.
- 16 -
Hence, the learned counsel seeks for dismissal of the above
appeals.
20. Sri Kiran Ron, learned AAG appearing for the State supports
the contentions put forth on behalf of the APMC and also contends
that there is no fault in the acquisition process.
21. The learned counsels rely on various judgments in support of
their respective contentions, which shall be referred to the extent
that they are required to adjudicate the questions that arises for
consideration.
Reasoning and Conclusion:
22. Before adverting to the contentions of the parties and the
findings of the learned Single Judge, a slightly detailed appreciation
of the factual matrix is required. A preliminary notification was
issued on 02.09.1994 under Section 4(1) of the LA Act for
acquisition of the subject 'A' property for "the purpose of public
interest i.e., to construct market yard of the APMC, Bengaluru". The
preliminary notification was published in the Kannada daily
newspapers on 17.09.1994 and is stated to have been affixed in
the Village Chavadi on 11.10.1994. On 10.10.1996 the final
notification was issued under Section 6 of the LA Act in respect of
subject 'A' property. The final notification was published in the
- 17 -
English daily newspaper 'Indian Express' on 31.10.1996 and in the
Kannada daily newspaper 'Samyuktha Karnataka' on 30.10.1996.
A copy of the same was also stated to have been affixed on the
Village Chavadi on 06.12.1996. A draft award was prepared on
12.08.1998 for a compensation of Rs.9,14,14,837/-.
23. Vide letter dated 04.02.1999 addressed by the APMC to the
Director, Agricultural Marketing Department, Government of
Karnataka, it was communicated that apart from the extent of 172
acres 22 guntas of land acquired in Srigandada Kaval village,
having regard to the needs for 100 years in the Mega Market
proposed to be established in the said land, which was to be
constructed in a scientific manner, broad inner roads, path ways,
water facility, electricity facility, public toilets, banks, post office, fire
brigade, cold storage, warehouse, weighing balance, well equipped
vehicle parking area, farmers stay facility, administrative office and
various other basic amenities are included in the project and
hence, in addition to the land that was acquired, the adjoining land
belonging to the Trust of an extent of 95 acres 5 guntas in Herohalli
village was required to be acquired. The said proposal was also
discussed in the meeting held on 05.02.1999 and it was decided to
- 18 -
place the same before the Single Window Committee of the
Government.
24. The Director, Agricultural Marketing Department,
Government of Karnataka, vide letter dated 15.02.1999 addressed
to the Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka, requested for
acquisition of 95 acres 5 guntas of land in Herohalli village, urgently
under Section 17(1) of the LA Act. The Single Window Committee,
under the chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, Government of
Karnataka, Revenue Department, in its meeting held on
23.03.1999 discussed various proposals including the additional
land sought for by the APMC at Herohalli village and in the said
meeting approved the said project.
25. A preliminary notification dated 13.04.1999 was issued under
Sections 4(1) and 7(4) of the LA Act for a total extent of 104.05
acres in Herohalli village for "the public purpose i.e., for
construction of the mega market by the APMC". It is stated in the
said notification that an order has been passed by the Government
that the provisions of Section 5A, as per the emergency
rules/powers of the Government of Karnataka endowed in Section
1(4) of the Karnataka Amendment dated 13.4.1999 has been
issued. The final notification dated 26.10.1999 for a total extent of
- 19 -
100 acres 11 guntas (i.e., the subject 'B' property) has been issued
under Section 17 read with Section 6 of the LA Act. It was notified
that the possession of the lands as per the powers conferred under
Section 17(1) and Sections 9 and 10 of the LA Act would be taken
within fifteen (15) days of the publication.
26. The Trust, vide letter dated 26.03.1999 addressed to the
SLAO regarding acquisition of the land at Herohalli village and
Srigandada Kaval village, which letter was also marked as "Without
Prejudice" stated as under:
"Sir,
The Government have issued notification under Section
6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the establishment
of Mega Market in Srigandadakavalu involving an extent of
172 acres, against which we have already obtained a stay
from Hon'ble High Court. That Government intends to
acquire another 98 acres of land in Herohalli which is
adjecent to the lands already notified in Srigandadakavalu.
Although we have obtained a stay for the just 172 acres, we
may be agreeable for a consent award of the entire land
acquisition for public purpose only if the following conditions
are met:-
1. Market value is fixed after negotiation with the trust for
the several Sy. Nos. of both Srigandadakavalu and
Herohalli villages.
- 20 -
2. Márket value for the malkies should also be fixed by the
competent authority.
3. Interest is to be paid on award from the date of taking
possession.
We request that the trust may please be intimated in this
regard for taking further action in the matter."
27. In the meeting dated 24.9.1999 convened by the Principal
Secretary of the Government, Revenue Department, for fixation of
the land value in respect of the lands acquired in favour of the
APMC for establishment of a mega market, it was agreed that the
market value of the subject 'A' property be fixed at Rs.15.00 lakhs
per acres and the subject 'B' property be fixed at Rs.9.5 lakhs per
acre. The following guidelines were agreed upon in the said
meeting:
" (1) To fix the market value of the lands notified vide RD 21
AQB 96 dated 10.10.1996 for acquisition for establishing
Kmega Market i.e. Survey number in Srigandada kaval
village, Bangalore North Taluk at Rs.15 lakhs per acre
which also include the value of all malkies like value of
standing trees, building etc.,
(2) To fix market value of the lands notified for acquisition
for establishing a mega market by the agriculture producing
- 21 -
Marketing Committee i.e. Survey numbers of Herohalli
Village, Bangalore North Taluk at Rs.9.5 lakhs per acre
which is inclusive of all standing trees, building, whichever
other malkies on it.
(3) that the value so fixed is subject to the outcome of all
litigations pending before various courts of law.
(4) That the Khatedars will execute an agreement in Form D
as required under Rule 10B of the Karnataka Land
Acquisition Rules r/w. Sub-Section (2) of Section 11 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per Circular dated RD 136
AQW dated 7.8.1986.
(5) That the Khatedars will also execute an Indemnity Bond
and the Special Land Acquisition Officer is authorised to
sign the agreement and the Indemnity Bond.
