{"id":222064,"date":"2009-05-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009"},"modified":"2014-12-26T16:37:42","modified_gmt":"2014-12-26T11:07:42","slug":"sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit<\/div>\n
 \n\n.. 1 ..\nIN THE H1GH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE  Y OF MAY 2009\n\nPRESENT\n\nTi-{E HONBLE MR. P.D. DENAKARAN, CHIEF   *' \n\nAND\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE \\\/.~,Cr. SA$HAH1T..\u00a2'   '\n\nWRIT APPEAL NO. 19?9j_goo7\"iL}x'BDA:)\"  \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nI.\n\n3.\n\n. Sri M.Nagaraj, S\/0 1at_e'S__ri  \n\nSri M.Maridev,S\/0 late Sri Munivappia,  A  \"\nAged about 58 years.    \n\nAged about 51 years.\n\nSri 2\\\/I.Ra1nar3vwrat1:1'V)V.r',*'S\/oiiate  Muuiyappa,\nAged about 44 yea1'S;V..  .  .\n\n. Sri KrishnapVt).a,'S_\/ o late '\u00e9:1'i.C:3}xi1_{t1{at11ayappa,\n\nAged about 60 years.\n\nAppellants \"1 to 4  re\u00e9ivtiing at\n\n $39.22, v.::'si:.1\\\/Latin Road, Sm cross,\n\" AvHoSaha'll:?, B'anga1o.;'e~40.\n\nSAM'. ,pi1ip::'<';u;:n;i;r;..s';:.o Sri Modi Ram,\nAged _about 39' ytea.t*s,."\n\n.' Smt. vi:'na1a.1..'I'<im\u00bb;;::-1, W\/0 Sri M.Di1ip Kumar\n\n44Aged about 35; years.\n\nsg1;m.ohar Lal, S\/o Sri Modi Ram,\n\n"Age.--\u00a21'abo.ut 52 years.\n\n f3hanthi1'.)evi, W\/o Sri Manohar Lal, \n\n~ Aged' about 50 years.\n\n \n\n\n\n-2-\n\n9. Sri Ashok Kumar, S\/o Sri Modi Ram,\nAged about 41 years.\n\n10.Smt. Meera Bai, W\/o Sri Ashok Kumar,\nAged about 39 years.\n\nAppellants 5 to 10 are residing at\n\n2nd cross, B.H.Road, Magadi Road,\nKernpapura Agrahara, Bar1galore-56O 023.\nAppellants 5 to 10 are\n\nrepresented by their duly\n\nconstituted Power of Attorney\n\nHolder Sri T.N.Jayaraj Gowda,\n\n'S\/o Sri Nijagundaiah, Aged about 48 years;\n\nResiding at No.49, Satyanarayana Layout, R' _ _\n3rd Stage, 4"? Block, Basaveshwaranagara,--------- _ \nBar1ga.lore--560 079. V j  'V _   V\u00bb \n\n ~  ; APPELLANTS\n\n(By Sri.Padrnanabha Maha\ufb02e, Sr. Advocate  L;a'\\fJ"Associates)\n\nAND:\n\n' 1. State of Karnataka " \n\nRepresentedivby i-ts A   \n\nPrincipal Secretary to C':oir'c2f'nIIie~nt',"\u00ab. \n\nUrban Developrneyntl Department,\n\n1VIulti- Storeyed Building, V liir.B';_R.Arnbedkar Veedi,\nBa11galore\u00a756(}.0()1.  A.\n\n2." The Bangalore 'Development Authority,\nT.Chowdaiah._Rcra(}, Ku_mara Park West,\nBangalore 560 "020,  . V V \nRepresented by  Commissioner.\n\nR713. The Special Land'Acquisition Of\ufb01cer,\n\ni"~,.T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West,\n\n4" it " Bangalore 560 020,\n\n Rep,resente,d by its Commissioner.\n\nRESPONDENTS\n\n Sri, I-"iasavaraj Karreddy, GA for R1; Sri U Abdul Khader, Advocate for\n\nh '  . _ __R2"8\u00a7R3) \n\n   \n\n\n\n...3-\n\nThis writ appeal is \ufb01led under Section 4 of the Karnataka\nHigh Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in the writ\npetition No.85-340\/2003 dated 21.03.2007.  \n\nThis writ appeal coming on for orders, having  \nand reserved for pronouncement of judgment, this day;-. the"'C'ouif't----., ~\n\npronounced the following:\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Delivered by P.D.Dinakarain, <\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the order dated”-21.3.200’7 to it<\/p>\n
quash the preliminary notif1:cationi’da.tedii–982″Vand the
\nfinal notification dated   respondent
\nherein, in so far   which
\nwere acquired bjt Development
\nAuthority,   of Nagarbavi 11 stage
\nHousing Schiernje, the  Writ petitioners in<\/p>\n
w.p.No.83g1o,’2oo3 i1.a_\u00a7ei \ufb01led the above writ appeai.<\/p>\n
 2.:*–Ffo1’__the,_ipurpose of convenience the parties are<\/p>\n
 referred ,to–.ias.Vpe”Ij ranking in the Writ Petition.<\/p>\n
  3. Tifieviiiundisputed factual matrix of the case are:<\/p>\n
_ 4 –\n<\/p>\n
(i) The petitioners-1 to 3, who are the legal heirs of<\/p>\n
Muniyappa, the erstwhile original owner oflhthe<\/p>\n
impugned land, did not question the acquisiti’on_jVof <\/p>\n
impugned lands viz., land measuring 3 acres”  i <\/p>\n
total extent of 3 acres and 28 guntaa <\/p>\n
situated at Malagaiu vi11ag’e-,__ Yesl1yifanthap’iL1ura_v_i.I-Iogbli, <\/p>\n
Bangalore North Taluk,  itheivpuifpose of
\nformation of Nagarbhaizii.V:iI_ Scherne of the
\n2nd respondent. i_ herein H   noti\ufb01cation
\ndated 15.ofz.i:1  lriadvvlllliculrninated in final
\nnotificat’ion–.Tciaite:dfi.;  award was also
\n l i<\/p>\n
(ii) On veri\ufb01_cation_ deeds’ original records produced by<\/p>\n
  is “fo\u00abu.n_d’ that a notice was issued to the<\/p>\n
 ori.ginaI;v..4o’wv1ier–Muniyappa and {he did not choose to<\/p>\n
 acquisition proceedings and one S.M.<\/p>\n
 izvho was the owner of Sy.No.55, filed a Writ<\/p>\n
“i:I_?etition chailenging the acquisition proceedings in<\/p>\n
wi.P.No.2272\/1987, which came to be dismissed on<\/p>\n
– 5 –\n<\/p>\n
16.06.1995. Being aggrieved by the same,<\/p>\n
W.A.No.2055\/1995 was filed and the same’.’p:.'”was<\/p>\n
dismissed on 10.01.1996 and therefore, the  <\/p>\n
proceedings have become final. The been”  <\/p>\n
passed and possession of land h:asAfjvbeeri._’take’n__ on.’<\/p>\n
12.7.2002 and handed me: t’d ‘the   f<\/p>\n
Department of BDA on 18.7.2009:.’ <\/p>\n
(iii) Petitioners-5 to    purchasers of
\nthe impugned lands underfa isdle deed dated
\n13.3.1991     the legal heirs
\nof erstizJhilc–.o:\u00a7:;rne:r:’:.; of  lands.<\/p>\n
(iv)  have chosen to challenge<\/p>\n
the prelimxiiiiary do.t1f1edden dated 15.07.1982 and \ufb01nal<\/p>\n
 ” ~.notifi3catiAonv.._dated’3308,1986 after more than 20 years.<\/p>\n
4,  writ petitioners:\n<\/p>\n
 if The impugned acquisition proceedings are vitiated as<\/p>\n
 it no. notice was served on the petitioners as<\/p>\n
Adicointemplated under Section 17 of the Bangalore<\/p>\n
iii)<\/p>\n
V  ‘i*J)_<\/p>\n
… 5 ..\n<\/p>\n
Development Authority Act (for short “the B.D.A.<\/p>\n
Act”);\n<\/p>\n
The impugned acquisition is bad in law _
\nSection 11 of the Land Acquisition Act-‘(foe “the W
