.. 1 ..
IN THE H1GH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE Y OF MAY 2009
PRESENT
Ti-{E HONBLE MR. P.D. DENAKARAN, CHIEF *'
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE \/.~,Cr. SA$HAH1T..¢' '
WRIT APPEAL NO. 19?9j_goo7"iL}x'BDA:)"
BETWEEN:
I.
3.
. Sri M.Nagaraj, S/0 1at_e'S__ri
Sri M.Maridev,S/0 late Sri Munivappia, A "
Aged about 58 years.
Aged about 51 years.
Sri 2\/I.Ra1nar3vwrat1:1'V)V.r',*'S/oiiate Muuiyappa,
Aged about 44 yea1'S;V.. . .
. Sri KrishnapVt).a,'S_/ o late 'é:1'i.C:3}xi1_{t1{at11ayappa,
Aged about 60 years.
Appellants "1 to 4 reéivtiing at
$39.22, v.::'si:.1\/Latin Road, Sm cross,
" AvHoSaha'll:?, B'anga1o.;'e~40.
SAM'. ,pi1ip::'<';u;:n;i;r;..s';:.o Sri Modi Ram,
Aged _about 39' ytea.t*s,."
.' Smt. vi:'na1a.1..'I'<im»;;::-1, W/0 Sri M.Di1ip Kumar
44Aged about 35; years.
sg1;m.ohar Lal, S/o Sri Modi Ram,
"Age.--¢1'abo.ut 52 years.
f3hanthi1'.)evi, W/o Sri Manohar Lal,
~ Aged' about 50 years.
-2-
9. Sri Ashok Kumar, S/o Sri Modi Ram,
Aged about 41 years.
10.Smt. Meera Bai, W/o Sri Ashok Kumar,
Aged about 39 years.
Appellants 5 to 10 are residing at
2nd cross, B.H.Road, Magadi Road,
Kernpapura Agrahara, Bar1galore-56O 023.
Appellants 5 to 10 are
represented by their duly
constituted Power of Attorney
Holder Sri T.N.Jayaraj Gowda,
'S/o Sri Nijagundaiah, Aged about 48 years;
Residing at No.49, Satyanarayana Layout, R' _ _
3rd Stage, 4"? Block, Basaveshwaranagara,--------- _
Bar1ga.lore--560 079. V j 'V _ V»
~ ; APPELLANTS
(By Sri.Padrnanabha Mahafle, Sr. Advocate L;a'\fJ"Associates)
AND:
' 1. State of Karnataka "
Representedivby i-ts A
Principal Secretary to C':oir'c2f'nIIie~nt',"«.
Urban Developrneyntl Department,
1VIulti- Storeyed Building, V liir.B';_R.Arnbedkar Veedi,
Ba11galore§56(}.0()1. A.
2." The Bangalore 'Development Authority,
T.Chowdaiah._Rcra(}, Ku_mara Park West,
Bangalore 560 "020, . V V
Represented by Commissioner.
R713. The Special Land'Acquisition Officer,
i"~,.T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West,
4" it " Bangalore 560 020,
Rep,resente,d by its Commissioner.
RESPONDENTS
Sri, I-"iasavaraj Karreddy, GA for R1; Sri U Abdul Khader, Advocate for
h ' . _ __R2"8§R3)
...3-
This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in the writ
petition No.85-340/2003 dated 21.03.2007.
This writ appeal coming on for orders, having
and reserved for pronouncement of judgment, this day;-. the"'C'ouif't----., ~
pronounced the following:
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by P.D.Dinakarain,
Aggrieved by the order dated”-21.3.200’7 to it
quash the preliminary notif1:cationi’da.tedii–982″Vand the
final notification dated respondent
herein, in so far which
were acquired bjt Development
Authority, of Nagarbavi 11 stage
Housing Schiernje, the Writ petitioners in
w.p.No.83g1o,’2oo3 i1.a_§ei filed the above writ appeai.
2.:*–Ffo1’__the,_ipurpose of convenience the parties are
referred ,to–.ias.Vpe”Ij ranking in the Writ Petition.
3. Tifieviiiundisputed factual matrix of the case are:
_ 4 –
(i) The petitioners-1 to 3, who are the legal heirs of
Muniyappa, the erstwhile original owner oflhthe
impugned land, did not question the acquisiti’on_jVof
impugned lands viz., land measuring 3 acres” i
total extent of 3 acres and 28 guntaa
situated at Malagaiu vi11ag’e-,__ Yesl1yifanthap’iL1ura_v_i.I-Iogbli,
Bangalore North Taluk, itheivpuifpose of
formation of Nagarbhaizii.V:iI_ Scherne of the
2nd respondent. i_ herein H notification
dated 15.ofz.i:1 lriadvvlllliculrninated in final
notificat’ion–.Tciaite:dfi.; award was also
l i
(ii) On verifi_cation_ deeds’ original records produced by
is “fo«u.n_d’ that a notice was issued to the
ori.ginaI;v..4o’wv1ier–Muniyappa and {he did not choose to
acquisition proceedings and one S.M.
izvho was the owner of Sy.No.55, filed a Writ
“i:I_?etition chailenging the acquisition proceedings in
wi.P.No.2272/1987, which came to be dismissed on
– 5 –
16.06.1995. Being aggrieved by the same,
W.A.No.2055/1995 was filed and the same’.’p:.'”was
dismissed on 10.01.1996 and therefore, the
proceedings have become final. The been”
passed and possession of land h:asAfjvbeeri._’take’n__ on.’
12.7.2002 and handed me: t’d ‘the f
Department of BDA on 18.7.2009:.’
(iii) Petitioners-5 to purchasers of
the impugned lands underfa isdle deed dated
13.3.1991 the legal heirs
of erstizJhilc–.o:§:;rne:r:’:.; of lands.
(iv) have chosen to challenge
the prelimxiiiiary do.t1f1edden dated 15.07.1982 and final
” ~.notifi3catiAonv.._dated’3308,1986 after more than 20 years.
4, writ petitioners:
if The impugned acquisition proceedings are vitiated as
it no. notice was served on the petitioners as
Adicointemplated under Section 17 of the Bangalore
iii)
V ‘i*J)_
… 5 ..
Development Authority Act (for short “the B.D.A.
Act”);
The impugned acquisition is bad in law _
Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act-‘(foe “the W
L.A. Act”) as the award was piasseldon
after 11 years, while the preliminary’ notifica’ti.on was -. *
passed on 15.7.1982 notificatifon was
passed on 05.08.1’V98f>l§p.. _ it 1
The petitio;c=1e’r.s fare ¥contii’1u’ing to. Iqeflin possession of
impugned Vhvsipetitioigers are still in actual
possession land and no notification
was issiied 16(2) of the L.A. Act; and
Ei_:’mpiigne’ciA..l#i.ousing Scheme got lapsed, as the
implemented within five years, as
.’Ateo£uireeiti’jimVder Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act. The
decasliofinl in DJVARAYANAPPA vs. THE STATE or
it » KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSING 85
. _. AN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
-7-
BANGALORE & OTHERS (ILR 2005 KAR 295) is
relied upon in this regard.