(6)That they will hand over the possession of lands
wherever there are no litigation immediately."
28. Vide letter dated 9.10.2000 addressed by the appellant -
Trust to the SLAO, Bengaluru, while responding to the notice dated
12.4.2000 purported to have been issued under Sections 9 and 10
of the LA Act, it was stated as under:
"1. The lands situated at Sreegandhadakavalu village
was proposed to be acquired by order
No.LAQ(2)SR32/94-95 dated 2.9.1994 and the lands
situate at Herehalli village was proposed to be acquired
under notification No.LAQ(2)SR2/99-2000 published on
- 22 -
13.04.1999.
2. In that connection a meeting had been convened on
24.09.1999 of all the officers concerned with the
Acquisition of the lands, officers of the APMC, for which
the land was sought to be acquired and the
representatives of the trust under the Chairmanship of
Principal Revenue Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka,
Bangalore the said meeting had been convened on the
request of the APMC made to the Revenue Secretary
Govt. of Karnataka, Bangalore.
3. In the said meeting after due consideration,
deleberations and discussions the market value for
each acre of land at Srigandhadakavalu village was
agreed Rs.15.00 lakh and that of the each acre of land
situated at Heronahalli village was agreed at Rs.9.5
lakhs.
4. In persuance to the said agreement which is at valid
market value under Section 11(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by
his letter No.LAQ(1)SR.1/99-2000 dated 11.10.1999
was pleased to fix the market value at Rs.9.5 lakhs for
each acre of land situated at Herohalli village. The LAQ
by his letter No. LAQ(3)SR4/94-95 dated 11.10.1999
was pleased to fix the market value of Rs.15 lakhs for
each acres of lands situated at Srigandhadakavalu
village. As already pointed out, the award has already
been passed fixing the market value of Rs.9.5 lakhs for
each acres of land at Herohalli village and the said
- 23 -
award was become final as per the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act.
5. The proposed enquiry under section 9 & 10 of the
Land Acquisition Act would not arise as the market
value of the lands is already fixed and the award has
been passed.
6. In the circumstances further enquiry as notified in
your notice dated 12.04.2000 would not arise and
further enquiry may be droped.
7. Further, we draw the attention to our letter No.
VISC/99-2000/608 dated 13.07.2000 in which we had
sought for the payment of the amount as per the award
which comes to Rs.951.045 lakhs to enable the Trust to
handover the possession of the lands concerned
Heronahalli village. A remainder was also sent by the
Trust to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore
dated 10.08.2000.
8. We submit that if the payment is paid as per the
award, we will make necessary arrangement to
handover the possession of the lands situated at
Heronahalli village.
We are expecting early action in the matter by this
authority and further we may be communicated on the
action taken by the office of the Special Land
Acquisition officer in this regard.
- 24 -
29. The APMC has placed on record that it has deposited a total
sum of Rs.6,02,99,784/- with respect of lands acquired in Herohalli
village and that the land owners have withdrawn a sum of
Rs.2,36,96,175/- and a sum Rs.3,66,03,609/- is in deposit. It is
further placed on record that the APMC has deposited a sum of
Rs.9,14,14,873/- with respect to the lands in Srigandada Kaval
village. A sum of Rs.2,36,96,175/- was admittedly received by the
Trust towards the value of the acquired land. It is pertinent to state
here that the said sum of Rs.2,36,96,175/- was repaid vide three
(3) Demand Drafts dated 18.10.2014 which was sent to the office
of the SLAO, which was after dismissal of the writ petitions by the
learned Single Judge in the first round of litigation. However, after
dismissal of the Review Petitions by the Division Bench vide order
dated 28.06.2019, the said Demand Drafts were validated and the
Trust has placed material on record to demonstrate that the same
has been liquidated thereafter.
30. It is to be noticed that the Trust filed a reference petition
under Section 18 of the LA Act in LAC No.1/2003 in respect of 32
acres 05 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.30, 31, 32, 43, 49 and 52/2 of
Herohalli village seeking for enhancement of the compensation.
The Trust also executed indemnity bonds dated 23.09.2002 and
- 25 -
29.03.2003 while receiving the compensation of Rs.2,00,05,445/-
and Rs.3,30,03,203/- with respect of the said extent of 32 acres 05
guntas of land.
31. Vide Official Memorandum dated 06.10.2000, the SLAO
documented having taken possession of a total extent of 65 acres
19 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.30, 31 and other survey numbers in
Herohalli village. Out of the said extent, 33 acres 14 guntas is phut
kharab land. It is also forthcoming from the record that Mahazars
dated 07.12.2017 were drawn with regard to the entire extents of
land sought to be acquired at both Srigandada Kaval village as well
as Herohalli village. It is the contention of the State that the awards
could not be passed due to the interim order granted in various
litigations.
32. With regard to the contention of the appellants that there was
a delay in concluding the acquisition proceedings and hence, the
same had lapsed by virtue of proviso (ii) to Section 6 and Section
11 of the LA Act, the relevant factual matrix is as under:
32.1 With regard to the acquisition of the subject 'A' property is as
under:
- 26 -
• Notification under section 4(1) of the LA Act was published
on 03.09.1994. The same was published in the newspaper
on 17.09.1994 and pasted in the Village Chavadi on
11.10.1994;
• The acquisition proceedings were stayed in Writ Petition
No.28988 of 1994 between 22.12.1994 and 23.12.1995;
• Final Notification under Section 6(1) of the LA Act was
issued on 10.10.1996 and published in the Kannada daily
newspaper on 27.10.1996 and the English daily newspaper
on 30.10.1996. It was published in the gazette on
31.10.1996;
• Interim order of stay was granted vide order dt. 16.09.1997 in
W.P.No.6880 of 1997, which petition was disposed of on
15.07.2014;
• Draft award dated 12.08.1998 was passed for a sum of
Rs.9,14,14,837/-.
• Stay of dispossession was ordered vide interim order dt.
08.02.1999 in W.P.No. 3884 of 1998.