\nL.A. Act”) as the award was piasseldon <\/p>\n
after 11 years, while the preliminary’ notifica’ti.on was -. *<\/p>\n
passed on 15.7.1982  notificatifon was<\/p>\n
passed on 05.08.1’V98f>l\u00a7p.. _  it 1<\/p>\n
The petitio;c=1e’r.s fare \u00a5contii’1u’ing to. Iqeflin possession of<\/p>\n
impugned Vhvsipetitioigers are still in actual<\/p>\n
possession  land and no notification
\nwas issiied  16(2) of the L.A. Act; and<\/p>\n
 Ei_:’mpiigne’ciA..l#i.ousing Scheme got lapsed, as the<\/p>\n
  implemented within \ufb01ve years, as<\/p>\n
.’Ateo\u00a3uireeiti’jimVder Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act. The<\/p>\n
decaslio\ufb01nl in DJVARAYANAPPA vs. THE STATE or<\/p>\n
it \u00bb  KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSING 85<\/p>\n
 . _. AN<\/p>\n
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,<\/p>\n
-7-<\/span><\/p>\n
BANGALORE & OTHERS (ILR 2005 KAR 295) is<\/p>\n
relied upon in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
5. The writ petition was resisted by the respond_ent–<\/p>\n
State and the authorities on the ground that:<\/p>\n
(i)<\/p>\n
(ii)<\/p>\n
the petition is not rnaintainable in_vieW:fofi”iachesi4 V 2<\/p>\n
on the part of the petitioners’;\n<\/p>\n
Since the erstwhile ownezjs ofi  <\/p>\n
despite service of ValidV_s:tat.1f:o_ry notice on them,
\nhad not chosen  acquisition
\nproceedings    the Iegai<\/p>\n
representatiyeis  erstwhile owners namely<\/p>\n
petitioriers\u00e9rli   lost the right to challenge<\/p>\n
p\u00e9pgjthei. impiignedii acquisition proceedings and<\/p>\n
A  therefofev, the contention that no notice was served<\/p>\n
  per Section 17 of the B.D.A. Act fails.<\/p>\n
Corise\u00e9iuently, the petitioners–5 to 10, who are<\/p>\n
” Vivdpsuijsequent purchasers, also have no right to<\/p>\n
i i “challenge the acquisition proceedings.”<\/p>\n
-8-<\/span><\/p>\n
Even though the preliminary noti\ufb01cation was<\/p>\n
passed on 15.7.1982, the final notificationl,:iyvas_
\npassed on 05.08.1986 and the award  _
\non 27.05.1997, the same by itse1f~Vcannot.::beV
\nground to vitiate the <\/p>\n
proceedings as Section =]_._1 of   <\/p>\n
applicable to the impugne-d_ procee’din_gis xi\u00e9irhich is
\ngoverned under _pi-‘_ov;i_siVonsfofthe B.D.A. Act,
\nas per thew-decis:ion’\u00bb Court in the
\ncase __  4′  STATE or
\n ’66 “\u20ac5,f1’l’iVEl.R’S”i*2il()02(3) SUPREME 1];<\/p>\n
Since the en’trievsl’rnade in the revenue records<\/p>\n
Vshowe\u00a7”~thatVthei’*vCi?\u00a2”~'”respondent had already taken<\/p>\n
 ?C9_s.session of””the impugned land, the same is<\/p>\n
V V’     hold that the respondents had already<\/p>\n
A Jitaken”possession of the impugned lands; and<\/p>\n
AsV__Athe possession had already been taken by the<\/p>\n
V ” -_  and that major portion of the land acquired<\/p>\n
for the Housing Scheme had already been laid into<\/p>\n
6. After careful consideration ofv\u00b0the”riV’al c’o:r.litentVi’ons,<\/p>\n
the learned Single Judge by his order cialtec15[.21.3.g:2.\u00a7)AO:”\/”  <\/p>\n
… 9 …\n<\/p>\n
several house sites and disposed off to the third<\/p>\n
parties, the same is substantial implementationgof<\/p>\n
the scheme and there is no violation of   <\/p>\n
of the B.D.A. Act.\n<\/p>\n
in the Writ Petition No.8340\/2003  thusf’   <\/p>\n
(i)<\/p>\n
That as the original khatedarsg were not available
\nat the addressesVV_{oL1nd’__l therevenue records,
\nand on fencgtiijf i1or’3:\u00bb.e'”‘of ‘th_e”-neighbours knew the
\naddresses’,_n_otices’Were [served on their respective<\/p>\n
lanicis anti\u00bb there\ufb01yrel, the same is a proper<\/p>\n
.g..;jco1*z1pliaIi’ce:Vtlnder Section 17 of the B.D.A. Act and<\/p>\n
it   zviheevrever the addresses of original khatedars<\/p>\n
V”Th…viwe1″e_”_vavai’lable, notices under Section 17 of B.D.A.
\n  served on them.\n<\/p>\n
‘ ‘_ That despite official gazette noti\ufb01cation and<\/p>\n
— ‘publication of preliminary and final notifications<\/p>\n
_  ..\n<\/p>\n
dated 15.07.1982 and 05.08.1986 respectively,<\/p>\n
the original owner had not chosen to challengethe<\/p>\n
impugned acquisition proceedings at approplriaoei
\ntime. The failure on the part of the  ”  i
\nto challenge the preliminary notiii’ije3a:tion  <\/p>\n
passed on 15.7.1982.’-and the’l”fina},”noti\ufb01cat;ion <\/p>\n
passed on 05.08.1986,  their legal
\nrepresentatives,  to 4 as Well as
\non the petitioners.-V~5v:tofA  thllhe subsequent
\n petitioners-\n<\/p>\n
1Vvi*L’o”4.. 4 V _<\/p>\n
That”   preliminary notification was<\/p>\n
passedplonVV’l5i.i’?V.i’19l82 and final notification was<\/p>\n
 on “O5.,.Q8′.1986 and the award was passed<\/p>\n
‘ =Von,:127’;i(l:S;.1997, of-course, after a lapse of 11<\/p>\n
  same by itself would not Vitiate the<\/p>\n
impugned acquisition proceedings as Section 11 of<\/p>\n
  Act is not applicable, as per the decision of<\/p>\n
_ 11 ..\n<\/p>\n
Apex Court in MUMTHI  vs. STATE OF<\/p>\n
KARNATAKA & OTHERS \/2002(3) SUPREB\/\u00a7E:.:i1*\u00a7…<\/p>\n
That out of the total extent of land in  _<\/p>\n
viz., 604 acres and 23 guntas, it ‘w <\/p>\n
acquisition relates to only 7.: acres:’ar1d 34- <\/p>\n
As per the official reco_rds,i’~tlie V pio’Vssejssion..i3 of <\/p>\n
impugned land has  _rvesp:ondents
\nand non–issuance–ii-sf Section 16
\n(2) of L.A.4_\u00a3:ct woi1ld-   vitiate the
\nimpugried__ <\/p>\n
Tl”1Aat”rnagnitude of the impugned<\/p>\n
Housing ‘Sch~:~_’:mei enter an extent of 604 acres and<\/p>\n
 which, the 2nd respondent had<\/p>\n
i * Dfc-rmed a layout over an extent of 564<\/p>\n
i’ ,__i4iiiiacres’vit:iiarid 39 guntas of land, thereby, forming<\/p>\n
hoiiise sites in Block N’os.1 to 14 and disposed the<\/p>\n
 1381116 to Various allottees, the same amounts to<\/p>\n
substantial implementation of the scheme<\/p>\n
-12-<\/span><\/p>\n
satisfying the requirement under Section 27 of<\/p>\n
B.D.A. Act, as per the ratio rendered-.._:i’iin
\nBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHO;R1Ti?Ai’ejj1?s;t..