5. The writ petition was resisted by the respond_ent–
State and the authorities on the ground that:
(i)
(ii)
the petition is not rnaintainable in_vieW:fofi”iachesi4 V 2
on the part of the petitioners’;
Since the erstwhile ownezjs ofi
despite service of ValidV_s:tat.1f:o_ry notice on them,
had not chosen acquisition
proceedings the Iegai
representatiyeis erstwhile owners namely
petitioriersérli lost the right to challenge
pépgjthei. impiignedii acquisition proceedings and
A therefofev, the contention that no notice was served
per Section 17 of the B.D.A. Act fails.
Coriseéiuently, the petitioners–5 to 10, who are
” Vivdpsuijsequent purchasers, also have no right to
i i “challenge the acquisition proceedings.”
-8-
Even though the preliminary notification was
passed on 15.7.1982, the final notificationl,:iyvas_
passed on 05.08.1986 and the award _
on 27.05.1997, the same by itse1f~Vcannot.::beV
ground to vitiate the
proceedings as Section =]_._1 of
applicable to the impugne-d_ procee’din_gis xiéirhich is
governed under _pi-‘_ov;i_siVonsfofthe B.D.A. Act,
as per thew-decis:ion’» Court in the
case __ 4′ STATE or
’66 “€5,f1’l’iVEl.R’S”i*2il()02(3) SUPREME 1];
Since the en’trievsl’rnade in the revenue records
Vshowe§”~thatVthei’*vCi?¢”~'”respondent had already taken
?C9_s.session of””the impugned land, the same is
V V’ hold that the respondents had already
A Jitaken”possession of the impugned lands; and
AsV__Athe possession had already been taken by the
V ” -_ and that major portion of the land acquired
for the Housing Scheme had already been laid into
6. After careful consideration ofv°the”riV’al c’o:r.litentVi’ons,
the learned Single Judge by his order cialtec15[.21.3.g:2.§)AO:”/”
… 9 …
several house sites and disposed off to the third
parties, the same is substantial implementationgof
the scheme and there is no violation of
of the B.D.A. Act.
in the Writ Petition No.8340/2003 thusf’
(i)
That as the original khatedarsg were not available
at the addressesVV_{oL1nd’__l therevenue records,
and on fencgtiijf i1or’3:».e'”‘of ‘th_e”-neighbours knew the
addresses’,_n_otices’Were [served on their respective
lanicis anti» therefiyrel, the same is a proper
.g..;jco1*z1pliaIi’ce:Vtlnder Section 17 of the B.D.A. Act and
it zviheevrever the addresses of original khatedars
V”Th…viwe1″e_”_vavai’lable, notices under Section 17 of B.D.A.
served on them.
‘ ‘_ That despite official gazette notification and
— ‘publication of preliminary and final notifications
_ ..
dated 15.07.1982 and 05.08.1986 respectively,
the original owner had not chosen to challengethe
impugned acquisition proceedings at approplriaoei
time. The failure on the part of the ” i
to challenge the preliminary notiii’ije3a:tion
passed on 15.7.1982.’-and the’l”fina},”notificat;ion
passed on 05.08.1986, their legal
representatives, to 4 as Well as
on the petitioners.-V~5v:tofA thllhe subsequent
petitioners-
1Vvi*L’o”4.. 4 V _
That” preliminary notification was
passedplonVV’l5i.i’?V.i’19l82 and final notification was
on “O5.,.Q8′.1986 and the award was passed
‘ =Von,:127’;i(l:S;.1997, of-course, after a lapse of 11
same by itself would not Vitiate the
impugned acquisition proceedings as Section 11 of
Act is not applicable, as per the decision of
_ 11 ..
Apex Court in MUMTHI vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA & OTHERS /2002(3) SUPREB/§E:.:i1*§…
That out of the total extent of land in _
viz., 604 acres and 23 guntas, it ‘w
acquisition relates to only 7.: acres:’ar1d 34-
As per the official reco_rds,i’~tlie V pio’Vssejssion..i3 of
impugned land has _rvesp:ondents
and non–issuance–ii-sf Section 16
(2) of L.A.4_£:ct woi1ld- vitiate the
impugried__
Tl”1Aat”rnagnitude of the impugned
Housing ‘Sch~:~_’:mei enter an extent of 604 acres and
which, the 2nd respondent had
i * Dfc-rmed a layout over an extent of 564
i’ ,__i4iiiiacres’vit:iiarid 39 guntas of land, thereby, forming
hoiiise sites in Block N’os.1 to 14 and disposed the
1381116 to Various allottees, the same amounts to
substantial implementation of the scheme
-12-
satisfying the requirement under Section 27 of
B.D.A. Act, as per the ratio rendered-.._:i’iin
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHO;R1Ti?Ai’ejj1?s;t..
DR. H.s.HANUMANTHAPRAHm(1LR 199eTj};A’R:542} i’ ~
and
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITE (ILR QAR; if.
1258); and
That in any preliminary
nOtificatiO3;~.x;;Tas pasiéeta and the final
notifieatgiigufiz,1%/ s.i:’:?assed..’:–4Vgj1;i’i OS’;68.198e and the
petitierieis…_Iiiavefi-piiosen to challenge the
after a lapse of nearly 20
“jfiyears, is liable to be dismissed on the
laeiies, as per the decision in HARI
OTHERS vs. STATE 01-‘ U.P. AND
[1984(2) SCC 624] and in the case of
OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS vs.
V” “b.R.LAxM:t AND OTHERS [1996 (6) sec 445}.
KMSHNAMURTHT 4iB.ANG}IIV}:@RFe_:i
-13-
7. Based on the above findings, the learned Single
dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present
8.1. Mr. Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior,’ Counsel -.
appearing for the appellants and
Advocate General and Mr. Abdul _4Khader,»« learn-ed:’coufj.sel
appearing for B.D.A. reiterated thelVl’i’submissionls before
the learned Single Judge.
8.2. That apart, Mr. Padm.an_a.b1’ia Senior
Counsel invited when some portion of the
acquired impugned l to one S.M.Kannaiah
located irtgthe. same. number, was denotified by the
Gevttetnmefnttty-.i:,viet,der dated 05.10.2007, the refusal to
de-noitify”i.._thé* :”‘impt{,ighed land is arbitrary, unreasonable,
i’v1’,discrimina’tor3tand violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
.,,”_gg.
-14-
8.3. Per contra, the iearned Advocate General, however,
produced the proceedings of the Government dated
23.03.2009, withdrawing the de~notification orde:*,’:’da;ted_,
05.10.2007 in respect of the Land belonging to
and therefore, the Government has tak,reria’iiniforrn _istand’.*-C
9. We have heard the }earned«.__couns_e1 anidiigiven four
careful consideration to the submissions -nj1ade”oy_ ‘both sides.
