IN THE HIGH coum' er KARNATAKA :" _ _ '
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAEA % kk
DATED THIS THE 25?" nAY%'O,F§iJid£,X2/9§9. , A T
Sm'-*~*-vi-
THE Hom3:..E MR. 3vL!.'§TICE.;'-'ssé-'4_;<;';%}'('*B'.. H1:§:'ci~:I<;éR1
1. SMT
w/o LATE QEE1?.E_NDRA,T'iL_GULg
AGED A3euTkaoyzAa,s;kTkJ%%%"
2. sin HANU'M4ANTF§3&._FiAO
s/o LATE DE'EREf*3VDRA'TILGUi.,
. A Acm Asaur 65'-¥E.A.RS:
E33} sa:NzvAS%aAo
%s;r:3 Lfi.TE-«..£)TEERENDRA m.<sm.
AGED' YEARES,
kw/0 HANUMANHTA RAD TILGUL
M' 'V % ~AGED§ AEOUT so YEARS,
s:z:Ai~:Am'H
' [sic HANUMANHTA RAG TILGUL,
" AGED ABGUT 40 YEARS,
6. SR} JAYANTH
I S/'O HANUMANHTA mo TILGUL,
3 AGED Aaour 37 YEARS,
7. SR1 PRAKASH
s/0 HANLIMANHTA RAG mam,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
s. SMT SRIDEVI
w/0 SRINIVAS RAD
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
9. SM? SHILPA
9/0 SRINIVAS RAD
AGED ABOUT 26 YEAREI.,_ _
19. sm SAP!SlA"D,/'_ '0 }sAmvA§s
AGED,ABOUT.2{l f{5ARs;._ A
ALL THE «Asove AREA
sax SHANKAR _BUILD'I.N'G, _."'
BARAKOTRL'
oHA:rgwAo A~5AAA&% %%%%%
ALL. ARE REPRESENTED
._BYATHAEvI'R.._«PO'u'J.E_R OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI*--G.GV.K£l¥,KARNI,S/O GOVIND RAD KULKARNI,
AGED Aaour 43 YEARS,
A No.55, :--.3_EETHA APARTMENTS
' VIJAYA MRGAR,
%* & V,H'U<B.L_.AI «A530 026. PETITIONERS
A % (33; SR: s.s. PATIL, Aw.)
AND;
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA I
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, '
M..S.BUILDING..
BANGALORE 550 001
2. THE nepuw commrssaifzflsfi} R
DHARWAD sua DIVISION.
DHARWHD. _§ _--_a'-u
3. THE TAHSILEAR::1}S:"V
OFFICE OE'TAHASImAR_,;~«--.,_ R S R
DHARWAD R ..
4, KARNATAKA'U¥'s!1\{ERSi1f'-..._ S
PAVATE NAGAR,' .
DHARWAD' _
REPRESENTED' BY RE<5IsTRAR.
KARNATAKA uurvensrm
om;-;awAn,% %%%%%
'T,:HE» DE.PUT¥:.'C'O.MMISSIONER
vHAaw.An.
DHIKRWAD-RSDIETRICT. RESPONDENTS
” *RSS’iR:’Rag”sSa1R.k.R;¥tAm, HCGP FOR R1,, R3 & R5;
% .f_’SRI w».1.L1:<AaJur~: s. HIREMA11-!,ADV. FOR R4)
R ….-THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
.227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
SSQRSERSPONDENTS NO, 1 TO 3 AND 5 T0 CONSIDER THE
S REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS DT. 30.8.2006 AND
1fi.5.2007 ( PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES E AND E1) AND
CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A DE-NOTIFICATION UNDER..'SE€fi10N
48(1) oe= THE ACT IN RESPECT or THE SCHEDULE~«.i'_R.1._1V3g’i’ Saptapura Village,
Dharwad tffifatquisition on 05.03.1971
under SeCt§€iifi aftii.éA’t§’ii:fi’:L;§¢quisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
called ‘the .saidi4’Act’)’f:$ir t.izeVAwiiuri3o.§e find benefit of the fourth
ii;1ive;fsit3i.”Tii§E finai notification under Section 6(1)
ofitiiéipubiished on 11.03.1974. The award in
respect at the is said to have been passed an 23.99.86.
‘”~~.«l’iT%:e”‘pgatitiohE.sE§ have not received the award notice, much less
V A Attmjccingaiénsation amount.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri 5.5. Pati!
that simiiariy piacg cavered by the same
notification were withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings.
He submits that the lands standing at Sy. Nos.6:_2/S:Ve’h:éi’»V:?’v-sef
Saptapura Viiiage are already deleted from
proceedings.
3. The secend submissieh-ef theA!eernw’t:e.uhsei thetii *
the tend requirement of the ..VV:t_J:’r:ii\rtV€_-frsity has
undergone a change, as t’ié.e”‘j?J_ni’§:tersity’heiho bifurcated and
trifurcated. He submits_….th_et ceiieqes and
engineering coiie§.ee’.’:.1’e:er:ie: éffiiixiatedvvite'”Karnataka University,
are new tieiinkedV”‘fréia’h” University in View of the
establishment “ef_ itajiii §ua:ja*h’i:_”..’University of Heaith Sciences and
y.isveshy:ere§eh Teehnei9_gicai University. Sri Patii aiso read out
the giete£.*.,A’V’f;’6_.11.O6, which states that the respondent
Uni\fetsi’ty’is’Vnet%:.e$2§éht:ing interest te take over the possession of
the iane.’ zfieaaisio reiied an the judgment of this Court in the
ow. Gama immv v. THE secxerenv on-zennmem
” aeiamms ma omens reported in IL}! zoos am: 5692.