\nDR. H.s.HANUMANTHAPRAHm(1LR 199eTj};A’R:542} i’ ~ <\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITE (ILR  QAR; if.<\/p>\n
1258); and<\/p>\n
That in any   preliminary
\nnOti\ufb01catiO3;~.x;;Tas pasi\u00e9eta  and the final
\nnoti\ufb01eatgiigu\ufb01z,1%\/ s.i:’:?assed..’:–4Vgj1;i’i OS’;68.198e and the<\/p>\n
petitierieis…_Iiiave\ufb01-piiosen to challenge the<\/p>\n
 after a lapse of nearly 20<\/p>\n
“j\ufb01years,  is liable to be dismissed on the
\n   laeiies, as per the decision in HARI
\n OTHERS vs. STATE 01-‘ U.P. AND
\n  [1984(2) SCC 624] and in the case of<\/p>\n
  OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS vs.<\/p>\n
V” “b.R.LAxM:t AND OTHERS [1996 (6) sec 445}.<\/p>\n
KMSHNAMURTHT  4iB.ANG}IIV}:@RFe_:i<\/p>\n
-13-<\/span><\/p>\n
7. Based on the above \ufb01ndings, the learned Single<\/p>\n
dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present
\n8.1. Mr. Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior,’ Counsel -.  <\/p>\n
appearing for the appellants and   <\/p>\n
Advocate General and Mr. Abdul _4Khader,\u00bb\u00ab learn-ed:’coufj.sel <\/p>\n
appearing for B.D.A. reiterated thelVl’i’submissionls before
\nthe learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
8.2. That apart, Mr. Padm.an_a.b1’ia  Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel invited when some portion of the
\nacquired impugned l   to one S.M.Kannaiah
\nlocated irtgthe. same. number, was denoti\ufb01ed by the<\/p>\n
Gevttetnmefnttty-.i:,viet,der dated 05.10.2007, the refusal to<\/p>\n
de-noitify”i.._th\u00e9* :”‘impt{,ighed land is arbitrary, unreasonable,<\/p>\n
i’v1’,discrimina’tor3tand violative of Article 14 of the Constitution<\/p>\n
.,,”_gg.\n<\/p>\n
-14-<\/span><\/p>\n
8.3. Per contra, the iearned Advocate General, however,<\/p>\n
produced the proceedings of the Government dated<\/p>\n
23.03.2009, withdrawing the de~noti\ufb01cation orde:*,’:’da;ted_,
\n05.10.2007 in respect of the Land belonging to  <\/p>\n
and therefore, the Government has tak,reria’iiniforrn _istand’.*-C <\/p>\n
9. We have heard the }earned\u00ab.__couns_e1 anidiigiven four <\/p>\n
careful consideration to the submissions -nj1ade”oy_ ‘both sides.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10. Upon the above rival  issues<\/p>\n
arise for our:     0\n<\/p>\n
(i) Whether  acquisition proceedings is
\nivitiatedior.\ufb01non4–.co’1iip1iance of Section 17(5) of the<\/p>\n
   passing of award after 11 years<\/p>\n
A  the impugned acquisition proceedings ‘P<\/p>\n
.”~”\u00ab.__V{iii) Whether the nonmissuance of notification under<\/p>\n
it  Tffsection 16(2) of the LA. Act in the official gazette<\/p>\n
as to the taking of possession of the impugned<\/p>\n
(iv)<\/p>\n
(Vi)<\/p>\n
…15…\n<\/p>\n
land by the respondents vitiates the impugned<\/p>\n
acquisition proceedings?\n<\/p>\n
Whether non–formation of the  .\n<\/p>\n
impugned land Vitiates the__impugr;_edi”acquisition-_ ii’
\nproceedings as per Section  ofitiive  77.:<\/p>\n
Whether the above Wi’itv\u00b0’petition__is_ur11a.i’nta:1nab1e ” it<\/p>\n
both on the groiirid  1ocus.ista:adi..v:and (b)
\nlaches? and A i V it<\/p>\n
Whether  _     the impugned
\nland    is arbitrary,
\n  and violative of<\/p>\n
Art.ic1e 14-. of \u00ab th.e”C_on stjtution?<\/p>\n
11. 1. Issue-,__ No.I\u00b0’:_ <\/p>\n
 Whet.her’~ the ‘inipugiied acquisition proceedings is<\/p>\n
 vitiated._i_for,:rio_n\u00bbcomp1iance of Section 17(5) of the<\/p>\n
….  ….\n<\/p>\n
11.2. It is apt to refer to Section 17 of the B.D.A. Act<\/p>\n
which reads as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
“I 7. Procedure on completion of scheme3″(t)’_~   r it<\/p>\n
When a development scheme has been prepared,’  L”<\/p>\n
Authority shall draw up a nott’ficatiort–stating  factx ‘ A’<\/p>\n
of a scheme having been made and ‘ilirniits “of’ihe  <\/p>\n
area comprised therein, and..__naming_  ‘o1ac.e”l’wiiere
\nparticulars of the scheme, a  of the area lcoiiiprised
\ntherein, a statement.,,.f9\u00abbe6Z}\ufb015i\ufb02;\u20acllt.:’thee,lqml lwhiclth is
\nproposed to be acqzii’r-ghld.a,5;{‘v(}fi;,ihe”‘Eggs: inregard to<\/p>\n
which a betterment Vtax-vmay beplevielld be seen at<\/p>\n
all
\n hhhh  (2\/).:;>\u20ac{ lthe”sat’dl.hot.Q;ication shall be sent<\/p>\n
to7the”  within thirty days\ufb01om
\nthe  ofrelceip’tAhAthejreojhf forward to the Authority for
\ngriminsmission V “to the  Government as hereinafter
\nlllpretreiaetl, and} representation which the Corporation<\/p>\n
it ” \u00bb .n2a_ylthi}2kifit_to make with regard to the scheme.<\/p>\n
V.  Azithorizy shall also cause a copy of the
\nsatdnoti\ufb01cation to be published in the Official Gazette
\n,, ; Rand a\ufb02ixed in some conspicuous part of its own office,<\/p>\n
\u00abthe Deputy Commissioner ‘s O\ufb02ice, the o\ufb02ice of the<\/p>\n
-17-<\/span><\/p>\n
Corporation and in such other places as the Authority<\/p>\n
may consider necessary.\n<\/p>\n
(4) If no representation is received \ufb01”o_r;n”thef_~ ;. <\/p>\n
Corporation within the time specified in subf_s’ection”<\/p>\n
(2), the concurrence of the Corporationto ‘theyschemei <\/p>\n
shall be deemed to have been given.’  ‘ I<\/p>\n
(5) During the nu’r:y~\u00abtii:y,s nest:;rq1tawiin;\u00a5=nl\u00e9”‘ 3<\/p>\n
day on which such, notification-is'”published.in..tthe
\no\ufb02icial Gazette the rfuihoriity %{_shall’~ .a notice on
\nevery person V whose n_ame,VuppeL;,,s.– ‘in’. the nssessment
\nlist of the ‘Seoul authority orAi’inj_”-.the_:?and revenue
\nregister”‘us’_\u00abbeingi*_Vpritnuri\u00e9r  to pay the property
\ntax; or innit re}{entie”‘nss’essnten_t any building or
\nland i.\u20ac\u00abv._propose&t…t_a– be acquired in executing<\/p>\n
thescheme ..;_5r{,ii: lregttrd to which the Authority<\/p>\n
proposes to .re’co:}~e_r betterment tax requiring such<\/p>\n
“~7personVv to show. cause within thirty days from the date<\/p>\n
A  C ofZthe.receipt of the notice why such acquisition of<\/p>\n
V  or land and the recovery of betterment<\/p>\n
C ‘  not be made.\n<\/p>\n
  (6) The notice shall be signed by or by the order<\/p>\n
” I 4_ ofthe Commissioner and shall be served,-<\/p>\n
(a) by personal delivery or, if such person is<\/p>\n
absent or cannot be found, on his agent, or if no<\/p>\n
-18-<\/span><\/p>\n
agent can be found, then by leaving the same on the
\nland or the building; or
\n(1)) xxx xxx xxx<\/p>\n
(cjxxx xxx xxx<\/p>\n
11.3. Sub~sections (1) and (3) of  <\/p>\n
B.D.A. Act referred to above conteir1’p1ates ‘that mesj ino.tif1cation  ”<\/p>\n
for development scheme has to   same
\nshall be notified in the officiaiii the fact of the
\nscheme, the limits ofthe   of the area<\/p>\n
comprised and to be acquired; the said
\ngazette notification shaii  in some conspicuous part
\nof the offit\u00a7e”of the “B,_D.i;q_,”-the\/. office of the Corporation and<\/p>\n
sttchiiiothier :ii’]o?1at:ec\/._vwhere the authority may consider it<\/p>\n
 necesisa1’y__an’d no complaint by thepetitioners in this<\/p>\n
i <\/p>\n
   1.._\u00e9}i’.jiA”A.’Section 17(5) of the B.D.A. Act referred to above<\/p>\n
icontexlofalates that the notification published in the of\ufb01cial<\/p>\n
…  ..\n<\/p>\n
gazette under Section 17(1) and (3) of the B.ZD.A. Act shall be<\/p>\n
served on every person whose name appears  the<\/p>\n
assessment list of the local authority or as found i_n”the_* _<\/p>\n
revenue register. It is not in dispute in the instantiicase that.’ <\/p>\n
such notification as to the impugned acquisitiolizgwelre <\/p>\n
on the persons Whose name appealed in ‘the assessjm.eVnt..3list -. ‘<\/p>\n
of the local authority and who were___availah1e   addresses
\nas found in the land revenulellliregilsterrllh ll-ngcase of those
\npersons who were not:’availa’b’1’e’.*in  found in the
\nassessment list    land revenue
\nregister, n0tices\u00bb.;xilerel  on the land, which is
\nalso a valid   of the B.D.A. Act.\n<\/p>\n
11.5.:_Conlcie’det:llv,’;.pet;itioners~1 to 4 who are the legal
\n the”erstwhilehowherls and whose names were found in<\/p>\n
the  = l;iet,”_j.. however, could not be found in the<\/p>\n
V7.Vifiad\u00abdresses.u_showr1’the assessment list of the local authority<\/p>\n
 the if land revenue register. It is under such<\/p>\n
V._’cir’cutns’tances, notices were served on the land, which is a<\/p>\n
-22..\n<\/p>\n
provisions under the B.D.A. Act to indicate<\/p>\n
the proposals for acquisition, considering<\/p>\n
the objections thereto, sanctioning the   <\/p>\n
proposal for acquisition on consideration qf’-.<\/p>\n
such objections and if such acts do not take V ” <\/p>\n
place within a period of  years  <\/p>\n
proceedings would lapse.  i’.S_’uprerne__’. \u00bb<\/p>\n
Court in several decisiori5 “where ifi-“ues?.fiori\u00bbf_3a  <\/p>\n
of delay in the implementation of. <\/p>\n
proposals made Vurider ,i’h’e-  for; <\/p>\n
purpose of completion
\nProceedings; occurs\u00bb ”  ‘ \ufb01iew
\nthat if  is  the
\nacqu  coti_ldi._:be_ quashed,
\nprior_to’~.the1ia\u00ab1iritrod_uction  6 and\n<\/p>\n
–A the  Act~\u00ab.prescribing limitation
\non’.the_ poizxershand.h_:ith.e,–time within which<\/p>\n
suchu”action  taken. It would be a<\/p>\n
p\u00e9grnatter of. policy for the Legislature to<\/p>\n
 \u00e9indicate\u00e9 the time’ within which such acts<\/p>\n
at i’ =  taken. In the case of B.D.A. Act,<\/p>\n
 the nature and complexity of<\/p>\n
 the’i:n.p=lementation of the scheme, a period<\/p>\n
of years has been fixed for purpose of<\/p>\n
it \u00abcompletion of the scheme from the date of<\/p>\n
“issue of the notification under Section 1 9 of<\/p>\n
the RDA. Act on sanction of the scheme.<\/p>\n
-23..\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, when the Legislature itself has
\ntaken note of within what period the<\/p>\n
schemes have to be implemented and
\nprescribes an authority thereto and alsc_:_*1<\/p>\n
provides for as to what consequence would ._ ” i<\/p>\n
follow on non–implementation  the ‘scheme .