32.2 With regard to the subject 'B' property is as under:
- 27 -
• The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act
(dispensing with Section 5 enquiry) was issued on
13.04.1999;
• Final notification under Section 6(1) of the LA Act was issued
26.10.1999 which was published in the gazette on
18.11.1999;
• Possession of 65 acres 19 guntas was taken on 06.10.2000;
• Vide interim order dt. 04.12.2000 passed in W.P.No. 37140
of 2000, status quo was ordered to be maintained.
33. Sections 4 and 6 of the LA Act read as under:
4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of
officers thereupon.-(1)Whenever it appears to the
appropriate Government that land in any locality [is needed
or] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a
company) a notification to that effect shall be published in
the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating
in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional
language], and the Collector shall cause public notice of the
substance of such notification to be given at convenient
places in the said locality [(the last of the dates of such
publication and the giving of such public notice, being
hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the
notification).
- 28 -
(2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either
generally or specially authorised by such Government in
this behalf, and for his servants and workmen,-
to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land
in such locality; to dig or bore into the sub-soil;
to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether
the land is adapted for such purpose;
to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be
taken and the intended line of the work (if any)
proposed to be made thereon;
to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing
marks and cutting trenches; and,
where otherwise the survey cannot be completed
and the levels taken and the boundaries and line
marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any
standing crop, fence or jungle:
Provided that no person shall enter into any building or
upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling-
house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof)
without previously giving such occupier at least seven days
notice in writing of his intention to do so.
6. Declaration that land is required for a public
purpose.-(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act,
when the 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
- 29 -
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 authorised 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 (1)
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, 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, shall be made after the
expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the
notification:
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.
- 30 -
Explanation 1.-In computing any of the periods referred to in
the first proviso, the period during which any action or
proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification
issued under section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an
order of a Court shall be excluded.
Explanation 2. Where the compensation to be awarded for
such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation
owned or controlled by the State such compensation shall
be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues.
(2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official
Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the
locality in which the land is situate of which at least one
shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall
cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to
be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of
the date of such publication and the giving of such public
notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the
publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall
state the district or other territorial division in which the land
is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its
approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made
of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected.
(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that
the land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company, as
the case may be; and, after making such declaration, the
appropriate Government may acquire the land in manner
hereinafter appearing.
- 31 -
34. The proviso (ii) to Section 6 of the LA Act stipulates that the
final notification was required to be published within one year from
the date of the publication of the preliminary notification.
Admittedly, violation of Section 6 does not arise with regard to the
subject B property and the said contention is required to be
considered only with respect to the subject A property. Having
regard to Section 4(1) of the LA Act, the last date of publication of
the preliminary notification and the giving of such public notice is to
be construed as the date of publication. In the facts of the present
case, the preliminary notification, although issued on 02.09.1994
and published in the gazette on 03.09.1994, the same was
published in the newspapers on 17.09.1994 and was published in
the Village Chavadi on 11.10.1994.
35. The factum of the publication of the preliminary notification in
the Village Chavadi on 11.10.1994 has been averred by the State
in its statement of objections filed in the writ petition and a copy of
the Village Chavadi was produced by the State in the writ
proceedings vide memo dated 18.12.2024. No rejoinder is filed by
the Petitioner in the writ petition disputing the publication made in
the Village Chavadi. The final notification was published on
10.10.1996 after 730 days of the publication of the preliminary
- 32 -
notification in the Village Chavadi. However, during the period
22.12.1994 to 22.12.1995 (i.e., for a period of 365 days) the
acquisition proceedings were stayed in Writ Petition No.28988 of
1994. Hence, if the said period is excluded (730 days less 365
days) the time period within which the final notification has been
issued is 365 days from the date of publication of the preliminary
notification in the Village Chavadi.
36. Although publication in the Village Chavadi has been
vehemently disputed by the learned counsel for the Trust, having
regard to the fact that the same (i.e., publication of the preliminary
notification in the Village Chavadi on 11.10.1994) has been averred
by the State in its statement of objections filed in the writ petition,
which aspect of the matter has not been denied by the Trust by
filing a rejoinder to the statement of objections and having regard to
the fact that the State has filed a copy of the Village Chavadi vide
its memo dated 18.12.2024, the date of publication of the
preliminary notification in the Village Chavadi will have to be
construed for the purpose of reckoning the time period in issuing
the final notification.
37. The assertion on behalf of the Trust regarding violation of the
time period as stipulated in the proviso to Section 6(1) of the LA Act
- 33 -
is only in respect of the subject 'A' property and & not the subject
'B' property.
38. With regard to the contention that the award has not been
passed within a period of two years as contemplated under Section
11A of the LA Act, it is relevant to notice Section 11A of the LA Act
which reads as under:
11-A. Period within which an award shall be made.- (1)
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 proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that in a case where the said declaration has
been published before the commencement of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 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.
39. With regard to the subject 'A' property, the final notification
was issued on 11.10.1996. It is sought to be contended by the
Trust that despite the expiry of a period of two years, no award is
- 34 -
passed. In justification of the said contention, the Trust relies on
the endorsement dated 09.11.1998 issued by the SLAO to
Vishwaneedam (which was a tenant of the Trust) stating that the
draft award has been prepared and has been sent to the State
Government for approval.
40. With respect to the subject 'B' property, the final notification
was issued on 26.10.1999 and published in the official gazette on
18.11.1999. The appellant had participated in the meetings with
regard to the fixing of the compensation amount and the award was
passed on 26.03.2002. It is also to be noticed that Writ Petition
No.37140/2000 was filed challenging the acquisition in respect of
the subject 'B' property and the learned Single Judge vide interim
order dated 04.12.2000 had directed both the parties to maintain
status quo.
41. It is clear from the aforementioned that pursuant to the final
notifications, various interim orders were passed [interim order
dated 16.09.1997 passed in Writ Petition No.6880/1997; interim
order dated 08.02.1999 passed in Writ Petition No.3884/1998
(pertaining to subject 'A' property); and interim order dated
04.12.2000 passed in Writ Petition No.37140/2000 (pertaining to
subject 'B' property)]. The interim orders dated 08.02.1999 and
- 35 -
04.12.2000 in the subject writ petitions are subsisting as on date.