10. Upon the above rival issues
arise for our: 0
(i) Whether acquisition proceedings is
ivitiatedior.finon4–.co’1iip1iance of Section 17(5) of the
passing of award after 11 years
A the impugned acquisition proceedings ‘P
.”~”«.__V{iii) Whether the nonmissuance of notification under
it Tffsection 16(2) of the LA. Act in the official gazette
as to the taking of possession of the impugned
(iv)
(Vi)
…15…
land by the respondents vitiates the impugned
acquisition proceedings?
Whether non–formation of the .
impugned land Vitiates the__impugr;_edi”acquisition-_ ii’
proceedings as per Section ofitiive 77.:
Whether the above Wi’itv°’petition__is_ur11a.i’nta:1nab1e ” it
both on the groiirid 1ocus.ista:adi..v:and (b)
laches? and A i V it
Whether _ the impugned
land is arbitrary,
and violative of
Art.ic1e 14-. of « th.e”C_on stjtution?
11. 1. Issue-,__ No.I°’:_
Whet.her’~ the ‘inipugiied acquisition proceedings is
vitiated._i_for,:rio_n»comp1iance of Section 17(5) of the
…. ….
11.2. It is apt to refer to Section 17 of the B.D.A. Act
which reads as hereunder:
“I 7. Procedure on completion of scheme3″(t)’_~ r it
When a development scheme has been prepared,’ L”
Authority shall draw up a nott’ficatiort–stating factx ‘ A’
of a scheme having been made and ‘ilirniits “of’ihe
area comprised therein, and..__naming_ ‘o1ac.e”l’wiiere
particulars of the scheme, a of the area lcoiiiprised
therein, a statement.,,.f9«be6Z}fi5ifl;€llt.:’thee,lqml lwhiclth is
proposed to be acqzii’r-ghld.a,5;{‘v(}fi;,ihe”‘Eggs: inregard to
which a betterment Vtax-vmay beplevielld be seen at
all
hhhh (2/).:;>€{ lthe”sat’dl.hot.Q;ication shall be sent
to7the” within thirty daysfiom
the ofrelceip’tAhAthejreojhf forward to the Authority for
griminsmission V “to the Government as hereinafter
lllpretreiaetl, and} representation which the Corporation
it ” » .n2a_ylthi}2kifit_to make with regard to the scheme.
V. Azithorizy shall also cause a copy of the
satdnotification to be published in the Official Gazette
,, ; Rand aflixed in some conspicuous part of its own office,
«the Deputy Commissioner ‘s Oflice, the oflice of the
-17-
Corporation and in such other places as the Authority
may consider necessary.
(4) If no representation is received fi”o_r;n”thef_~ ;.
Corporation within the time specified in subf_s’ection”
(2), the concurrence of the Corporationto ‘theyschemei
shall be deemed to have been given.’ ‘ I
(5) During the nu’r:y~«tii:y,s nest:;rq1tawiin;¥=nl锑 3
day on which such, notification-is'”published.in..tthe
oflicial Gazette the rfuihoriity %{_shall’~ .a notice on
every person V whose n_ame,VuppeL;,,s.– ‘in’. the nssessment
list of the ‘Seoul authority orAi’inj_”-.the_:?and revenue
register”‘us’_«beingi*_Vpritnuriér to pay the property
tax; or innit re}{entie”‘nss’essnten_t any building or
land i.€«v._propose&t…t_a– be acquired in executing
thescheme ..;_5r{,ii: lregttrd to which the Authority
proposes to .re’co:}~e_r betterment tax requiring such
“~7personVv to show. cause within thirty days from the date
A C ofZthe.receipt of the notice why such acquisition of
V or land and the recovery of betterment
C ‘ not be made.
(6) The notice shall be signed by or by the order
” I 4_ ofthe Commissioner and shall be served,-
(a) by personal delivery or, if such person is
absent or cannot be found, on his agent, or if no
-18-
agent can be found, then by leaving the same on the
land or the building; or
(1)) xxx xxx xxx
(cjxxx xxx xxx
11.3. Sub~sections (1) and (3) of
B.D.A. Act referred to above conteir1’p1ates ‘that mesj ino.tif1cation ”
for development scheme has to same
shall be notified in the officiaiii the fact of the
scheme, the limits ofthe of the area
comprised and to be acquired; the said
gazette notification shaii in some conspicuous part
of the offit§e”of the “B,_D.i;q_,”-the/. office of the Corporation and
sttchiiiothier :ii’]o?1at:ec/._vwhere the authority may consider it
necesisa1’y__an’d no complaint by thepetitioners in this
i
1.._é}i’.jiA”A.’Section 17(5) of the B.D.A. Act referred to above
icontexlofalates that the notification published in the official
… ..
gazette under Section 17(1) and (3) of the B.ZD.A. Act shall be
served on every person whose name appears the
assessment list of the local authority or as found i_n”the_* _
revenue register. It is not in dispute in the instantiicase that.’
such notification as to the impugned acquisitiolizgwelre
on the persons Whose name appealed in ‘the assessjm.eVnt..3list -. ‘
of the local authority and who were___availah1e addresses
as found in the land revenulellliregilsterrllh ll-ngcase of those
persons who were not:’availa’b’1’e’.*in found in the
assessment list land revenue
register, n0tices».;xilerel on the land, which is
also a valid of the B.D.A. Act.
11.5.:_Conlcie’det:llv,’;.pet;itioners~1 to 4 who are the legal
the”erstwhilehowherls and whose names were found in
the = l;iet,”_j.. however, could not be found in the
V7.Vifiad«dresses.u_showr1’the assessment list of the local authority
the if land revenue register. It is under such
V._’cir’cutns’tances, notices were served on the land, which is a
-22..
provisions under the B.D.A. Act to indicate
the proposals for acquisition, considering
the objections thereto, sanctioning the
proposal for acquisition on consideration qf’-.
such objections and if such acts do not take V ”
place within a period of years
proceedings would lapse. i’.S_’uprerne__’. »
Court in several decisiori5 “where ifi-“ues?.fiori»f_3a
of delay in the implementation of.
proposals made Vurider ,i’h’e- for;
purpose of completion
Proceedings; occurs» ” ‘ fiiew
that if is the
acqu coti_ldi._:be_ quashed,
prior_to’~.the1ia«1iritrod_uction 6 and
–A the Act~«.prescribing limitation
on’.the_ poizxershand.h_:ith.e,–time within which
suchu”action taken. It would be a
pégrnatter of. policy for the Legislature to
éindicateé the time’ within which such acts
at i’ = taken. In the case of B.D.A. Act,
the nature and complexity of
the’i:n.p=lementation of the scheme, a period
of years has been fixed for purpose of
it «completion of the scheme from the date of
“issue of the notification under Section 1 9 of
the RDA. Act on sanction of the scheme.
-23..
Therefore, when the Legislature itself has
taken note of within what period the
schemes have to be implemented and
prescribes an authority thereto and alsc_:_*1
provides for as to what consequence would ._ ” i
follow on non–implementation the ‘scheme .
within that period, we do :;;.lm¢
Court can take a “ifie14? that
implementation of the is
way discriminatory.when”conipared to
provisions Of the in
both the provisions. ;:iroVz2ided,for”.identical
situation;—‘ begin {case more
details the period
within “i1ghich::t_ has to be
issued_’ [and which award
has tobe case of the B.D.A.