\nwithin that period, we do  :;;.lm\u00a2
\nCourt can take a “ifie14? that
\nimplementation of the  is <\/p>\n
way discriminatory.when”conipared to  <\/p>\n
provisions Of the  in
\nboth the provisions. ;:iroVz2ided,for”.identical
\nsituation;—‘  begin {case   more
\ndetails    the period
\nwithin “i1ghich::t_  has to be
\nissued_’ [and  which award
\nhas tobe   case of the B.D.A.\n<\/p>\n
Act irnplementation ofthe scheme has been<\/p>\n
limited to’a.. peiiodnof 5 years as provided in<\/p>\n
 liseic-iion..27 oflth\u00e9”B.D.A. Act.<\/p>\n
  V V  of the B.D.A. Act provides that
\nl’ fiuilthin a period of 5 years from the
\nV  dcite  the publication in the official gazette
\n it  of the declaration under Section 19(1), the<\/p>\n
iauthority fails to execute the scheme<\/p>\n
substantially, the scheme shall lapse and<\/p>\n
 – 24 –\n<\/p>\n
the provisions of Section 36 shall become
\ninoperative. In the LA. Act certain period<\/p>\n
has been fixed which is considered to be
\nreasonable within which the \ufb01nal__;””‘ it
\nnotification will have to be issued
\naward has to be passed anal-if’s–u.ch it
\nare done beyond the time,
\ntherein, the acquisition Vof.4landi”w_ili’\u00ab lapsefi AV.’ 1
\nTo the same e\ufb01ect is Section   it
\nB.D.A. Act. Ifthe s.D.A. :A.ctiprovicles far
\nyears to be irea\ufb01sonablsr  ‘periods _ for
\nsubstantial compliance_   <\/p>\n
we cannotsitate  sa’iti’_-p_ro’vision is<\/p>\n
    the<\/p>\n
scherrieV.oJ**\ufb02t.he  as”‘moa7.if’ied by the
\n    applicable by reason
\nofthe prov.isio’nsV_of.Sections 17, 18, 27 and
\n36 of the B.D.A. Act;\n<\/p>\n
 asicompliance of Section 27 of the B.D.A
\ncompliance of the impugned Housing<\/p>\n
:i_S’eheme,’ dealt with, in the later portion of this<\/p>\n
g f.’ ~\u00ab.,\\\u00a7<\/p>\n
 r i123s%n\u00e9\ufb01t- ” 3  eeeeeeee II  I. .\n<\/p>\n
…25…\n<\/p>\n
12.5. What is relevant for the present issue is, Whether
\nthe passing of the award after 11 years vitiates the impugned<\/p>\n
acquisition proceedings applying Section 1 1–A of the <\/p>\n
12.6. The H0n’b1e Supreme Court in  <\/p>\n
VS. STATE or KARNATAKA AND OTHERsiv_i”:~.f2Q:Q2 {3}<\/p>\n
Supreme 9] While approving the  <\/p>\n
Bench of this Court in Khoday .\u00a7Jistille’ri_e;~:’s  es  f.<\/p>\n
hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
“15. So far–.._ia’s_ tihe;_;\/–ti\\ct is
\nconcerned, it is not for-l~._rrLere<\/p>\n
acquisition “landj;    _proz>sidie for<\/p>\n
the W”estapblisltmentS”-of S  ibevelopment
\nfittthorityVtofacilitateiand ensure a planned
\ngrowth and. eeeeze-meet of the City of
\nApll\ufb01fangailorei and areas: adjacent thereto and
\n\u00b0’of….lands, if any, therefor is<\/p>\n
A   mvep\u00a7g;y4Vi”incidental thereto. In pith and
\nii  lthe Act is one which will<\/p>\n
1 ‘ ,_iilisqaarely}fall under, and be traceable to the<\/p>\n
op  powers of the State Legislature under Entry
\n ..  siofi List II of the VIIth schedule and not a
\nit  ifflaw for acquisition of land like the Land
\nAcquisition Act, 1894 traceable to Entry 42<\/p>\n
of List III of the VIIth Schedule to the
\nr””_?'”‘\u00a7x<\/p>\n
-25-<\/span><\/p>\n
Constitution of India, the \ufb01eld in respect of
\nwhich is already occupied by the Central<\/p>\n
Enactment of 1894, as amended from time<\/p>\n
to time. lfat all, the B.D.A. Act, so far as–‘:–. C<\/p>\n
acquisition of land for its developmental <\/p>\n
activities are concerned, in substance and <\/p>\n
effect will constitute a special law  –.<\/p>\n
for acquisition for the special purposes A  <\/p>\n
the B.D.A. and the sam\u00e9i’VV.tUas not’-also’:<\/p>\n
considered to  par;i”lllof.l;  Lana” <\/p>\n
Acquisition Act, 18.94.,-.lt’~colitld   be
\nlegitimately stated,  _ ax readingillcfl Section
\n36 of th,e’B,_iii;A. \u00a5Act_ that”rthel.l’Ka_rVhataka
\nLegisla”ture_V   .th’c?_re’by  ‘ to bind
\nthernse’lv_es llito _  additions or
\na.i2iendfneiits,V l3uiliich~\u00ab.._inigl_it be made by
\nalt\ufb02gether  legislature, be it the<\/p>\n
Pclrlisclzgni\u00e9\ufb02l, to lthesjgand Acquisition Act,<\/p>\n
 I894. The procedure for acquisition under<\/p>\n
 llthe>B.D.A. Act”i}is–a–vis the Central Act has<\/p>\n
  analysed elaborately by the Division<\/p>\n
.’~.,’B\u20aclTl1’l”_lfL,., aslnoticed supra, and, in our view,<\/p>\n
 vegy’ rightly too, considered to constitute a<\/p>\n
special and self–contained code of its own<\/p>\n
i \u00ab.,_and the B.D.A. Act and Central Act cannot<\/p>\n
“be said to be either supplemental to each<\/p>\n
other, or pari materia legislations. That<\/p>\n
-27..\n<\/p>\n
apart, the B.D.A. Act could not be said to be
\neither wholly unworkable and ineffectual if<\/p>\n
the subsequent amendments to the Central<\/p>\n
Act are not also imported into__;”””i<\/p>\n
consideration. On an overall consideration”-._<\/p>\n
of the entire situation also fITt'””C0u’lJ’:’710_t’l<\/p>\n
either possibly or reasonably’-tgstcited’  <\/p>\n
the subsequent amendments to the ‘Centrali A .  .<\/p>\n
Act get attracted or appli’ed”‘–either <\/p>\n
any express provision or.  “h,ecessai’y_gA <\/p>\n
intendment or implication {toil iarjquiisitions
\nunder the B.D.A. Act.”  Act,
\nexpressly pro vides; A   ienacting
\nthe  .._\u00ab–uil;ich  the
\nperiod of on  ofgivhich alone
\nthe  initiated thereunder shall
\nlapse due toa_ny._hcI.e\ufb02iult, the different<\/p>\n
circumstances ‘cr.nd.x_l..’period of limitation<\/p>\n
envisaged under the Central Act, 1894, as
\n larriiended by theamending Act of 1984 for<\/p>\n
  the proceedings on pain of<\/p>\n
  lapse forever, cannot be<\/p>\n
 imported into consideration for purposes of<\/p>\n
 Act without doing violence to the<\/p>\n
it llikylanguage or destroying and defeating the<\/p>\n
“livery intendment of the State Legislature<\/p>\n
expressed by the enactment of its own<\/p>\n
*%::><\/p>\n
}f<\/p>\n
475          <\/span><\/p>\n
-28-<\/span><\/p>\n
special provision in a special law falling
\nunder a topic of legislation exclusively<\/p>\n
earmarked for the State Legislature. A<\/p>\n
scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for__\u00a7V_:W’<\/p>\n
implementation under the B.D.A.  <\/p>\n
cannot be stultified or rendered”‘ineffective <\/p>\n
and unenforceable by a proi;isioniA.i’n the” <\/p>\n
Central Act, particularly’  the’ nature ,of   .<\/p>\n
Section 6 and 1 1–A, whiciucannot also<\/p>\n
its own force have any—— appllicationaito… <\/p>\n
actions taken  ‘the’ 1  Act.\n<\/p>\n
Consequently, we  _V
\n1Uh\u20acItSOe__U\u20aci7″L ‘-in they   the
\nDivistO~n:’*~vB\u00e9nch  the K\ufb02fft\ufb02ttdlttt High
\nCourt  l.td., case
\n(.t?;ai’uprc’:1l)i’  ~ the applicability of
\nSections  as amended and<\/p>\n
insetted byV’theA.CentraI Amendment Act<\/p>\n
of,1984=i= .. pfoceedings under the\n<\/p>\n
– 213.?-D.A’: ._Act. Vvllllfhe submissions to the<\/p>\n
 on behalf of the appellant has<\/p>\n
  whatsoever and do not<\/p>\n
 commend for our acceptance.”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
..  ..\n<\/p>\n
12.7. In our considered opinion, therefore, applying the<\/p>\n
ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Mani Thimmpdieihps<\/p>\n
case, referred to above, the impugned acquisition pr’oCeed.i:ngs <\/p>\n
is not vitiated on account of passing of award _<3\u00a2fter:'~1 1"~.3.rears,'4 'w it<\/p>\n
as, whenever acquisition proceedingsgis tiriitiatepdi..underee.__th{:A<\/p>\n
B.D.A. Act, Section 1 1-231 of the LA.   not
\n12.8. Issue No.11 is answered
\n13.1. Issue No.11: : J' A