Hence, it is clear that having regard to the interim orders, further
steps in the acquisition process could not be taken.
42. The learned Single Judge, considering the aspect of delay in
completing the acquisition proceedings, held as under:
5.6 ................... Let me reproduce the relevant statistical
data: Section 4(1) notification was published on 3.9.1994
and gazette on the same day. A copy of the same was
published in Kannada daily namely Sanje Vani and
Samyukta Karnataka on 17.09.1994. It was also pasted in
the village chaawdi on 11.10.1994. The acquisition
proceedings were stayed during the period between
22.12.1994 and 22.12.1995 by the order made in
W.P.No.28988/1994 filed by Rajajinagar Housing
Cooperative Society Limited. There was further stay in
W.P.No.6880/1997 filed by the very same Society. Final
Notification u/s 6(1) is dated 10.10.1996; it was printed in
Samyukta Karnataka dated 27.10.1996 and Indian Express
dated 30.10.1996 and it was gazetted on 31.10.1996. If the
stay period is excluded while computing the prescribed
limitation period, the argument of delay and consequent
lapse of proceedings would fall to the ground. This would
apply as to the argument of passing of award inasmuch as
W.P.No.6880/1997 came to be disposed off only on
15.07.2014. Learned AAG is right in placing reliance on a
Division Bench decision of this court in
V.T.KRISHNAMOORTHY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA13 in
- 36 -
support of this. There is absolutely no scope for invoking
section 11A of the 1894 Act, either.
43. At this juncture, it is relevant to notice the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Lichho Devi & Ors., : (1997) 7 SCC 430, wherein it has been held
as under:
"3. The attention of the High Court had been drawn to the
stay order dated 25-4-1985, whereby during the pendency of
the writ petition, the dispossession of the petitioners had
been stayed by the High Court to urge that the period during
which the stay order was in operation had to be excluded for
computing the prescribed period under Section 11-A of the
Act. According to the High Court, however the order dated
25-4-1985 concerned only the stay of dispossession of the
writ petitioners and it could not, in any way be interpreted to
imply stay of acquisition proceedings. The approach of the
High Court is erroneous. This question is no longer res
integra. In Govt. of T.N. v. Vasantha Bai [1995 Supp (2) SCC
423] a Bench of this Court has held that the stay order of the
type that was granted in the instant case, tantamounts to
stay of further proceedings being taken and therefore the
entire period during which the stay order was in operation
was to be excluded while computing the period of two years
prescribed for making an Award under Section 11-A of the
Act. The view taken by the High Court, is, therefore, not
sustainable."
(emphasis supplied)
- 37 -
44. Keeping in mind the aforementioned, no fault could be found
with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on the said
aspect of the matter.
45. With regard to the contention of the appellant that there is no
material to invoke urgency clause, it is pertinent to notice the
relevant statutory provisions of the LA Act:
45.1 Section 5A of the LA Act reads as under:
5A. Hearing of objections.- (1) Any person interested in
any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-
section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a
public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days
from the date of the publication of the notification object to
the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as
the case may be.
(2) very objection under sub-section (1) shall be
made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give
the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by
any person authorised by him in this behalf or by pleader
and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making
such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either
make a report in respect of the land which has been notified
under section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in
respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate
Government, containing his recommendations on the
objections, together with the record of the proceedings held
- 38 -
by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of
the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a person
shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be
entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were
acquired under this Act.
45.1.1. The Karnataka Amendment to Sec 5A of the LA
Act is as under:
(1) In section 5A, in sub-section (1), for the words
"within thirty days after the issue of the notification",
substitute the words, brackets and figure "on or before the
date specified in the notification under sub-section (1) of
section 4 in this behalf".
(2) In sub-section (2).-
(a) after the words "in writing", insert the words,
"setting out the grounds thereof";
(b) after the words "the appropriate Government"
occurring in the first sentence, insert the words,
brackets and figures "before the expiry of six weeks
from the last date for filing objections or before the
expiry of two weeks from the date on which he
receives the report under sub-section (4) of section
4, whichever is later";
(c) for the words "and a report containing his
recommendations on the objections", substitute the
words "and a report containing his recommendations
on the objections, and the fact of having submitted
- 39 -
the report shall be communicated to the objectors:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, if it
is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the
delay, condone any delay in the submission of the
report by a period not exceeding one year".
(3) for the word "Collector", wherever occurring,
substitute the words "Deputy Commissioner".
[Vide Mysore Act 17 of 1961, secs. 9 and 4 (w.e.f.
24-8-1961)].
45.2. Section 17 of the LA Act reads as under:
17. Special powers in cases of urgency.-(1) In cases of
urgency, whenever the appropriate Government, so directs,
the Collector, though no such award has been made, may,
on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the
notice mentioned in section 9, sub-section (1), take
possession of any land needed for a public purpose. Such
land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government,
free from all encumbrances.
(2) Whenever, owing to any sudden change in the channel
of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency, it
becomes necessary for any Railway Administration to
acquire the immediate possession of any land for the
maintenance of their traffic or for the purpose of making
thereon a river-side or ghat station, or of providing
convenient connection with or access to any such station, or
the appropriate Government considers it necessary to
acquire the immediate possession of any land for the
purpose of maintaining any structure or system pertaining to
- 40 -
irrigation, water supply, drainage, road communication or
electricity, the Collector may, immediately after the
publication of the notice mentioned in sub-section (1) and
with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government,
enter upon and take possession of such land, which shall
thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all
encumbrances:
Provided that the Collector shall not take possession of any
building or part of a building under this sub-section without
giving to the occupier thereof at least forty-eight hours'
notice of his intention so to do, or such longer notice as may
be reasonably sufficient to enable such occupier to remove
his movable property from such building without
unnecessary inconvenience.
(3) In every case under either of the preceding sub-sections
the Collector shall at the time of taking possession offer to
the persons interested compensation for the standing crops
and trees (if any) on such land and for any other damage
sustained by them caused by such sudden dispossession
and not excepted in section 24; and, in case such offer is
not accepted, the value of such crops and trees and the
amount of such other damage shall be allowed for in
awarding compensation for the land under the provisions
herein contained.