‘ iiriiaigihg these submissions, he requests that either a deciaration
the effect that acquisition pxgceedings have iapsed or an order
‘ 6
for the deletion of the lands from the acquisition proceedings be
made.
4. Sri R.K. Hatti, the learned Government Pleader has
filed the statement of objections. Its perusal reveals that the
possession of the lands in question is not taken.
5. Sri Mallikarjun SJ-lirernath, the learned~~~~:o_tin’sel:._for
the respondent University submits that the possession ‘theI
lands could not be taken over on accogint oif’t«he_fiiiAne_’:
Detition brerlthe netioo–nsel~sr””tiie also submits that the lands in
question is “indleedV” to meet the growing land
§fequirem.ents~ of the V–tl:nHiy_erslty. The University has proposed to
‘set .,deoal’_trnents like biotechnology.
see any foundation for seeking the reiief of
« “–«..:jV»-d«élC5»3TatiOfi .t_i_i3et the acquisition has lapsed. Section 11–A of the
A_c_:nhisition Act provides for the lapsinc of the acquisition
. eltooeedinos, if no award is passed within two years from the
‘i i»»diate of the issuance of the declaration. The proviso to the said
Section states that where th said declaration has been
pubiished before the commencement of the Land
(Amendment Act) 1934 (as of 1934), vthse-swaifd oasseuii it
within a period of two years from the x
As the amendment has come intoforge on 24;Q9>;g{§,,;§”nd’ es the V
award in this case is passed on 23–;ti’9f;86..rend’ one dey prior to
the expiry of the tirne–frsrrie_’io:+eééd:io@f_ the statute, no
deciaratory reiief that the eéovuisjition..’:’VspgoeeedVihas have lapsed,
can be granted, ‘V ‘
7. on case (supra) does
not come tovzthe eth_e-jroetitioners in any way, as the facts
of the reported Ease’ and ttieiéinstant case are entirely different.
ifriatter ofxHth’e”‘reported decision was the issuance of
Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act
that_4::’toov.i&iten; the beneficiary of the acquisition was an
..,_.’_j’e€l£ioationai” which was not entitled to take the land,
hed taken the permission under Section 1&9 of the Land
Act, 1951.
serious consideration. It is t
8. But the alternative prayer of the petitioners merits
te possession in law that if
Hg
similarly placed persons are treatted disslmllarly, it offends Article
14 of the Constitution of Inéslla. when the lands at Sy. N§s;6:2A
‘ and ? of the same village, covered under the same.~«netl§l_¢el:l:§;2,
acquired for the same purpose, are deleted from’_,t’h~e_aieqllélsltlgn
proceedings, the Government has to;:r:Aerjsld«e’r_the
request also.
9. No material is placed on Athefr.ec:erd ef”thls Ceurt as ta
whether the land requiremersts«ef’–t_heA:.rese’e.htierlt University are
audited at llihllizersity and the Government
to decide th’e.e’xl:er;t: jreqhulred ta be acquired, but the
same 31593., towlhel’ ebjectlve assessment of the
The “a”tq’ui*sitlon of the lands is for an extent of
water has flown since 1971, the year of
it2….vissuahlcelef th.e”eer.elimlnary netiflcatlon. Earlier when the land
. .:%_lAr’_;«:a;esl,Isltlon’eras raorted to, the resplendent University was a big
having the jurisdiction over the entire North
V«’i”K_r:rnaltaka Hyderabad Karnataka region. with the establishment
V’eV4j”‘rApffcsulbaraa University, ‘there ls change in the territorial
eujurlsdlctlen of the fourth respondent Karnataka University. The
58%
Court also takes judicial notice of the change in the number of
the coiieges affiliated to the respondent University.
establishment of Rajiv Gandhi University of HeaIth41’t§ciefices
Visveshwaraiah Technological Univer_si.ty__ancE.5/ét¢fithe.rY”‘
University, the medical, engineering;veterinary”~cb:5efitesfs:?e
deiinked from Karnataka University.’ The”vLsw. Urihréifsfivty. is ahlseih
in the making. Therefore,__ it is thst’*the Gvévernment
and the University take a reiosk Air}. }tf§.e:vch’efrrz;red. circumstances.
10. cm the5.vefe:§fesa:fd»trfeassrrstvVI dispose of this petitien
with a directior: to ~the’j_jVe_6v–ern«rrrent to take a decision in the
matter af.deIeti’ii9..:Vihe’.’–lsivsds”°in question from the ecquisitien
rjrbceedvihffis:_t.sk§ng lnte me.-‘airainafui consideration:
‘A s;«%%C requirements cf the University ;
Witthdhrawai ef the similariy pieced lands fmm the
AA accguisltien praceedlngs;
ht The Assistant Commissienefs letter that the
1 University has not been evincing interest to take
over the psssession of the iand.
£5343
10
11. The petitioners’ applications for de-n9t’§fj(‘i-ti”et:.V”t.he
{ands in question are to be disposed ef within
the date ef issuance of the certifie:<i""'¢;-any/A bf x"%tn
accordance with law.
12. Neeéless to observe G(;\?E3’j{3fT#:eR.£f§Sh3!l also
afford an oppartunity to’ thé Havxcquisition,
namely; the respongent b’éft$f:eu1’i.»V«–tékina the finai
decision. Accordirr§h’k’:.:tt¥V9}i_Vs, petatiofi of. No order as to
costs.
Sd/-
Judge