\nWhether non–is_suanc.ei–i:._of  under<\/p>\n
Section 16(2)   La.  iii the official gazette<\/p>\n
as to  of the impugned land
\nby the A "i.respof1–de1<its hi\ufb01fii\u00e9tiates the impugned<\/p>\n
 acquisition proceedings?\n<\/p>\n
  (2) of the LA. Act, as amended by the<\/p>\n
 Acqu.isitioi1.iA{‘Mysore Extension Amendment) Act of 1961,<\/p>\n
 hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
 “16. Power to take possession.— When<\/p>\n
the Cotlector has made an award under<\/p>\n
-30-<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 11, he may take possession of
\nthe land, which shall thereupon vest
\nabsolutely in the Government, free from<\/p>\n
all encumbrances.\n<\/p>\n
(1) Section 16 of the Principal  <\/p>\n
shall be renumbered as sub-section {I}:_of.  it  <\/p>\n
that section, and after the_.sub+sec:-tioni”  b
\nSection Of\ufb01cer re~numberecZ, thee ” <\/p>\n
subsection shall be added,     1<\/p>\n
“{2} The fact si’\u00a3V\u00a2hl.”1?C!V~l_C:i’lngVfi
\npossession  be  the
\nDeputy Commissioner”l”i:n __the_’.:~Qf\ufb01cial<\/p>\n
Gazettetland  shall<\/p>\n
[be e’vi\u20acienc\u00e94of4s’\u00a3teh fact. ”<\/p>\n
 the “Collector” read “Deputy<\/p>\n
)i’_ \u00bb i<\/p>\n
. ‘ -Comniiissioner .\n<\/p>\n
l  “”” ”  (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
  :_:Bl.4Nafegyanappa vs. The State of Karnataka<\/p>\n
 0rsi”{,I_iIeR 20e75’KAR.2\u00e95) and V.Gunda Reddy vs. The<\/p>\n
~\u00ab.i.Sec_:i-e,tary, ‘Department of Revenue and others (ILR 2005<\/p>\n
 the learned single Judge of this Court held that<\/p>\n
absence of taking actual possession of the Eand<\/p>\n
\\e}\u00a2”__,…,- ”\n<\/p>\n
…..31…..\n<\/p>\n
acquired, even the issuance of noti\ufb01cation under Section<\/p>\n
16(2) of the L.A. Act is not sufficient to hold <\/p>\n
possession has been taken over by the BDA. <\/p>\n
regard, the learned counsel for the appellants’\/”‘pe_tition’ers,: “‘<\/p>\n
placing reliance on the decision in D. Naraj\/an’apipa”s_icase'”ari\u00e9ji<\/p>\n
V. Gunda Reddy’s case, content’;-isV””that a-sithe  v A’<\/p>\n
have not even issued a notifficationp.und.ern.Section_1p6V(V\u00a7) of the
\nLA. Act in the instant casegiithe’appellants \/ petitioners are in
\ncontinuous possession’ of   A<\/p>\n
above, the  made 3. reference to the
\ndecision of  Ape:~3  the case of BALWANT
\nNARAYAN\u00a7f’iBHAGDE._i_Vi$i’S. it M.D.BHAGWA’I’ AND OTHERS<\/p>\n
[(“19.7e{) :1. Ezooequivalent to AIR 1975 sc 1767].<\/p>\n
-V 13.42.:  Narayan Bhagde’s case, the Apex<\/p>\n
  The so–called paper possession or<\/p>\n
“possession on paper is no delivery of<\/p>\n
….-\u00bb~–\u00ab.\\<\/p>\n
….32…\n<\/p>\n
possession, actual, formal or symbolical. A
\nBench of the Madras High Court consisting of
\nRajamannar, C.J. and Rajagopala Aiyangar, J.
\nhad stated at page 762 in the case of<\/p>\n
Pethaperumal Ambalam v. Chidaxnbaram<\/p>\n
Chettiar:\n<\/p>\n
The next question is whether   V<\/p>\n
makes any difference in legal  ‘7 <\/p>\n
if possession is taken  C.\n<\/p>\n
Court. The Code conte”1nplatesV__noVV <\/p>\n
notice to the judgmentlidebtor
\nthat stage or  ob_}ec1iion_
\nraised by him to ~lthei’j’deliVeir3i_’.:~.\u00a7Ii’_\\<\/p>\n
possessio1i:punde;_r   ‘ or ‘Rule<\/p>\n
95,  title to the
\npropei’ty  from the
\nVjudgnrient-debto’:il  the auction
\ng’~i*.:purchaser’;he_has no interest in the<\/p>\n
‘A  propeptyvto protect.\n<\/p>\n
” . “Alt further been pointed out:
\n  characterisation of possession
\n _li””~taken under Order 21, Rule 96, as<\/p>\n
‘A “paper possession” is hardly<\/p>\n
justified and runs counter to the<\/p>\n
-33..\n<\/p>\n
principle on which the provision is
\nbased. Symbolical possession
\nobtained under Order 21, Rule 96 is
\nquite a different thing from paper<\/p>\n
possession, which might correctly~–~– <\/p>\n
describe only the possession ‘7 <\/p>\n
obtained by a party who being if
\nentitled to actual poss:e~sVsion’,” they
\njudgrnent~debtor hirnself’ – being   if I
\npossession, obtains V  ‘ ” \u00ab . p of
\npossession on paper
\npossession; gr
\nwithout
\nrequisites.’ V     false
\nreturns i’s.’vVV.11_fiade\u00ab_’ if.’ they were
\ncorn plied  V ” –~ .,<\/p>\n
22. ltlWou1dVthu_si be ‘seen that a symbolical or<\/p>\n
l”forri’i’al deliifery of possession as understood in<\/p>\n
  effect of dispossessing the<\/p>\n
judgnient~rlebtor from his right title or interest<\/p>\n
-V in  property. It does not dispossess the<\/p>\n
V. vipereson “in actual possession in his own right<\/p>\n
if  pi.”noVt,_iiable to be evicted under the decree or in<\/p>\n
  pursuance of the auction sale. A symbolical or<\/p>\n
-34-<\/span><\/p>\n
formal delivery of possession against the<\/p>\n
juclgment–debtor is giving of actual possession<\/p>\n
of the property in the eye of law and has the <\/p>\n
effect of dispossessing him although as_—:.a\ufb02’ <\/p>\n
matter of fact he may have succeeded\u00bb,. <\/p>\n
resuming back possession as Ibefore ”<\/p>\n
after dispossession.\n<\/p>\n
23. In a proceeding  the<\/p>\n
acquisition of Iand a1l”‘interests” ai’eVl”w_iped loutl”<\/p>\n
Actual possession of the
\nfor its use, for the public-p’ur’po’se  it
\nhas been   of
\npossessioniu  .  ‘cannot be
\n“symbolical'”e’ =  \u00bb  ii iii  ‘ \u00bb   V V as generally
\nunderstogoldl in  it cannot be a
\npossessions._rne,rel’y_  paper. What is required<\/p>\n
uncle_;j19″t,he  his ‘ the taking of actual<\/p>\n
.\u00b0pos”se.ssio1i’o_n themspot. In the eye of law the<\/p>\n
 i possession will have the effect of<\/p>\n
tran’sferri1i-g possession from the owner or the<\/p>\n
–V occupant offthe land to the Government.<\/p>\n
”  if {.25. When a public notice is published at a<\/p>\n
—  convenient place or near the land to be taken<\/p>\n
 -“stating that the Government intends to take<\/p>\n
MW\/,”, ,.._.\u00bb-\n<\/p>\n
-35-<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of the land, then ordinarily and<\/p>\n
generally there should be no question of <\/p>\n
resisting or impeding the taking of possessior1y,__’4* <\/p>\n
Delivery or giving of possession by the ownerfor V   <\/p>\n
the occupant of the land is not required-;””‘fl’iie-_ . <\/p>\n
Collector can enforce the surrender of if<\/p>\n
to himself under Section _.4_7 oi’–.pthe  if” ‘<\/p>\n
impeded in taking possessio11;~~..,_Qn  <\/p>\n
of the notice underSection.ll:9{_1i–._.pAclaims.,_to,i<\/p>\n
compensation for all interests iii}  has to
\nbe made; be it the inteArest._ofvlthe  of a
\nperson entitled “to: -the occuipationf. of land.
\nOn the taking’_off;-po_s.se:ssio.r1”   land under
\nSection___1__6_’orr”1;l?{:_1V)_ i_,1_:j”veistsl\ufb02absolutely in the
\nGovernment?’ “til-‘5:g=p,  \u00ab ___inc1_1mbrances. It is,
\ntherefore,’ clear’   of possession within<\/p>\n
the meaning of  16 or 17(1) means<\/p>\n
 takirig of’posses’sion__po.n the spot. It is neither a<\/p>\n
pospsessionfovn paper nor a “symbolical”<\/p>\n
it*poSsessionv”as~ generally understood in civil law.<\/p>\n
But_4lthev_que-stion is what is the mode of taking<\/p>\n
‘._posslessio._n’i? The Act is silent on the point.<\/p>\n
 “‘p_U11ie4_ss lllpossession is taken by the written<\/p>\n
 a._lagree’ment of the party concerned the mode of<\/p>\n
 _pVtalking possession obviously Would be for the<\/p>\n
\u00a39?\n<\/p>\n
-35-<\/span><\/p>\n
authority to go upon the land and to do some<\/p>\n
act which would indicate that the authority has M
\ntaken possession of the land. It may be in
\nform of a declaration by heat of
\notherwise or by hanging  ,….a.__ wfritteinv.