Act irnplementation ofthe scheme has been
limited to’a.. peiiodnof 5 years as provided in
liseic-iion..27 oflthé”B.D.A. Act.
V V of the B.D.A. Act provides that
l’ fiuilthin a period of 5 years from the
V dcite the publication in the official gazette
it of the declaration under Section 19(1), the
iauthority fails to execute the scheme
substantially, the scheme shall lapse and
– 24 –
the provisions of Section 36 shall become
inoperative. In the LA. Act certain period
has been fixed which is considered to be
reasonable within which the final__;””‘ it
notification will have to be issued
award has to be passed anal-if’s–u.ch it
are done beyond the time,
therein, the acquisition Vof.4landi”w_ili’« lapsefi AV.’ 1
To the same efiect is Section it
B.D.A. Act. Ifthe s.D.A. :A.ctiprovicles far
years to be ireafisonablsr ‘periods _ for
substantial compliance_
we cannotsitate sa’iti’_-p_ro’vision is
the
scherrieV.oJ**flt.he as”‘moa7.if’ied by the
applicable by reason
ofthe prov.isio’nsV_of.Sections 17, 18, 27 and
36 of the B.D.A. Act;
asicompliance of Section 27 of the B.D.A
compliance of the impugned Housing
:i_S’eheme,’ dealt with, in the later portion of this
g f.’ ~«.,\§
r i123s%néfit- ” 3 eeeeeeee II I. .
…25…
12.5. What is relevant for the present issue is, Whether
the passing of the award after 11 years vitiates the impugned
acquisition proceedings applying Section 1 1–A of the
12.6. The H0n’b1e Supreme Court in
VS. STATE or KARNATAKA AND OTHERsiv_i”:~.f2Q:Q2 {3}
Supreme 9] While approving the
Bench of this Court in Khoday .§Jistille’ri_e;~:’s es f.
hereunder:
“15. So far–.._ia’s_ tihe;_;/–ti\ct is
concerned, it is not for-l~._rrLere
acquisition “landj; _proz>sidie for
the W”estapblisltmentS”-of S ibevelopment
fittthorityVtofacilitateiand ensure a planned
growth and. eeeeze-meet of the City of
Apllfifangailorei and areas: adjacent thereto and
°’of….lands, if any, therefor is
A mvep§g;y4Vi”incidental thereto. In pith and
ii lthe Act is one which will
1 ‘ ,_iilisqaarely}fall under, and be traceable to the
op powers of the State Legislature under Entry
.. siofi List II of the VIIth schedule and not a
it ifflaw for acquisition of land like the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 traceable to Entry 42
of List III of the VIIth Schedule to the
r””_?'”‘§x
-25-
Constitution of India, the field in respect of
which is already occupied by the Central
Enactment of 1894, as amended from time
to time. lfat all, the B.D.A. Act, so far as–‘:–. C
acquisition of land for its developmental
activities are concerned, in substance and
effect will constitute a special law –.
for acquisition for the special purposes A
the B.D.A. and the saméi’VV.tUas not’-also’:
considered to par;i”lllof.l; Lana”
Acquisition Act, 18.94.,-.lt’~colitld be
legitimately stated, _ ax readingillcfl Section
36 of th,e’B,_iii;A. ¥Act_ that”rthel.l’Ka_rVhataka
Legisla”ture_V .th’c?_re’by ‘ to bind
thernse’lv_es llito _ additions or
a.i2iendfneiits,V l3uiliich~«.._inigl_it be made by
altflgether legislature, be it the
Pclrlisclzgniéfll, to lthesjgand Acquisition Act,
I894. The procedure for acquisition under
llthe>B.D.A. Act”i}is–a–vis the Central Act has
analysed elaborately by the Division
.’~.,’B€lTl1’l”_lfL,., aslnoticed supra, and, in our view,
vegy’ rightly too, considered to constitute a
special and self–contained code of its own
i «.,_and the B.D.A. Act and Central Act cannot
“be said to be either supplemental to each
other, or pari materia legislations. That
-27..
apart, the B.D.A. Act could not be said to be
either wholly unworkable and ineffectual if
the subsequent amendments to the Central
Act are not also imported into__;”””i
consideration. On an overall consideration”-._
of the entire situation also fITt'””C0u’lJ’:’710_t’l
either possibly or reasonably’-tgstcited’
the subsequent amendments to the ‘Centrali A . .
Act get attracted or appli’ed”‘–either
any express provision or. “h,ecessai’y_gA
intendment or implication {toil iarjquiisitions
under the B.D.A. Act.” Act,
expressly pro vides; A ienacting
the .._«–uil;ich the
period of on ofgivhich alone
the initiated thereunder shall
lapse due toa_ny._hcI.efliult, the different
circumstances ‘cr.nd.x_l..’period of limitation
envisaged under the Central Act, 1894, as
larriiended by theamending Act of 1984 for
the proceedings on pain of
lapse forever, cannot be
imported into consideration for purposes of
Act without doing violence to the
it llikylanguage or destroying and defeating the
“livery intendment of the State Legislature
expressed by the enactment of its own
*%::>
}f
475
-28-
special provision in a special law falling
under a topic of legislation exclusively
earmarked for the State Legislature. A
scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for__§V_:W’
implementation under the B.D.A.
cannot be stultified or rendered”‘ineffective
and unenforceable by a proi;isioniA.i’n the”
Central Act, particularly’ the’ nature ,of .
Section 6 and 1 1–A, whiciucannot also
its own force have any—— appllicationaito…
actions taken ‘the’ 1 Act.
Consequently, we _V
1Uh€ItSOe__U€i7″L ‘-in they the
DivistO~n:’*~vBénch the Kflfftflttdlttt High
Court l.td., case
(.t?;ai’uprc’:1l)i’ ~ the applicability of
Sections as amended and
insetted byV’theA.CentraI Amendment Act
of,1984=i= .. pfoceedings under the
– 213.?-D.A’: ._Act. Vvllllfhe submissions to the
on behalf of the appellant has
whatsoever and do not
commend for our acceptance.”
(emphasis supplied)
.. ..
12.7. In our considered opinion, therefore, applying the
ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Mani Thimmpdieihps
case, referred to above, the impugned acquisition pr’oCeed.i:ngs
is not vitiated on account of passing of award _<3¢fter:'~1 1"~.3.rears,'4 'w it
as, whenever acquisition proceedingsgis tiriitiatepdi..underee.__th{:A
B.D.A. Act, Section 1 1-231 of the LA. not
12.8. Issue No.11 is answered
13.1. Issue No.11: : J' A
Whether non–is_suanc.ei–i:._of under
Section 16(2) La. iii the official gazette
as to of the impugned land
by the A "i.respof1–de1<its hififiiétiates the impugned
acquisition proceedings?
(2) of the LA. Act, as amended by the
Acqu.isitioi1.iA{‘Mysore Extension Amendment) Act of 1961,
hereunder:
“16. Power to take possession.— When
the Cotlector has made an award under
-30-
Section 11, he may take possession of
the land, which shall thereupon vest
absolutely in the Government, free from
all encumbrances.
