_l_
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TRIS THE 1473 DAY OF JULY. 2009
BEFORE
THE HOINPBLE MRJUSTICE B.S. 1=ATII4.~~~~« I "
WRIT PETITION No. 6530 / 2003
BETWEEN:
Sri. B. Sharadamma,
W/o Late V. Ramaiah,
Aged about 82 years,
M/s. Manjunatha Nursery,
Sy. No. 19 / 2, Kadirenahalli';
Bangalore -- 560 070. " A
. PETITIONER
[By Sri. IVI.R.Naik, Sr. Cou1V1c-selhfor A
Sri. B.Srinivas,
AND:
1. The State of'i{ar§1ataka,,"'~«.__ _ _
Rep. by its Printijaalé Seoreiary,
RevenueVVD'epar'£m'e1'1i;! "
5*" Floor," M.S.VBuildin_g, A .
Vidhana Veedhi' Road,-
Barigalore -- 560-A OQ}, A .
. » The Speeiakiieputy Commissioner,
V' VBang3.§'ore"IJ1*ban District.
~Ba-ogaloree 3260 001.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bang"aJoi'e District,
"S? Bioék, Podium Block,
v A Xfishweshwaraiah Tower,
'I.B'anga1ore -- 560 001.
.€.x$
O "M/s. Kanaka Gruha Nirraana
Sahakara Sangha Niyamita.
Rep. by its President,
Having its registered office at
N0.554, 9"' Cross, 7"! Block,
Jayanagar West.
Bangalore -- 560 082. RESPONDEN'~1_"S.
(By Sri.Ravi Varma Kurnar, Sr. Counsel for
M/ s. Shetty & Hegde Assts, Advs. for R-4;
Sri. M.Keshava Reddy, AQA for R-1 to__RA--»V3J_'
**#=
This Writ Petition is filed Articles .228: '&§._22.',Z. the v . L'
Constitution of India praying to 'quash the ._entire acquisition
proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) and 6{1}.Notification of
the Land Acquisition Act," *d_ated'.i 2O.s«Q43,1'Q.86 and" 04.05.1987
vide AnneXu1'e-A and B in'~vi'ew?_of ithve "acquisition proceedings
being lapsed on account of there being _:.1:o'--a'v.rarjj(1 under section
11--A of the Land AC€1uiSi'[iQI1"A.CfE Within a'vpefi»od of 2 years and
etc.. . .
This PetitiVoi;i"---coming 'oi'i..Pxré'ii;n:i:'éaJy Hearing 'B' Group
this day, the Court..rnade the followings}
1. In Writ"F5e1ti'tion,s"i3etitioner is challenging the
vNotificaifLioris published under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land
:"V.Ace;uipsition"'t:Actgdated 20.03.1986 and 04.05.1987 vide
Annexinre -'respectively on the ground that the entire"
V V' acquisition__proceedings stood lapsed as no award under Section
it " 'T of theiand Acquisition Act {hereinafter referred to as 'the
passed within a period of two years.
pi,
filed a claim petition, without prejudice to his contentions,
regarding the illegality in the Notifications acquiring the Eand,
seeking determination of compensation. . The petitioner
appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer in the prG'C§é'dl1i.gS
which culminated in the passing of the award. ' _
passing of the award was also brought the no'tice=
by the 4*" respondent--Society by:_fi'1ing Sltatexnentl,:of{Qbjec-tions
on 19.08.}99} in w.p. No,s9s5/:98-o, wxhichhlis. l_lp:r0dg1i§1Ced vide
Annexure R-1 to the writvpetition, 2.jinpa,ifag1<aphs 6 8: 7 of the
said Statement of Qbjections.,. :the= 'resp;o.nd'ent–Society has
stated about the
4. LeaI’r_1_e_d ‘fioitnisel lpietitioner contends that the_
acquisition proceeciingse,u1ider.p_Section 11-–A of the Act stood
lapsed as theL4Land”Ac’guisitiolnJsofficer could not have passed
any award gwhen’-» the interim order of stay of dispossession
:’l’._passed”byC,ourt was in force with effect from 19.06.1987.
passed on 29.09.1988, being in violation of
l the inte_1*irrivordnerApassed, cannot be recognised in the eye of law
Vaiidvvaward. He therefore contends that once the said
ignored, as there is no other award passed within the
“‘–stat_1itoI’y period prescribed under Section 11-–A of the Act, the
Court, the same shall be excluded. The Division Bench of the
High Court in the said case had held that the order restraining
dispossession passed by the High Court did not amount’
of further proceedings nor prevented the V’
Officer to take further action in pursuance it
under Section 6 of the Act. It was held the
since no award was made within a”period’vof two y.ears”‘fror;i the A
date on which the local publication ‘had rnade, the
proceedings stood ‘lapsed_ :Vllcii’cutinstances, the Apex
Court referring to anothey.~decisior:_&in’ G.SAJJAN Vs.
sum: or sa_iian’s case)
wherein the Iilxplanafion 1 to the first
proviso fladllcome up for consideration
on accountcf stay Court and the question arose
whether the which the stay operated had to be
le§{clud’ed<§ :,_i':1 S§ajjan'sllcase, Apex Court has held that in case
Wh.er'e_:the of the Notification published under Section
__4(1) is,__challenge,d};and such challenge is pending adjudication
._i'_f.,_.bef,ore thevlA':.High Court and the Court grants stay of
.dispossession, though no specific direction prohibiting the
publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Act is granted,
useful purpose would be served by publishing 6(1)
A?
VWVW1 15 _
even assuming, that he has explained the delay satisfactorily,
he has to fail on the main contention urged by him regarding
the effect of the interim order of stay of dispossessiontiandsithe
operation of Section 11-A of the Act.
17. For the aforementioned reasons;
devoid of merits, is dismissed. No orderdastto costs}. . A V’ ‘
o3’3ad<J8io' is
PKS é '4