\ndeclaration on the spot that  it ‘<\/p>\n
has taken possession of, the \u00e9ilalnd.  1
\npresence of the owner or thejocculhjhant’ of   <\/p>\n
land to effectuate the ytakinygofvpossessioniiisv.E<\/p>\n
not necessary. No fizrtheir’._ncati\u00a2e”~-Eisyond that
\nunder Section 9(1) of thev\ufb01ct d’-When
\npossession hasheen taken’, ‘.ow_ner’or the
\noccupant of ttheslandi-isidisg\ufb01ossessed. Once
\npossession has :i3eerii.,_taLl:ien.\ufb01;9,:1and vests in<\/p>\n
the Gcyern:xn’\u00e9nVt.V_ V3’ \u00ab , =  -.<\/p>\n
26.   i[‘he:ja4ppellant’s resuming<\/p>\n
possaission o’f.__the land after once it was<\/p>\n
.’ %..jt&I.ken  Government had not<\/p>\n
   iofyiurgdoing the fact of the vesting<\/p>\n
oi”t\u00bbhe.V  in the Government. The<\/p>\n
_ Goxfernineiit or the Commissioner was not at<\/p>\n
 :”iiberty’ito withdraw from the acquisition of<\/p>\n
   fportion of the land of which possssion<\/p>\n
‘=1
\n\u00bb<\/p>\n
….37_<\/p>\n
had been taken, under Section 48(1) of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
27.xXXx XXXX xxxx xxx<\/p>\n
28. ………. .. There can be no hard  ‘V’ <\/p>\n
fast rule laying down what act  ‘ <\/p>\n
sufficient to constitute takingzloiipiossessionu = .  V’<\/p>\n
of land. ……  ………….  It iag\ufb01gais than 1 <\/p>\n
the appeliant was not present.__whe’n this
\ndone by the Tehsildar, but preseiice H’ of V}
\nthe owner or the occupant’_xoi’_   is
\nnecessary to effectuate   of
\npossession.  .    <\/p>\n
as a matte_r–.e.f   notice
\nshouid be    otigner or the
\noccupant _ A’ t’i:e__iand.,:th,at_ possession. would
\nbe taken at a time, though it may<\/p>\n
be desirabie ‘vwh<\u00a7re~.V_i'p*o'ssible, to give such<\/p>\n
 noti-ae before "~p.osse.ssion is taken. by the<\/p>\n
  that wouid eliminate the<\/p>\n
  :}any fraudulent or collusive<\/p>\n
transaction-_. of taking of mere paper<\/p>\n
'.V.possess"i\u00a7_mV, without the occupant or the<\/p>\n
it " owner eyer coming to know of it."<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
-38..\n<\/p>\n
13.5. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Balnlant
\nNarayan’s case, is derived as hereunder: l l V A<\/p>\n
i) What is required under  Act*’ie4.:’::~..  <\/p>\n
the taking of actual posscessiodmlv <\/p>\n
ii) It may be in  fofrnlx of
\ndeclaration by beat ‘
\notherwise or by~..hanglngtjaV:”u!t’itten”d
\ndeclaration on the   the
\nauthorityghas taken  of<\/p>\n
the land.’  p::3fes*ence_4’o_fthe”owner<\/p>\n
or the   “land to
\ne_ffec’tzlate ’tile   jaossession<\/p>\n
is._not’ necese-‘.ar_y.””   ~ ‘<\/p>\n
(iii) lwneensepeeseesion has been
\nV_\u00bb\u00bb’-itaileen, the*o.u)__ner or the occupant of<\/p>\n
V ‘A ‘ . _,  thevoland is dispossessed.<\/p>\n
” . . ‘”(iv)V nossession has been taken<\/p>\n
E”thet’Vlanid vests in the Government.<\/p>\n
A’ {fa} Resuming possession of the land
\n‘ ‘after once it was validly taken by
\nthe Government had not the effect<\/p>\n
-41-<\/span><\/p>\n
contention urged by the learned
\ncounsel for the society and learned
\nGovernment Pleader by placing<\/p>\n
reliance upon the impugned<\/p>\n
noti\ufb01cation regarding taking -‘  it<\/p>\n
possession of the lands in question,\u00bb ‘ i<\/p>\n
cannot be accepted by   ”\n<\/p>\n
They are far from truth   2 it <\/p>\n
admitted facts. llTherefore,V__  <\/p>\n
petitioners must succeed  they are i<\/p>\n
entitled to the I’eli’ofs as “for in<\/p>\n
-these writ petitions.” by<\/p>\n
13.7. llifin it  decisions, viz., D.
\nNarayanappa”‘s case  Reddy’s case referred to
\nabove, though  to the decision of the Apex
\n infg: a\ufb02bzn.-“;yan’s case, the ratio laid down<\/p>\n
therein;  brought to the notice of the learned<\/p>\n
 ‘Single  for hisillproper appreciation.<\/p>\n
. 13.8} ‘I’hat”apart, the issue regarding mode of taking<\/p>\n
,possVe.ssion_ also came up for consideration before the Apex<\/p>\n
E \/~T””x
\n3 – ‘-\n<\/p>\n
fen<\/p>\n
_.,.,\u00ab,\u00ab<\/p>\n
 l pplied<\/p>\n
….42….\n<\/p>\n
court in TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD VS. A.VISWA.M<\/p>\n
(DEAD) BY LRS. (AIR 1995 so 3377), wherein, thgkipgx<\/p>\n
Court after referring to Balwant Narayan’s case he1.d_:mth{3Ijs~:._i    _<\/p>\n
“9. It is settled law bymh serie.s””‘vof’_Vv:'”*V.
\njudgments of this Court that the ” e  V
\naccepted modes of taking  . 2 V
\nthe acquired land it i.s:”~\u00bb..V.recordingVVpit
\nmemorandum or
\nLAO in the pres’e.nce o-it  V<\/p>\n
by him \/them and that<\/p>\n
taking posses_sion\ufb02of   it iivould<\/p>\n
be
\npossevssio-n:”.;_:of  iand. It is
\ncommoi-iivi’};noiv1e~dge.___th.a_i: in some cases
\n person may not co-\n<\/p>\n
operate   possession of the<\/p>\n
      i<\/p>\n
   :t,he4vx’instant case, the revenue records disclose
\nthat  been taken by the Officials of the
\nVV’7CRevenue Rbepeartinent. Of-course, an argument was also<\/p>\n
;  advanced that possession of the impugned lands<\/p>\n
..  ..\n<\/p>\n
were taken over only by the revenue officials but not by the<\/p>\n
Deputy Commissioner. But what is relevant is wheth.er<\/p>\n
possession was taken or not, by the respondents  <\/p>\n
representatives. Strictly speaking, What all, Sec-tiony  ”  <\/p>\n
the B.D.A. Act contemplates is, the  .A<\/p>\n
may notify the fact of taking .epo\u00a7sessA:9\ufb01. VSe’ction_V_V.V1E_l\u00a7(2)l, <\/p>\n
therefore, either does not contemplate a situation that the
\nDeputy Commissioner possession of the
\nland in question nor Sectiorrrequires that<\/p>\n
there shall be a ga:Q:ettef::inotiiicati.pn,_fo:\u00a7  over possession<\/p>\n
of the  only Provides that the
\nDeputy  the fact of taking such
\npossessior1:._Ef  is published, the same shall
\nbelpllthe  A. proof “o1” ‘taking over possession of the land<\/p>\n
eother interpretation would be contrary to<\/p>\n
 spiriti  of Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act.<\/p>\n
“7l’.lv1erefore, vvhether gazette notification was issued under<\/p>\n
 as to the taking over possession of the land<\/p>\n
 that itself is a valid piece of evidence to hold that<\/p>\n
\/’
\nF  \\_<\/p>\n
-44-<\/span><\/p>\n
possession had already been taken over by the acquiring<\/p>\n
authority. Therefore, what follows is that, the issuance*.of<\/p>\n
noti\ufb01cation under Section 16(2), in our considered_op’1’n\u00abion:,_  _<\/p>\n
addition to taking over possession of the acqpui1*ed~..1a’n.:d;as” W<\/p>\n
provided under the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
operates as a conclusive proof oftaking\u00bb. possession.._VVof_.3the –. *<\/p>\n
land and ignoring such noti;fication___oin\u00bbvthe actual
\npossession was not taken;”–..in..  opinion, is
\ncontrary to the Iegalppresurriptiori  Section 16(2)
\nof the L.A.    of gazette
\nnoti\ufb01cation   ‘the instant case, will not in
\nany way be iapthat the respondent~B.D.A.