(1) Section 16 of the Principal
shall be renumbered as sub-section {I}:_of. it
that section, and after the_.sub+sec:-tioni” b
Section Officer re~numberecZ, thee ”
subsection shall be added, 1
“{2} The fact si’£V¢hl.”1?C!V~l_C:i’lngVfi
possession be the
Deputy Commissioner”l”i:n __the_’.:~Qfficial
Gazettetland shall
[be e’vi€iencé4of4s’£teh fact. ”
the “Collector” read “Deputy
)i’_ » i
. ‘ -Comniiissioner .
l “”” ” (emphasis supplied)
:_:Bl.4Nafegyanappa vs. The State of Karnataka
0rsi”{,I_iIeR 20e75’KAR.2é5) and V.Gunda Reddy vs. The
~«.i.Sec_:i-e,tary, ‘Department of Revenue and others (ILR 2005
the learned single Judge of this Court held that
absence of taking actual possession of the Eand
\e}¢”__,…,- ”
…..31…..
acquired, even the issuance of notification under Section
16(2) of the L.A. Act is not sufficient to hold
possession has been taken over by the BDA.
regard, the learned counsel for the appellants’/”‘pe_tition’ers,: “‘
placing reliance on the decision in D. Naraj/an’apipa”s_icase'”ariéji
V. Gunda Reddy’s case, content’;-isV””that a-sithe v A’
have not even issued a notifficationp.und.ern.Section_1p6V(V§) of the
LA. Act in the instant casegiithe’appellants / petitioners are in
continuous possession’ of A
above, the made 3. reference to the
decision of Ape:~3 the case of BALWANT
NARAYAN§f’iBHAGDE._i_Vi$i’S. it M.D.BHAGWA’I’ AND OTHERS
[(“19.7e{) :1. Ezooequivalent to AIR 1975 sc 1767].
-V 13.42.: Narayan Bhagde’s case, the Apex
The so–called paper possession or
“possession on paper is no delivery of
….-»~–«.\
….32…
possession, actual, formal or symbolical. A
Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of
Rajamannar, C.J. and Rajagopala Aiyangar, J.
had stated at page 762 in the case of
Pethaperumal Ambalam v. Chidaxnbaram
Chettiar:
The next question is whether V
makes any difference in legal ‘7
if possession is taken C.
Court. The Code conte”1nplatesV__noVV
notice to the judgmentlidebtor
that stage or ob_}ec1iion_
raised by him to ~lthei’j’deliVeir3i_’.:~.§Ii’_\
possessio1i:punde;_r ‘ or ‘Rule
95, title to the
propei’ty from the
Vjudgnrient-debto’:il the auction
g’~i*.:purchaser’;he_has no interest in the
‘A propeptyvto protect.
” . “Alt further been pointed out:
characterisation of possession
_li””~taken under Order 21, Rule 96, as
‘A “paper possession” is hardly
justified and runs counter to the
-33..
principle on which the provision is
based. Symbolical possession
obtained under Order 21, Rule 96 is
quite a different thing from paper
possession, which might correctly~–~–
describe only the possession ‘7
obtained by a party who being if
entitled to actual poss:e~sVsion’,” they
judgrnent~debtor hirnself’ – being if I
possession, obtains V ‘ ” « . p of
possession on paper
possession; gr
without
requisites.’ V false
returns i’s.’vVV.11_fiade«_’ if.’ they were
corn plied V ” –~ .,
22. ltlWou1dVthu_si be ‘seen that a symbolical or
l”forri’i’al deliifery of possession as understood in
effect of dispossessing the
judgnient~rlebtor from his right title or interest
-V in property. It does not dispossess the
V. vipereson “in actual possession in his own right
if pi.”noVt,_iiable to be evicted under the decree or in
pursuance of the auction sale. A symbolical or
-34-
formal delivery of possession against the
juclgment–debtor is giving of actual possession
of the property in the eye of law and has the
effect of dispossessing him although as_—:.afl’
matter of fact he may have succeeded»,.
resuming back possession as Ibefore ”
after dispossession.
23. In a proceeding the
acquisition of Iand a1l”‘interests” ai’eVl”w_iped loutl”
Actual possession of the
for its use, for the public-p’ur’po’se it
has been of
possessioniu . ‘cannot be
“symbolical'”e’ = » ii iii ‘ » V V as generally
understogoldl in it cannot be a
possessions._rne,rel’y_ paper. What is required
uncle_;j19″t,he his ‘ the taking of actual
.°pos”se.ssio1i’o_n themspot. In the eye of law the
i possession will have the effect of
tran’sferri1i-g possession from the owner or the
–V occupant offthe land to the Government.
” if {.25. When a public notice is published at a
— convenient place or near the land to be taken
-“stating that the Government intends to take
MW/,”, ,.._.»-
-35-
possession of the land, then ordinarily and
generally there should be no question of
resisting or impeding the taking of possessior1y,__’4*
Delivery or giving of possession by the ownerfor V
the occupant of the land is not required-;””‘fl’iie-_ .
Collector can enforce the surrender of if
to himself under Section _.4_7 oi’–.pthe if” ‘
impeded in taking possessio11;~~..,_Qn
of the notice underSection.ll:9{_1i–._.pAclaims.,_to,i
compensation for all interests iii} has to
be made; be it the inteArest._ofvlthe of a
person entitled “to: -the occuipationf. of land.
On the taking’_off;-po_s.se:ssio.r1” land under
Section___1__6_’orr”1;l?{:_1V)_ i_,1_:j”veistslflabsolutely in the
Government?’ “til-‘5:g=p, « ___inc1_1mbrances. It is,
therefore,’ clear’ of possession within
the meaning of 16 or 17(1) means
takirig of’posses’sion__po.n the spot. It is neither a
pospsessionfovn paper nor a “symbolical”
it*poSsessionv”as~ generally understood in civil law.
But_4lthev_que-stion is what is the mode of taking
‘._posslessio._n’i? The Act is silent on the point.
“‘p_U11ie4_ss lllpossession is taken by the written
a._lagree’ment of the party concerned the mode of
_pVtalking possession obviously Would be for the
£9?
-35-
authority to go upon the land and to do some
act which would indicate that the authority has M
taken possession of the land. It may be in
form of a declaration by heat of
otherwise or by hanging ,….a.__ wfritteinv.
declaration on the spot that it ‘
has taken possession of, the éilalnd. 1
presence of the owner or thejocculhjhant’ of
land to effectuate the ytakinygofvpossessioniiisv.E
not necessary. No fizrtheir’._ncati¢e”~-Eisyond that
under Section 9(1) of thevfict d’-When
possession hasheen taken’, ‘.ow_ner’or the
occupant of ttheslandi-isidisgfiossessed. Once
possession has :i3eerii.,_taLl:ien.fi;9,:1and vests in
the Gcyern:xn’énVt.V_ V3’ « , = -.