(3A) Before taking possession of any land under sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2), the Collector shall, without
prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3),-
- 41 -
(a) tender payment of eighty per centum of the
compensation for such land as estimated by him to the
persons interested entitled thereto, and
(b) pay it to them, unless prevented by some one or more of
the contingencies mentioned in section 31, sub-section (2),
and where the Collector is so prevented, the provisions of
section 31, sub-section (2) (except the second proviso
thereto), shall apply as they apply to the payment of
compensation under that section.
(3B) The amount paid or deposited under sub-section (3A),
shall be taken into account for determining the amount of
compensation required to be tendered under section 31,
and where the amount so paid or deposited exceeds the
compensation awarded by the Collector under section 11,
the excess may, unless refunded within three months from
the date of Collector's award, be recovered as an arrear of
land revenue.
(4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the
appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-section (1)
or sub-section (2) are applicable, the appropriate
Government may direct that the provisions of section 5A
shall not apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may
be made under section 6 in respect of the land at any time
after the date of the publication of the notification under
section 4, sub-section (1).
- 42 -
45.2.1. The Karnataka Amendment to Section 17 of the LA
Act reads as under:
In Section 17,-
(1) In sub-section (1), add the following Explanation,
namely:-
Explanation .- This sub-section shall apply to any
waste or arable land, notwithstanding the existence thereon
of scattered trees or temporary structures, such as huts,
pandals or sheds.";
(2) in sub-section (2), in the first paragraph, after
the portion beginning with the words "whenever" and ending
with the words "access to any such station", add the
following words, namely:-
"or whenever owning to a like emergency or owing to
breaches or other unforeseen events causing
damage to roads, channels or tanks, it becomes
necessary for the State government to acquire the
immediate possession of any land for the purpose of
maintaining road communication or irrigation or
water-supply service, as the case may be:"
[vide Mysore Act 17 of 1961, sec.19 (w.e.f. 24-8-
1961)]
(3) for the word "Collector", wherever it occurs,
substitute the words "Deputy Commissioner".
[vide Mysore Act 17 of 1961, sec. 4 (w.e.f. 24-8-
1961)]
- 43 -
46. As noticed herein above, the APMC had in its meeting dated
04.02.1999 sent a proposal to the government seeking for
additional land. The same was adequately considered in the
meeting dated 05.02.1999 as also in the meeting of the Single
Window Committee held on 23.03.1999. It is clear from the same
that adequate consideration was given to the request made by the
APMC for grant of additional land. It is also pertinent to note that
acquisition proceedings with regard to the subject 'A' property had
already been initiated and the subject 'B' property was sought to be
acquired subsequently for the same purpose as that of the subject
'A' property.
47. The scope of adjudication as to whether adequate
consideration of the relevant facts so as to invoke the urgency
clause fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of
First Land Acquisition Collector v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli :
(2002) 4 SCC 160, wherein it was held as under:
5. The question of urgency of an acquisition under Sections
17(1) and (4) of the Act is a matter of subjective satisfaction
of the Government and ordinarily it is not open to the court to
make a scrutiny of the propriety of that satisfaction on an
objective appraisal of facts. In this view of the matter when
the Government takes a decision, taking all relevant
considerations into account and is satisfied that there exists
- 44 -
emergency for invoking powers under Sections 17(1) and (4)
of the Act, and issues notification accordingly, the same
should not be interfered with by the court unless the court
comes to the conclusion that the appropriate authority had
not applied its mind to the relevant factors or that the
decision has been taken by the appropriate authority mala
fide. Whether in a given situation there existed urgency or
not is left to the discretion and decision of the authorities
concerned. If an order invoking power under Section 17(4) is
assailed, the courts may enquire whether the appropriate
authority had all the relevant materials before it or whether
the order has been passed by non-application of mind. Any
post-notification delay subsequent to the decision of the
State Government dispensing with an enquiry under Section
5-A by invoking powers under Section 17(1) of the Act would
not invalidate the decision itself specially when no mala fides
on the part of the Government or its officers are alleged.
Opinion of the State Government can be challenged in a
court of law if it could be shown that the State Government
never applied its mind to the matter or that action of the State
Government is mala fide. Though the satisfaction under
Section 17(4) is a subjective one and is not open to
challenge before a court of law, except for the grounds
already indicated, but the said satisfaction must be of the
appropriate government and that the satisfaction must be, as
to the existence of an urgency. The conclusion of the
Government that there was urgency, even though cannot be
conclusive, but is entitled to great weight, as has been held
by this Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana [(1971) 1 SCC
671 : AIR 1971 SC 1033] . Even a mere allegation that
power was exercised mala fide would not be enough and in
- 45 -
support of such allegation specific materials should be
placed before the court. The burden of establishing mala
fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. Bearing in
mind the aforesaid principles, if the circumstances of the
case in hand are examined it would appear that the premises
in question were required for the students of National
Medical College, Calcutta and the notification issued in
December 1982 had been quashed by the Court and the
subsequent notification issued on 25-2-1994 also had been
quashed by the Court. It is only thereafter the notification
was issued under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act on 29-
11-1994, which came up for consideration before the High
Court. Apart from the fact that there had already been
considerable delay in acquiring the premises in question on
account of the intervention by courts, the premises were
badly needed for the occupation by the students of National
Medical College, Calcutta. Thus, existence of urgency was
writ large on the facts of the case and therefore, the said
exercise of power in the case in hand, cannot be interfered
with by a court of law on a conclusion that there did not exist
any emergency. ...........
(emphasis supplied)
48. The learned Single Judge, while considering the said
contention, upon noticing the relevant factual matrix, inter alia, the
letters written by the APMC as well as the meetings and
deliberations held with regard to the request of the APMC has,
recorded a finding that the acquisition undertaken by invoking the
- 46 -
urgency clause cannot be said to have been vitiated due to non-
application of mind. We find no reason to interfere with the said
finding of the learned Single Judge.
49. With regard to the contention regarding deposit of 80% of the
consideration, which is the condition under Section 17(3A) of the
LA Act while invoking urgency clause, it has been noticed by the
learned Single Judge that the APMC (beneficiary of the acquisition)
had deposited a sum of Rs.14.00 crores with the State
Government. It was also noticed that the SLAO had paid a sum of
Rs.2,36,96,175/- to the Trust.