\nhad not taken  Vpospsesnziiioiiiiiof the impugned land from the<\/p>\n
petitionef:S}i}’ appellpantsi ‘  ———- ~ ”
\n _T’hat_Viap_art, as held by the Apex Court in Tamil<\/p>\n
and Balwcmt Narayan’s cases that the<\/p>\n
ifacceptedirr>..od.e “of taking possession of the acquired land is<\/p>\n
c recording’-..pf memorandum by the revenue authorities would<\/p>\n
\/.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-45..\n<\/p>\n
itself constitute taking possession of the land as it would be<\/p>\n
impossible to take physical possession of the acquiredillanpd<\/p>\n
and such entries in the revenue records is itse1f_.concflusive__ _<\/p>\n
proof of taking actual possession of thepland on” <\/p>\n
presence of the owner or the occu,par1t..:iof ta’?<\/p>\n
effectuate taking of possession_'”is not 11eceissairy.;Vyqppo1nce -. L’<\/p>\n
possession had been taken,;__ the  of the
\nland is dispossessed; once taken, the
\nland vests in the :\u00bby.”r;?SumptiOn of
\npossession of    validly taken by
\nthe Governmerit,Tljadl:i\u00e9s.ot  undoing the fact of
\nvesting of th”e_land   there is no necessity
\nthat takinpgp ofli”poVsse:ssionu “shall be only by the Deputy
\n asp.per”Se-ction 16(2) of the L.A. Act, because<\/p>\n
the\u00b0z_opti_on. i -“..the Deputy Commissioner to issue<\/p>\n
7.Vi””~notificati.on as taking of possession and the same is not<\/p>\n
“-\u00abmandatory  in such cases, where possession was taken<\/p>\n
 ‘en’tr_ie:s are made in the revenue records, the issuance of<\/p>\n
l’n’oti.fiycation under Section 16(2) is not mandatory.<\/p>\n
_ 46 …\n<\/p>\n
13.11. Hence, the non~issuarice of Section 16(2)<\/p>\n
noti\ufb01cation, will not, in any event, vitiate the acquisitionend<\/p>\n
if any noti\ufb01cation is issued under Section 16(2),  <\/p>\n
conclusive proof for taking possession and theV__s_arne–.i_\ufb01Nould’~  <\/p>\n
not suffer from either presumption or ithat’ <\/p>\n
possession has not been taken from the owners o\u00bbr’i’i~r;c\u00a21iparitS <\/p>\n
of the impugned lands.\n<\/p>\n
13.12. Issue No.III is ai\ufb01\u00a7wer.\u00a7d ;ar:COr’difig1y.<\/p>\n
14.1. Iss\ufb01e   ‘
\nWhether.’  the layout in the
\nimpugned iland .yfitiatesdiimpugned acquisition<\/p>\n
 ‘-proc:eediAngsv~.as per”Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act?<\/p>\n
  14.2.7 For  appreciation of the issue under<\/p>\n
_ .:i_Copn4sideration,i’ it is apt to refer to Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act,<\/p>\n
 ‘v_vhi_cii1′ reads as hereunder:<\/p>\n
…47_<\/p>\n
“2?’. Authority to execute the
\nscheme within \ufb01ve years: Where
\nwithin a period of \ufb01ve years from the
\ndate of the publication in the O\ufb02icial<\/p>\n
Gazette of the declaration under Sub\u00bb
\nsection{1) of Section 19, the Author’ityu”:—-<\/p>\n
fails to execute the p scher”ne—-:\ufb02 9  ‘<\/p>\n
substantially, the scheme    4’ ‘<\/p>\n
and the provisions of Section.  * ” i<\/p>\n
become inoperative.”\n<\/p>\n
14.3. The undisputedvihaets ate  total extent of<\/p>\n
604 acres and 23 guntas ofthe”.’2\u00e9\u00a7:”V”\u00a7%espondent had<\/p>\n
already formed a extent of 564 acres and 39<\/p>\n
guntas of  ‘havci”.cdi,s.tz=iT:51iJted house sites to various<\/p>\n
allottees. _ g i ”\n<\/p>\n
 ‘”14V.4″.’ Uiidef simiiar facts and circumstances of the case,<\/p>\n
 the  this Court in the case of BANGALORE<\/p>\n
 v.v:’DEVELOF,13tIE1\u00a7IT:vi’ A AUTHORITY VS.<\/p>\n
‘”  (ILR 1996 KAR. 642) held thus:\n<\/p>\n
 ttttt    <\/p>\n
-48..\n<\/p>\n
“IO. We are unable to appreciate how the learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge could strike down the Finaljhg<\/p>\n
Notification on the ground that the release <\/p>\n
certain lands amounts to violation of the  :”<\/p>\n
guaranteed under Article 14 of the Const’itvu:ti.on~;:: ‘-<\/p>\n
In the first instance, as mentioned herein  <\/p>\n
we are not at all satis\ufb01ed that theirelease  it <\/p>\n
was in accordance with laW.–._l’ndeed”; the.VCo:u’n._:sel”‘ <\/p>\n
for the Authorities s_ubmitt_e_d:=,that steps have
\nalready been taken of the order
\nproviding for release.  the
\nrelease of  the area
\nreleased j_.i11i*  and
\nDr. Ram V K 5.. \/1}:  er    Manikshadarga,
\nVenktappa  ad–measures 90 acres.
\nThe total area ‘pVro\ufb01Vosed::ii’to\u00abacquire is about 1334<\/p>\n
acres_andll<2  even assuming that the<\/p>\n
 area 5io1"Vv9iO acres'–isV__released, that itself cannot lead<\/p>\n
to._the_'s'conclusion that the Authority and the<\/p>\n
 ffwiere acting illegally and were not<\/p>\n
seriousV..tOi1_.'i:mplement the scheme and the<\/p>\n
ilghacquisitionl proceedings must fall. In the first<\/p>\n
 iginstance, in our judgment, the release of these<\/p>\n
   were not in accordance with law and<\/p>\n
 tlfierefore that release cannot lead to the<\/p>\n
,"….l….t.m._.c …..M…,…. –<\/p>\n
".49-\n<\/p>\n
conclusion that the action of the Government and<\/p>\n
the Authority in proceeding with the acquisitionfit.<\/p>\n
was fraud on the power of acquisition. It was <\/p>\n
contended that the release of area of aboL1t:—-7()4.:()T’i.:”‘ ii”.<\/p>\n
acres in favour of Housing Cowoperative:Soc–ie’ties. <\/p>\n
must iead to the conclusion that Ztrhiej. <\/p>\n
was not serious in implementing th\u00e9*.V5chern’e,i”vVe * i’<\/p>\n
do not find any merit in the_joontention.hecaLise'” <\/p>\n
retention of the lands with…ii:’theVv_._gHonsin,gA
\noperative Societies does.i:i_1ot*i_\ufb01}eadi todestruction of
\nthe scheme. But on the  assists
\nin the impieme’n:tatio1\u00a71T oi the object
\nbeing to  tithe\u00bb mioeople. The
\nsubmission*~~.V\u00a7i  ilearineiiiijviigciiunsel that the
\nscheme _1aj)s\u00abes.__V35.in\u00ab.,:”‘accordance with the
\nprovisions of  of the Act, is also<\/p>\n
required to “be  down. The Section<\/p>\n
 provides that ” ‘–in______case the authority fails to<\/p>\n
 er-zecutei.ig.th’e._V scheme substantially within a<\/p>\n
  it years from the date of<\/p>\n
pnhlicatioiri-.V_ ‘of the noti\ufb01cation under sub\u00bb<\/p>\n
‘._gsectio:nl7{1) of Section 19 of the Act, then the<\/p>\n
it shall lapse. The plain reading of the<\/p>\n
it  Section makes it clear that the scheme can<\/p>\n
 Hvlaipse provided the authority fails to execute<\/p>\n
\\.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-50.,<\/p>\n
the scheme substantially. This expression<\/p>\n
“fails to execute the scheme” clearly indicates’<\/p>\n
that the section will attract only in cases”:.:””–,.”‘v<\/p>\n
where the authority is in a position.  ‘V’ <\/p>\n
implement the scheme and thenppfails  \u00ab<\/p>\n
It was pointed out on behalf of the <\/p>\n
several Writ petitions were \ufb02ied in  Coft_1rt\u00bb.to it <\/p>\n
chailenge the publication of notifications <\/p>\n
the acquisition proceedings in view: the
\ninterim orders   _petitions
\nrestraining the Authority-from further
\nwith the scheme-\u00bb_   it was
\nimpossible   to) efxeicuteii the scheme
\nwithin   of five years
\nprescribed uriaier 2′?’ of the Act. The
\nCounseilfpor  very rightly did not<\/p>\n
dispute that seVera1i~–peti’tions were \ufb01led and stay<\/p>\n
 orders were issueVd_.__N}p’n these circumstances, it is<\/p>\n
  appreciate how it can ever be suggested<\/p>\n
  thve”:’eche1nie has lapsed because the Authority<\/p>\n
 ‘execute the scheme. It must also be<\/p>\n
noted. that the provisions of Section 27<\/p>\n
it ii’V.’e\u00bb.,p’3:es_crihes that the failure of the authority to<\/p>\n
  eiaecute the scheme must be in respect of the<\/p>\n
  __s__ubstantial part of the scheme. In the present<\/p>\n
“xp<\/p>\n
-51..\n<\/p>\n