26. i[‘he:ja4ppellant’s resuming
possaission o’f.__the land after once it was
.’ %..jt&I.ken Government had not
iofyiurgdoing the fact of the vesting
oi”t»he.V in the Government. The
_ Goxfernineiit or the Commissioner was not at
:”iiberty’ito withdraw from the acquisition of
fportion of the land of which possssion
‘=1
»
….37_
had been taken, under Section 48(1) of the
Act.
27.xXXx XXXX xxxx xxx
28. ………. .. There can be no hard ‘V’
fast rule laying down what act ‘
sufficient to constitute takingzloiipiossessionu = . V’
of land. …… …………. It iagfigais than 1
the appeliant was not present.__whe’n this
done by the Tehsildar, but preseiice H’ of V}
the owner or the occupant’_xoi’_ is
necessary to effectuate of
possession. .
as a matte_r–.e.f notice
shouid be otigner or the
occupant _ A’ t’i:e__iand.,:th,at_ possession. would
be taken at a time, though it may
be desirabie ‘vwh<§re~.V_i'p*o'ssible, to give such
noti-ae before "~p.osse.ssion is taken. by the
that wouid eliminate the
:}any fraudulent or collusive
transaction-_. of taking of mere paper
'.V.possess"i§_mV, without the occupant or the
it " owner eyer coming to know of it."
(emphasis supplied)
-38..
13.5. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Balnlant
Narayan’s case, is derived as hereunder: l l V A
i) What is required under Act*’ie4.:’::~..
the taking of actual posscessiodmlv
ii) It may be in fofrnlx of
declaration by beat ‘
otherwise or by~..hanglngtjaV:”u!t’itten”d
declaration on the the
authorityghas taken of
the land.’ p::3fes*ence_4’o_fthe”owner
or the “land to
e_ffec’tzlate ’tile jaossession
is._not’ necese-‘.ar_y.”” ~ ‘
(iii) lwneensepeeseesion has been
V_»»’-itaileen, the*o.u)__ner or the occupant of
V ‘A ‘ . _, thevoland is dispossessed.
” . . ‘”(iv)V nossession has been taken
E”thet’Vlanid vests in the Government.
A’ {fa} Resuming possession of the land
‘ ‘after once it was validly taken by
the Government had not the effect
-41-
contention urged by the learned
counsel for the society and learned
Government Pleader by placing
reliance upon the impugned
notification regarding taking -‘ it
possession of the lands in question,» ‘ i
cannot be accepted by ”
They are far from truth 2 it
admitted facts. llTherefore,V__
petitioners must succeed they are i
entitled to the I’eli’ofs as “for in
-these writ petitions.” by
13.7. llifin it decisions, viz., D.
Narayanappa”‘s case Reddy’s case referred to
above, though to the decision of the Apex
infg: aflbzn.-“;yan’s case, the ratio laid down
therein; brought to the notice of the learned
‘Single for hisillproper appreciation.
. 13.8} ‘I’hat”apart, the issue regarding mode of taking
,possVe.ssion_ also came up for consideration before the Apex
E /~T””x
3 – ‘-
fen
_.,.,«,«
l pplied
….42….
court in TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD VS. A.VISWA.M
(DEAD) BY LRS. (AIR 1995 so 3377), wherein, thgkipgx
Court after referring to Balwant Narayan’s case he1.d_:mth{3Ijs~:._i _
“9. It is settled law bymh serie.s””‘vof’_Vv:'”*V.
judgments of this Court that the ” e V
accepted modes of taking . 2 V
the acquired land it i.s:”~»..V.recordingVVpit
memorandum or
LAO in the pres’e.nce o-it V
by him /them and that
taking posses_sionflof it iivould
be
possevssio-n:”.;_:of iand. It is
commoi-iivi’};noiv1e~dge.___th.a_i: in some cases
person may not co-
operate possession of the
i
:t,he4vx’instant case, the revenue records disclose
that been taken by the Officials of the
VV’7CRevenue Rbepeartinent. Of-course, an argument was also
; advanced that possession of the impugned lands
.. ..
were taken over only by the revenue officials but not by the
Deputy Commissioner. But what is relevant is wheth.er
possession was taken or not, by the respondents
representatives. Strictly speaking, What all, Sec-tiony ”
the B.D.A. Act contemplates is, the .A
may notify the fact of taking .epo§sessA:9fi. VSe’ction_V_V.V1E_l§(2)l,
therefore, either does not contemplate a situation that the
Deputy Commissioner possession of the
land in question nor Sectiorrrequires that
there shall be a ga:Q:ettef::inotiiicati.pn,_fo:§ over possession
of the only Provides that the
Deputy the fact of taking such
possessior1:._Ef is published, the same shall
belpllthe A. proof “o1” ‘taking over possession of the land
eother interpretation would be contrary to
spiriti of Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act.
“7l’.lv1erefore, vvhether gazette notification was issued under
as to the taking over possession of the land
that itself is a valid piece of evidence to hold that
/’
F \_
-44-
possession had already been taken over by the acquiring
authority. Therefore, what follows is that, the issuance*.of
notification under Section 16(2), in our considered_op’1’n«ion:,_ _
addition to taking over possession of the acqpui1*ed~..1a’n.:d;as” W
provided under the Land Acquisition
operates as a conclusive proof oftaking». possession.._VVof_.3the –. *
land and ignoring such noti;fication___oin»vthe actual
possession was not taken;”–..in.. opinion, is
contrary to the Iegalppresurriptiori Section 16(2)
of the L.A. of gazette
notification ‘the instant case, will not in
any way be iapthat the respondent~B.D.A.
had not taken Vpospsesnziiioiiiiiof the impugned land from the
petitionef:S}i}’ appellpantsi ‘ ———- ~ ”
_T’hat_Viap_art, as held by the Apex Court in Tamil
and Balwcmt Narayan’s cases that the
ifacceptedirr>..od.e “of taking possession of the acquired land is
c recording’-..pf memorandum by the revenue authorities would
/.
-45..
itself constitute taking possession of the land as it would be
impossible to take physical possession of the acquiredillanpd
and such entries in the revenue records is itse1f_.concflusive__ _
proof of taking actual possession of thepland on”
presence of the owner or the occu,par1t..:iof ta’?
effectuate taking of possession_'”is not 11eceissairy.;Vyqppo1nce -. L’
possession had been taken,;__ the of the
land is dispossessed; once taken, the
land vests in the :»y.”r;?SumptiOn of
possession of validly taken by
the Governmerit,Tljadl:iés.ot undoing the fact of
vesting of th”e_land there is no necessity
that takinpgp ofli”poVsse:ssionu “shall be only by the Deputy
asp.per”Se-ction 16(2) of the L.A. Act, because
the°z_opti_on. i -“..the Deputy Commissioner to issue
7.Vi””~notificati.on as taking of possession and the same is not
“-«mandatory in such cases, where possession was taken
‘en’tr_ie:s are made in the revenue records, the issuance of
l’n’oti.fiycation under Section 16(2) is not mandatory.
_ 46 …
13.11. Hence, the non~issuarice of Section 16(2)
notification, will not, in any event, vitiate the acquisitionend
if any notification is issued under Section 16(2),
conclusive proof for taking possession and theV__s_arne–.i_fiNould’~
not suffer from either presumption or ithat’
possession has not been taken from the owners o»r’i’i~r;c¢1iparitS
of the impugned lands.