50. It is pertinent to note here that it was the contention of the
State that having regard to the proceedings initiated under Section
66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Land Reforms Act)
wherein it was alleged by the State that the Trust was holding
excess land and the Land Tribunal had, vide its order dated
28.11.2017 held as such, the State was not required to pay any
further amount as compensation. The order of the Land Tribunal
was the subject matter of consideration in a writ petition, wherein a
learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 30.06.2021 set
aside the order of the Land Tribunal. The same was affirmed by
the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1089/2021 vide order dated
- 47 -
22.06.2022. The challenge made by the State Government before
the Supreme Court in SLP No.14524/2022 was dismissed on
29.08.2022. Hence, it is clear that the proceedings initiated under
Section 66 of the Land Reforms Act attained finality only on
29.08.2022, by which time the subject writ petitions were filed.
51. The learned Single Judge considering the said aspect of the
matter held as under:
5.4............. Let me examine whether the requirement of
payment of 80% was duly complied with. Records reveal that
the APMC which happens to be the beneficiary of
acquisition, deposited a sum of Rs.14 crore with the State
Government. The SLAO paid a sum of Rs.2,36,96,175/- to
the petitioner-Trust vide three vouchers all dated 29.03.2003.
It is noteworthy that the Trust executed an indemnity bond
while taking the said amount. There is plausible explanation
offered for not handing rest of the amount huge in size to the
petitionerTrust which was battling against the land ceiling
prescribed u/s 66 of the 1961 Act, having filed the
declaration way back on 31.12.1974 before the Land
Tribunal. There were multiple orders of the Tribunal that
came to be remanded for consideration afresh multiply. First
case was W.P.No.46841/2001 disposed off on 25.10.2005.
The second Writ Petition was W.P.No.4311/2010 disposed
off on 23.4.2014. The third Writ Petition was
W.P.No.14866/2015 disposed off on 2.5.2019. The fourth
Writ Petition was W.P.No.55344/2017 disposed off on
30.06.2021. Matter was taken in appeal by the State in
- 48 -
W.A.No.1089/2021 that was decided only on 22.06.2022. At
long last, this order is affirmed in SLP(C) No.14524/2022
dismissed on 29.08.2022. That being the position, no
complaint as to non-payment of entire 80%, a considerable
part thereof having been admittedly paid, cannot come to the
aid of petitioner.
5.5 After all, it is public money which the State has to pay for
the lands acquired and therefore, it has to be extra cautious
in handing it to a private party when 'snake and ladder' like
proceedings were taking place in respect of ceiling limit of
land holding u/s 66 of the 1961 Act as is reflected from the
original records in general and the Coordinate Bench
judgment in W.A.No.1089/2021 disposed off on 22.06.2022.
It gives full details of these proceedings. A learned
Coordinate Judge of this court vide order dated 4.12.2000
had said as under:
"4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that
80% payment could not be tendered because the
assistant commissioner has addressed a letter to the
special Land Acquisition Officer on 26/5/1999 stating
that dispute under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961 is pending in regard to the lands and therefore,
80% of the estimated compensation could not be
disbursed till disposal of the disputes."
In fact, the SLAO in the Statement of Objections has
specifically stated the reasons for not disbursing the said
amount to the petitioner-Trust. The right to compensation is
always subject to claimant vouching a cloudless title, be the
acquisition under urgency clause or normal clause.
Mr.Holla's contention that the petitioner has returned the
- 49 -
money received would not advance his case inasmuch as
that was done after a Coordinate Judge had wrongly held the
proceedings as having lapsed u/s 24 of the 2013 Act, which
of course came to be reversed by the Apex Court as already
mentioned above. What one has to take note of is the fact
that the deposit made by the beneficiary of acquisition still
continues.
52. It is clear that having regard to the contention of the State
regarding the Trust holding excess land, the State was justified in
not paying the compensation. As has been noticed by the learned
Single Judge, the beneficiary (APMC) has already deposited the
compensation. We find no ground to interfere with the said finding
of the learned Single Judge.
53. With regard to possession, a Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs
Manoharlal & Others : (2020) 8 SCC 129 held as under:
269. In Ram Singh v. Jammu Development Authority [Ram
Singh v. Jammu Development Authority, (2017) 13 SCC 474
: (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 676] , this Court stated that the mode of
taking possession is by drawing a panchnama. Concerning
the mode of taking possession in any other land, law to a
similar effect has been laid down in NAL Layout Residents
Assn. v. BDA [NAL Layout Residents Assn. v. BDA, (2018)
12 SCC 400 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 368] . Certain decisions
were cited with respect to other statutes regarding coalfields,
- 50 -
etc. and how the possession is taken and vesting is to what
extent. Those have to be seen in the context of the particular
Act. Possession comprises of various rights, thus it has to be
couched in a particular statute for which we have a plethora
of decisions of this Court. Hence, we need not fall back on
the decisions in other cases. The decision in Burrakur Coal
Co. Ltd. [Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1962) 1
SCR 44 : AIR 1961 SC 954] held that a person can be said
to be in possession of minerals contained in a well-defined
mining area even though his actual physical possession is
confined to a small portion. Possession in part extends to the
whole of the area. The decision does not help the cause of
the petitioner. Once possession has been taken by drawing
a panchnama, the State is deemed to be in possession of
the entire area and not for a part. There is absolute vesting
in Government with possession and control free from all
encumbrances as specifically provided in Section 16 of the
1894 Act.
273. In the decision in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of
Haryana [Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana,
(2012) 1 SCC 792 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 402] , the
observation made was that it is not possible to take the
possession of entire land in a day on which the award was
declared, cannot be accepted as laying down the law
correctly and the same is contrary to a large number of
precedents. The decision in State of M.P. v. Narmada
Bachao Andolan [State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan,
(2011) 7 SCC 639, paras 78-85 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 875] , is
confined to particular facts of the case. The Commissioner
was appointed to find out possession on the spot. DVDs and
CDs were seen to hold that the landowners were in
- 51 -
possession. The District Judge, Indore, recorded the
statements of the tenure-holder. We do not approve the
method of determining the possession by appointment of
Commissioner or by DVDs and CDs as an acceptable mode
of proving taking of possession. The drawing of panchnama
contemporaneously is sufficient and it is not open to a Court
Commissioner to determine the factum of possession within
the purview of Order 27 Rule 9 CPC. Whether possession
has been taken, or not, is not a matter that a court appointed
Commissioner cannot opine. However, drawing
of panchnama by itself is enough and is a proof of the fact
that possession has been taken.
(emphasis supplied)
54. As noticed above, the draft award dated 12.08.1998 has
been passed for a sum of Rs.9,14,14,837/- Mahazars dated
07.12.2017 have also been placed on record for having taken
possession of land in Srigandada Kaval village and Herohalli
villages. A memorandum dated 16.10.2000 is also on record
indicating handing over of 65 acres 19 guntas to respondent No.4.
It is the contention of the official respondents that further steps in
the acquisition process could not be proceeded with due to interim
order passed in various litigations. Having regard to the said factual
matrix the contention that the acquisition proceedings have not
taken place in accordance with the provisions of the LA Act cannot
- 52 -
be accepted. There is no reason to interfere with the finding of the
learned Single Judge on the said aspect of the matter also.
55. It was sought to be contended by the appellants that the
APMC had decided to drop the acquisition proceedings having
regard to the averment made by the APMC in the statement of
objections filed by it in Writ Petition No.7389-7658/2013. The
learned Single Judge has rejected the said contention of the Trust
by noticing that the Trust was not a party to the said proceedings.
In any event, there is no finding of any Court that the APMC has
abandoned the acquisition proceedings, nor has any other material
been placed on record apart from the statement of objections filed
by the APMC. Hence, the said contention put forth on behalf of the
Trust is also liable to be rejected.
56. The Trust has placed considerable reliance on the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Airtech Services
Private Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh : 2022 SCC OnLine 1408.
However, the said judgment will not aid the case of the Trust
inasmuch as the Supreme Court had laid down two requirements
for lapsing i.e., (a) non compliance of Section 17(3A) of the LA Act
regarding non deposit of 80% of the compensation; and (b) not
passing an award within two years from the date of final notification
- 53 -
i.e., lapsing under Section 11A of the LA Act. In the facts of the
present case, the said two aspects have been considered and the
contention put forth by the Trust regarding the same have been
rejected.
57. Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and
Anr. vs. Bimalkumar Shah : 2024 SCC Online SC 968 The
factual matrix in the said case pertains to action of the State
authorities in utilizing a property without acquiring the same. The
same is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
58. It is sought to be contended by the appellant that the subject
lands are within the residential zone and that the acquisition
process had been proceeded with disregarding the Comprehensive
Development Plan. However, in response to the same, the
respondents contend that such a contention was not urged before
the learned Single Judge. Further, the respondents relied on
Section 71 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961,
whereby the State is entitled to divert the use of the land by issuing
notifications under the LA Act. We do not propose to adjudicate
upon the said contention since the impugned order does not reflect
that said contention was urged before the learned Single Judge.
- 54 -
59. The learned Single Judge has elaborately considered the
"power of eminent domain" of the State to acquire property as well
as the purpose for which the acquisition proceedings have been
initiated, that is, for setting up of the market yard. The learned
Single Judge having elaborately considered the factual matrix and
the legal position in this regard, we do not deem it expedient to, in
detail notice/appreciate the same since we are of the considered
opinion that the said aspect of the matter does not warrant any
interference in the present appeal.
60. The contention put forth on behalf of the Trust that it is
created with avowed objects and its lands ought not be acquired
does not merit consideration having regard to the right of the State
to acquire lands for public purposes subject to the same being in
compliance with the provision of the applicable statute (in the
present case, the LA Act).
61. The Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority (supra) considering the aspect of non payment of
compensation has held as under:-
116. It is apparent from a plain reading of Section 16
(of the 1894 Act) that the land vests in the Government
absolutely when possession is taken after the award is
- 55 -
passed. Clearly, there can be lapse of proceedings under the
1894 Act only when possession is not taken. The provisions
in Section 11-A of the 1894 Act states that the Collector shall
make an award within a period of two years from the date of
the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and if no
award is made within two years, the entire proceedings for
acquisition of the land shall lapse. The period of two years
excludes any period during which interim order granted by
the court was in operation. Once an award is made and
possession is taken, by virtue of Section 16, land vests
absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances. Vesting
of land is automatic on the happening of the two exigencies
of passing award and taking possession, as provided in
Section 16. Once possession is taken under Section 16 of
the 1894 Act, the owner of the land loses title to it, and the
Government becomes the absolute owner of the land.
xxxxxx
119. Section 34 deals with a situation where any of
the obligations under Section 31 is not fulfilled i.e. when the
amount of compensation is not paid or deposited on or
before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay
the amount awarded with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from
the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so
paid or deposited; and after one year from the date on which
possession is taken, interest payable shall be @ 15% p.a.
The scheme of the 1894 Act clearly makes it out that when
the award is passed under Section 11, thereafter possession
is taken as provided under Section 16, land vests in the
State Government. Under Section 12(2), a notice of the
award has to be issued by the Collector. Taking possession
is not dependent upon payment. Payment has to be
- 56 -
tendered under Section 31 unless the Collector is "prevented
from making payment", as provided under Section 31(2). In
case of failure under Section 31(1) or 31(3), also Collector is
not precluded from making payment, but it carries interest
under Section 34 @ 9% for the first year from the date it
ought to have been paid or deposited and thereafter @ 15%.