13.12. Issue No.III is aifi§wer.§d ;ar:COr’difig1y.
14.1. Issfie ‘
Whether.’ the layout in the
impugned iland .yfitiatesdiimpugned acquisition
‘-proc:eediAngsv~.as per”Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act?
14.2.7 For appreciation of the issue under
_ .:i_Copn4sideration,i’ it is apt to refer to Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act,
‘v_vhi_cii1′ reads as hereunder:
…47_
“2?’. Authority to execute the
scheme within five years: Where
within a period of five years from the
date of the publication in the Oflicial
Gazette of the declaration under Sub»
section{1) of Section 19, the Author’ityu”:—-
fails to execute the p scher”ne—-:fl 9 ‘
substantially, the scheme 4’ ‘
and the provisions of Section. * ” i
become inoperative.”
14.3. The undisputedvihaets ate total extent of
604 acres and 23 guntas ofthe”.’2é§:”V”§%espondent had
already formed a extent of 564 acres and 39
guntas of ‘havci”.cdi,s.tz=iT:51iJted house sites to various
allottees. _ g i ”
‘”14V.4″.’ Uiidef simiiar facts and circumstances of the case,
the this Court in the case of BANGALORE
v.v:’DEVELOF,13tIE1§IT:vi’ A AUTHORITY VS.
‘” (ILR 1996 KAR. 642) held thus:
ttttt
-48..
“IO. We are unable to appreciate how the learned
Single Judge could strike down the Finaljhg
Notification on the ground that the release
certain lands amounts to violation of the :”
guaranteed under Article 14 of the Const’itvu:ti.on~;:: ‘-
In the first instance, as mentioned herein
we are not at all satisfied that theirelease it
was in accordance with laW.–._l’ndeed”; the.VCo:u’n._:sel”‘
for the Authorities s_ubmitt_e_d:=,that steps have
already been taken of the order
providing for release. the
release of the area
released j_.i11i* and
Dr. Ram V K 5.. /1}: er Manikshadarga,
Venktappa ad–measures 90 acres.
The total area ‘pVrofiVosed::ii’to«acquire is about 1334
acres_andll<2 even assuming that the
area 5io1"Vv9iO acres'–isV__released, that itself cannot lead
to._the_'s'conclusion that the Authority and the
ffwiere acting illegally and were not
seriousV..tOi1_.'i:mplement the scheme and the
ilghacquisitionl proceedings must fall. In the first
iginstance, in our judgment, the release of these
were not in accordance with law and
tlfierefore that release cannot lead to the
,"….l….t.m._.c …..M…,…. –
".49-
conclusion that the action of the Government and
the Authority in proceeding with the acquisitionfit.
was fraud on the power of acquisition. It was
contended that the release of area of aboL1t:—-7()4.:()T’i.:”‘ ii”.
acres in favour of Housing Cowoperative:Soc–ie’ties.
must iead to the conclusion that Ztrhiej.
was not serious in implementing thé*.V5chern’e,i”vVe * i’
do not find any merit in the_joontention.hecaLise'”
retention of the lands with…ii:’theVv_._gHonsin,gA
operative Societies does.i:i_1ot*i_fi}eadi todestruction of
the scheme. But on the assists
in the impieme’n:tatio1§1T oi the object
being to tithe» mioeople. The
submission*~~.V§i ilearineiiiijviigciiunsel that the
scheme _1aj)s«es.__V35.in«.,:”‘accordance with the
provisions of of the Act, is also
required to “be down. The Section
provides that ” ‘–in______case the authority fails to
er-zecutei.ig.th’e._V scheme substantially within a
it years from the date of
pnhlicatioiri-.V_ ‘of the notification under sub»
‘._gsectio:nl7{1) of Section 19 of the Act, then the
it shall lapse. The plain reading of the
it Section makes it clear that the scheme can
Hvlaipse provided the authority fails to execute
\.
-50.,
the scheme substantially. This expression
“fails to execute the scheme” clearly indicates’
that the section will attract only in cases”:.:””–,.”‘v
where the authority is in a position. ‘V’
implement the scheme and thenppfails «
It was pointed out on behalf of the
several Writ petitions were flied in Coft_1rt».to it
chailenge the publication of notifications
the acquisition proceedings in view: the
interim orders _petitions
restraining the Authority-from further
with the scheme-»_ it was
impossible to) efxeicuteii the scheme
within of five years
prescribed uriaier 2′?’ of the Act. The
Counseilfpor very rightly did not
dispute that seVera1i~–peti’tions were filed and stay
orders were issueVd_.__N}p’n these circumstances, it is
appreciate how it can ever be suggested
thve”:’eche1nie has lapsed because the Authority
‘execute the scheme. It must also be
noted. that the provisions of Section 27
it ii’V.’e».,p’3:es_crihes that the failure of the authority to
eiaecute the scheme must be in respect of the
__s__ubstantial part of the scheme. In the present
“xp
-51..
case, on the showing of respondent»-1, an area of
700 acres is allotted to the Housing Co–operativef°*-,p
Societies for construction of houses. The Counsel”-.””–,
appearing for the two appellants, who :”
allotted sites No.85 and 115 by the «
points out that not only allotments
various persons, but houses ikhave ”
constructed by those aJlottee_sl;’~~..In ca’se__, now_,
held that the scheme had 1ap_sed_, wouldrivresiiilt
into serious prejudice ;.t_o:;1ar–,ae allottees
from the authority. In is not
proper in eXer_c.i.s:e’–of to nullify the
action thej ..bbStatutory authority in
pursuance of by the statute.
It is _Writ Court to assume
that illlegialitiesi “1’lave been committed
because the.rA11thority’has released some lands.
EVen.§-piasstiming that the release of lands is not in
with law, still the Writ Court should
Isnot;hai.r.e’-.disturbed the entire scheme and struck
down thvepilllotilfication which was published in the
‘.vyearii1..9i’7.§3..VlThe learned Single Judge should not
it turned down the contention urged on behalf
“the authority that the petition filed after
years after the date of public ion of the
-52-
Notification should not be entertained of the
ground of delay and laches. We are unable
1,
appreciate how the Final Notification
struck down on the ground that the GovernrneVnt”~’t:”‘
and the Authority have released “some lands”
acquisition.”
. pi i’ L
14.5. Section 27 of where
there is no substantial iriip1.e;:n’entation of the
Scheme. But in thefact remains that
out of 604 acres =’2nd respondent had
already of 564 acres and 39
guntas of “and have been distributed to
various allottees; .$§Ihichi.”-establishes that the scheme is
considered opinion, it is not
permissible’ .t”r1e’j appellants /petitioners to contend that the
ljr’schemeh«as particularly, when the award has already
pa.sseciV–and that the owners/ occupants had already
“dispossessed from the impugned land in question.
iConsi-ciering the magnitude of the housing scheme, we are
-53-
satisfied that the scheme is substantially implemented” and
therefore, Section 27 is not attracted.
14.6. Issue No.IV is answered accordingly.
15.1. Issue No.V:
In any event whether the above. “”i”it..iiDe’tiii’on- ‘A
maintainable both on the’ii_ground-.. of V(a}’V:”}O{Q.1.SVV’
standi and (b) laches? __
15.2.1 As regards locds .sta;r;–di:;:’ already seen
that neither the erstv.r.§1e1i1e 1etnd§iownersi”_;a.or petitioners–1 to 4,
who are the ‘legal and petitioners–5 to 10 who
are the subseqiiendt.pnrchasers from pe-titi0ners–1 to 4, have
ch.al1enge’dé.the’ a.cquisi’ti.o_n.proceedings. it is settled law that
e11″szcepts’ansdipreeeeeinge taken by the State in exercise of its
1:V.___gminer1t jfaower starting with the issuance of
~~no,tit’ication and ending with passing of award
the original owners shall have a legal bearing
‘ iliegal heirs of the original owners and the subsequent
_ _
purchasers thereto. In the instant case, as the father of the
petitioners–1 to 3 who was served with iegal notice di’d”‘not
challenge the acquisition proceedings, the petitionei’s’–E?..’
who are the purchasers of the land after~e–i.s:siiar1:ce_ ”
preliminary notification, cannot chalylenigeppfivthee 1 .acquisitio::§1c.’
proceedings and they would orilygubeiiievntitleciftoiget
compensation and any sale
notification would not be and would
not confer any titie Court in
MEERA or DELHI
AND OTHE:’R’S’i’ and therefore, the
petitioners have no challenge the impugned
acquisition it
it is apt to refer the ratio iaid
in the case of MIEERA SAHANI v.
i”vv::iiAIi1EUT1?3i1v141NZ!__”GQVERNDR or DELHI AND OTHERS, referred
i it iitoyaboaieegwhieh reads as hereunder:
5)
-55.,
“18. In U.P.JAL NIGAM vs KALRA PROPERTIES (P)
LIMITED [(1996) 3 SCC 124)] it was stated by this
Court that: (SCCp. 126, para 3}
“3. ….. ..Having regard to the facts of
this case, we were not inclined to ” l’ V
further adjourn the case nor to remitlhl
the case for fresh considerationby
High Court. It is we1l–sett1ed la’w:l’thea_f l V
after the Notification utider Section 4(1»)’l’l- A .. it 1
is published in the”‘»:;<gazette"*
encumbrance created "by: _ _ . owner
does not bind the he
purchaser does not to
the
19. In i’sNE_H’ Pi?z5l’££IjIzl4v_.V_’vsl::’ST2lTE OF U.P. [(1996)
7 sec 4263-igis. statedunder: (scc p.430, para
It settled law that any
purchases land after
of the Notification under
V Section 4(1), does so at his/ her own
A. peril. The object of publication of the
” — l.n5Notif1cation under Section 4(1) is notice
to everyone that the land is needed or
-55….
is likely to be needed for public
purpose and the acquisition
proceedings point out an impediment
to anyone to encumber the land
acquired thereunder. It authorizes the s
designated officer to enter upon the”;—-
land to do preliminaries, .etc;-.if.pi”*
Therefore, any alienation of j.landi_’w–.i ” V
after the publication of the iNoti’ficationv_ts ~ ‘~ it K
under Section 4(1) bind’
Government or the beneficiary
the acquisition; “possession
of the land, a;t1_* tights, é;nc1
interests”in’j’1an§d sta.nd«,{r’es’ted the
State, li.iJiiIi1’€lVE3I.’_;__ 16 of the Act, free
from “all and thereby
aabsoliutei’ title in the land is acquired
f i th_e1’e,unde’r-.?’.. ….. .. e
l’i1’h:e”–.s.aiidta.p;.roposition of law as also reiterated
y ittg4JAi€1{;r§IS*HNA SHINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA
s [(19ii95)”‘i,1oii sec 721] and STAR WIRE (INDIA)
_ ii “ISL/[IT}3D: US STATE OF HARYANA [(1996) 11 sec
.
-57..
21. In View of the aforesaid decisions it is by now
well–settled law that under the Land Acquisition
Act, the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge_…__
the acquisition proceedings and that he would be;
only entitled to get the compensation.”
15.2.3. Hence, the petitioner–5_».to._41O_’iiiifhoi’.’;Vare,4_’_the._ ”
subsequent purchasers of iInpugned”1«gla;’51_id”have”
standi to challenge the above Writp,etition..i’ .
15.3.1. As regards tactiiithat the
preliminary notification @982, the final
notification was was passed
on 27.05. / petitioners have chosen to
move this Courts’-.in shows there is a glaring
apparent__iidclayi.iin;”challenging the impugned notification.
It iisfatalihevenéto the above writ petition.
\A.’.e_ of the View that the learned Single Judge
” rightly held that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed
applying the ratio rendered in the case STATE
he – 58 –~
or RAJASTHANAND OTHERS VS. DR.L.AXMI AND OTHERS
{(1996) 6 SCC 445], wherein it is held as hereunder:
“Delay in challenging the notification
a
fatal and writ petition entails with disrms
on grounds of Iaches. It is thus, we}1~-»se,tt1e’d: «
law that when there is an inordinate it
sat.’ if ..f “* —-
filing the writ petition and”.w’1:.eAn aiilasteps it
taken in the aCquisitio:fi~V.._proc’ee_di:r1Vgs,:
become final, the court___4_shou1d be}-oathevvvfito
quash the notifi’cat;i–ons.i :’}f_’.’l:i_;¢}’I.'(.:O1lI’t’A has,
no doubt, discretion-airy;°powe_rsV”ur;de.r Article
226 or ‘quash the
notifi_catiQ_n5l,,,’,._f.u’nder’ S’e<iition 4(1) and
But it shouid
relevant factors into
pragnzatic'. Veontsideration. When the award
pasisediiand possession was taken, the
in should not have exercised its power to
award which is a material factor
Ftaken into consideration before
V eziercising the power under Article 226. The
* fact that no third party rights were created
.:'in the case, is hardly a ground for
interference."
-59..
15.4. Issue No.V is therefore, answered accordingly
16.1. Issue No.VI:
Whether the refusal to de–notify the ‘V’
by the State Government is arbitrairyy,_unreaS0ria7oIe,y
discriminatory and violative of 13?
Constitution?
16.2. As rightly pointed: learned Advocate
General, the de~notiflcatio17._’order 5.’3;.Ci.2007 made in
respect of land located in the
same survey number Vhas’A”oee-niyWithdrawn by the government
by order dated aindvthat the Government has taken
avtiniforrrii’ sta:id,_d’which, in our considered opinion, is neither
discriimiiiatoryiihorviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
16.3″; Is:-siievI:’S’Io.VI is, therefore, answered in the negative.
-» ‘E
-60-
17. In View of the findings rendered on the above Issue
Nos. I to V1, the writ appeal fails and accordingly, the
is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
…. ‘«1.:;;;’: ” ggfsflday’ 2009
1
L F’ Ia/SN?/Msk’ —