Thus, once land has been vested in the State under Section
16, in case of failure to pay the compensation under Section
31(1) to deposit under Section 31(2), compensation has to
be paid along with interest, and due to non-compliance of
Section 31, there is no lapse of acquisition. The same spirit
has been carried forward in the 2013 Act by providing in
Section 24(2). Once possession has been taken though the
payment has not been made, the compensation has to be
paid along with interest as envisaged under Section 34, and
in a case, payment has been made, possession has not
been taken, there is no lapse under Section 24(2). In a case
where possession has been taken under the 1894 Act as
provided by Section 16 or 17(1) the land vests absolutely in
the State, free from all encumbrances, if compensation is not
paid, there is no divesting there will be no lapse as
compensation carries interest @ 9% or @ 15% as envisaged
under Section 34 of the 1894 Act. The proviso to Section
24(2) makes some wholesome provision in case the amount
has not been deposited with respect to majority of
landholdings, in such an event, not only those persons but all
the beneficiaries, though for minority of holding
compensation has been paid, shall be entitled to higher
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013
Act. The expression used is "all beneficiaries specified in the
notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land
- 57 -
Acquisition Act" i.e. the 1894 Act, means that the persons
who are to be paid higher compensation are those who have
been recorded as beneficiaries as on the date of notification
under Section 4. The proviso gives effect to, and furthers the
principle that under the 1894 Act, the purchases made after
issuance of notification under Section 4 are void. As such,
the benefit of higher compensation under the proviso to
Section 24(2) is intended to be given to the beneficiaries
mentioned in the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
120. It is apparent from the 1894 Act that the payment
of compensation is dealt with in Part V, whereas acquisition
is dealt with in Part II. Payment of compensation is not made
precondition for taking possession under Section 16 or under
Section 31 read with Section 34. Possession can be taken
before tendering the amount except in the case of urgency,
and deposit (of the amount) has to follow in case the
Collector is prevented from making payment in exigencies as
provided in Section 31(3). What follows is that in the event of
not fulfilling the obligation to pay or to deposit under Sections
31(1) and 31(2), the 1894 Act did not provide for lapse of
land acquisition proceedings, and only increased interest
follows with payment of compensation.
62. With regard to the contention of the respondents that the
Trust had acquiesced to the acquisition proceedings, reliance has
been placed on the meeting dated 24.09.1999, whereunder the
Trust had agreed to accept the compensation of Rs.15.00 lakhs per
acre with respect to the subject 'A' property and Rs.9.5 lakhs per
- 58 -
acre with respect to the subject 'B' property. It is also pertinent to
note that the Trust vide its letter dated 09.10.2000 had written to
the SLAO regarding the compensation amount agreed by the
parties. The learned Single Judge while noticing the said aspect of
the matter, after appreciating the fact that the representatives of the
Trust had participated in the meeting held on 24.09.1999 as well as
after noticing the letter dated 09.10.2000 written by the Trust in
response to the letter of the SLAO dated 11.10.1999, held that the
Trust had agreed to the compensation and had also received large
sums of money pursuant to the said agreement and has retained
the said money for more than a decade and a half. Hence, the
learned Single Judge held that the Trust cannot be permitted to
approbate and reprobate.
63. Although it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the
letter dated 26.03.1999 was prefixed with the words "without
prejudice", it is to be noticed that the said letter was written before
the acquisition proceedings were initiated with respect to the
subject B property. Thereafter, consequent to issuance of the
preliminary notification and final notification with respect to the
subject B property, joint meetings dated 24.09.1999 and
09.10.2000 wherein the representatives of the appellant - Trust
- 59 -
participated, and the compensation amounts were agreed upon.
The Trust also received a sum of Rs.2,36,96,175/- as
compensation. The Trust did not record its reservation in the
meetings dated 24.09.1999 and 09.10.2000 while participating in
the deliberations for quantification of the compensation payable. It
is also pertinent to note that the compensation amount of
Rs.2,36,96,175/- was refunded by the Trust to the Government
only on 18.10.2014 i.e., after disposal of the writ petitions in the first
round of litigation, which was encashed after dismissal of the
review petitions by the Division Bench. The Trust retained the
compensation amount during the said period. The learned Single
Judge has rightly held that the Trust cannot be permitted to
approbate and reprobate.
64. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
V.T.Krishnamoorthy v. State of Karnataka : 1991 SCC OnLine
Kar 147 held as under:
14. There is one other aspect which has a bearing.
Admittedly, the petitioners filed the claim statement on 31-3-
1983 and the Writ Petition was filed on 19-12-1983. We have
held in Writ Appeal No. 781/89 (disposed of on 8th
November 1989) [Javali Mahantappa v. State.] as follows:
"This is clearly a case in which Writ Petition itself is
not maintainable because admittedly he had filed an
- 60 -
application claiming compensation for the land in
question. It is well settled law that where a person asked
for compensation he cannot maintain a Writ Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, vide 70
Calcutta Weekly Notes, page 1100. Therefore, we agree
with the view taken by the learned single Judge and
dismiss the Writ Appeal."
Therefore, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable.
However, what is cited is (1978) 3 SCC 113 : AIR 1978 SC
1244. [Central Excise Superintendent v. Pratap Rai.] This
case merely deals with the meaning of the phrase 'without
prejudice'. But having regard to our categoric decision, one
cannot approbate and reprobate.
Finally we hold that Explanation to Section 11A of the Act
squarely applies to the facts of this case. Accordingly, we
reject point No. 2 also.
65. On behalf of the appellant reliance is placed on the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Nutakki Sesharatanam v.
Sub-Collector, Land Acquisition : 1992 (1) SCC 114 to contend
that mere intimation of willingness to receive an amount as
compensation would not disentitle a person from challenging the
acquisition. The said judgment would not aid the case of the
appellant inasmuch as in the facts of the said case, the land owner
had intimated that he is willing to accept the acquisition provided a
lumpsum compensation was awarded and it was noticed that the
- 61 -
said offer was never accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer.
However, in the present case, the parties had deliberations and
had agreed upon the quantum of compensation amount to be paid
for the acquired lands, pursuant to which substantial amount of
compensation was also deposited by the beneficiary and a portion
of the same was released in favour of the Trust. The balance
compensation was not paid to the Trust in view of the State
contending that the lands held by the Trust were excess lands as
contemplated under the Land Reforms Act.
66. In view of the aforementioned, the appellants have failed in
demonstrating that the order of the learned Single Judge is in any
manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in
the present appeals. Accordingly, the above appeals are
dismissed as being devoid of merit.
67. Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of.
SD/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
nd
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!