case, on the showing of respondent\u00bb-1, an area of<\/p>\n
700 acres is allotted to the Housing Co–operativef\u00b0*-,p<\/p>\n
Societies for construction of houses. The Counsel”-.””–, <\/p>\n
appearing for the two appellants, who :”<\/p>\n
allotted sites No.85 and 115 by the  \u00ab<\/p>\n
points out that not only allotments  <\/p>\n
various persons, but houses ikhave   ”<\/p>\n
constructed by those aJlottee_sl;’~~..In ca’se__, now_,  <\/p>\n
held that the scheme had 1ap_sed_,  wouldrivresiiilt
\ninto serious prejudice ;.t_o:;1ar–,ae  allottees
\nfrom the authority. In  is not
\nproper in eXer_c.i.s:e’–of  to nullify the
\naction   thej ..bbStatutory authority in
\npursuance of  by the statute.\n<\/p>\n
It is    _Writ Court to assume
\nthat illlegialitiesi “1’lave been committed<\/p>\n
because the.rA11thority’has released some lands.<\/p>\n
 EVen.\u00a7-piasstiming that the release of lands is not in<\/p>\n
 with law, still the Writ Court should<\/p>\n
Isnot;hai.r.e’-.disturbed the entire scheme and struck<\/p>\n
down thvepilllotilfication which was published in the<\/p>\n
‘.vyearii1..9i’7.\u00a73..VlThe learned Single Judge should not<\/p>\n
it turned down the contention urged on behalf<\/p>\n
 “the authority that the petition filed after<\/p>\n
 years after the date of public ion of the<\/p>\n
-52-<\/span><\/p>\n
Notification should not be entertained of the
\nground of delay and laches. We are unable <\/p>\n
1,<\/p>\n
appreciate how the Final Notification
\nstruck down on the ground that the GovernrneVnt”~’t:”‘
\nand the Authority have released “some lands” <\/p>\n
acquisition.”\n<\/p>\n
 . pi i’ L<\/p>\n
14.5. Section 27 of   where
\nthere is no substantial  iriip1.e;:n’entation of the
\nScheme. But in  thefact remains that
\nout of 604 acres  =’2nd respondent had
\nalready   of 564 acres and 39
\nguntas of  “and have been distributed to
\nvarious allottees; .$\u00a7Ihichi.”-establishes that the scheme is
\n considered opinion, it is not<\/p>\n
permissible’  .t”r1e’j appellants \/petitioners to contend that the<\/p>\n
ljr’schemeh\u00abas  particularly, when the award has already<\/p>\n
pa.sseciV–and that the owners\/ occupants had already<\/p>\n
 “dispossessed from the impugned land in question.<\/p>\n
 iConsi-ciering the magnitude of the housing scheme, we are<\/p>\n
-53-<\/span><\/p>\n
satis\ufb01ed that the scheme is substantially implemented” and<\/p>\n
therefore, Section 27 is not attracted.<\/p>\n
14.6. Issue No.IV is answered accordingly.<\/p>\n
15.1. Issue No.V:\n<\/p>\n
In any event whether the above. “”i”it..iiDe’tiii’on-   ‘A<\/p>\n
maintainable both on the’ii_ground-.. of V(a}’V:”}O{Q.1.SVV’ <\/p>\n
standi and (b) laches? __<\/p>\n
15.2.1 As regards locds .sta;r;–di:;:’ already seen<\/p>\n
that neither the erstv.r.\u00a71e1i1e 1etnd\u00a7iownersi”_;a.or petitioners–1 to 4,<\/p>\n
who are the ‘legal  and petitioners–5 to 10 who
\nare the subseqiiendt.pnrchasers from pe-titi0ners–1 to 4, have
\nch.al1enge’d\u00e9.the’ a.cquisi’ti.o_n.proceedings. it is settled law that<\/p>\n
e11″szcepts’ansdipreeeeeinge taken by the State in exercise of its<\/p>\n
1:V.___gminer1t  jfaower starting with the issuance of<\/p>\n
~~no,tit’ication and ending with passing of award<\/p>\n
 the original owners shall have a legal bearing<\/p>\n
‘  iliegal heirs of the original owners and the subsequent<\/p>\n
_  _
\npurchasers thereto. In the instant case, as the father of the<\/p>\n
petitioners–1 to 3 who was served with iegal notice di’d”‘not<\/p>\n
challenge the acquisition proceedings, the petitionei’s’–E?..’ <\/p>\n
who are the purchasers of the land after~e–i.s:siiar1:ce_ ”  <\/p>\n
preliminary noti\ufb01cation, cannot chalylenigeppfivthee 1 .acquisitio::\u00a71c.’<\/p>\n
proceedings and they would orilygubeiiievntitleciftoiget  <\/p>\n
compensation and any sale
\nnoti\ufb01cation would not be  and would
\nnot confer any titie    Court in
\nMEERA     or DELHI
\nAND OTHE:’R’S’i’   and therefore, the
\npetitioners have no  challenge the impugned
\nacquisition  it<\/p>\n
   it is apt to refer the ratio iaid<\/p>\n
  in the case of MIEERA SAHANI v.\n<\/p>\n
i”vv::iiAIi1EUT1?3i1v141NZ!__”GQVERNDR or DELHI AND OTHERS, referred<\/p>\n
i it iitoyaboaieegwhieh reads as hereunder:<\/p>\n
 5)<\/p>\n
-55.,<\/p>\n
“18. In U.P.JAL NIGAM vs KALRA PROPERTIES (P)
\nLIMITED<\/a> [(1996) 3 SCC 124)] it was stated by this
\nCourt that: (SCCp. 126, para 3}<\/p>\n
“3. ….. ..Having regard to the facts of<\/p>\n
this case, we were not inclined to  ” l’ V<\/p>\n
further adjourn the case nor to remitlhl  <\/p>\n
the case for fresh considerationby  <\/p>\n
High Court. It is we1l–sett1ed la’w:l’thea_f l V<\/p>\n
after the Noti\ufb01cation utider Section 4(1\u00bb)’l’l- A .. it 1
\nis published in the”‘\u00bb:;<gazette"*
\nencumbrance created  "by:   _ _ . owner
\ndoes not bind the he
\npurchaser does not    to<\/p>\n
the       <\/p>\n
19. In i’sNE_H’ Pi?z5l’\u00a3\u00a3IjIzl4v_.V_’vsl::’ST2lTE OF U.P. [(1996)
\n7 sec 4263-igis. statedunder: (scc p.430, para<\/p>\n
   It settled law that any
\n purchases land after
\n of the Notification under
\nV  Section 4(1), does so at his\/ her own
\n A.  peril. The object of publication of the
\n” — l.n5Notif1cation under Section 4(1) is notice<\/p>\n
to everyone that the land is needed or<\/p>\n
-55….\n<\/p>\n
is likely to be needed for public
\npurpose and the acquisition
\nproceedings point out an impediment<\/p>\n
to anyone to encumber the land<\/p>\n
acquired thereunder. It authorizes the s <\/p>\n
designated officer to enter upon the”;—-<\/p>\n
land to do preliminaries, .etc;-.if.pi”*<\/p>\n
Therefore, any alienation of j.landi_’w–.i ”  V<\/p>\n
after the publication of the iNoti’\ufb01cationv_ts  ~ ‘~ it K<\/p>\n
under Section 4(1)  bind’
\nGovernment or the beneficiary
\nthe acquisition;  “possession
\nof the land, a;t1_* tights,  \u00e9;nc1<\/p>\n
interests”in’j’1an\u00a7d sta.nd\u00ab,{r’es’ted  the<\/p>\n
State, li.iJiiIi1’\u20aclVE3I.’_;__ 16 of the Act, free
\nfrom “all  and thereby
\naabsoliutei’ title in the land is acquired<\/p>\n
f i th_e1’e,unde’r-.?’.. ….. .. e<\/p>\n
  l’i1’h:e”–.s.aiidta.p;.roposition of law as also reiterated<\/p>\n
y ittg4JAi\u20ac1{;r\u00a7IS*HNA SHINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA<\/a><\/p>\n
 s  [(19ii95)”‘i,1oii sec 721] and STAR WIRE (INDIA)<\/p>\n
_ ii  “ISL\/[IT}3D: US STATE OF HARYANA [(1996) 11 sec
\n.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-57..\n<\/p>\n
21. In View of the aforesaid decisions it is by now
\nwell–settled law that under the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
Act, the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge_…__
\nthe acquisition proceedings and that he would be;<\/p>\n
only entitled to get the compensation.”<\/p>\n
15.2.3. Hence, the petitioner–5_\u00bb.to._41O_’iiiifhoi’.’;Vare,4_’_the._ ”<\/p>\n
subsequent purchasers of iInpugned”1\u00abgla;’51_id”have” <\/p>\n
standi to challenge the above Writp,etition..i’ .<\/p>\n
15.3.1. As regards   tactiiithat the
\npreliminary noti\ufb01cation  @982, the final
\nnoti\ufb01cation was   was passed
\non 27.05.   \/ petitioners have chosen to
\nmove this Courts’-.in  shows there is a glaring
\n apparent__iidclayi.iin;”challenging the impugned notification.
\nIt iisfataliheven\u00e9to the above writ petition.<\/p>\n
 \\A.’.e_ of the View that the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
” rightly held that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed<\/p>\n
  applying the ratio rendered in the case STATE<\/p>\n
he – 58 –~
\nor RAJASTHANAND OTHERS VS. DR.L.AXMI AND OTHERS<\/p>\n
{(1996) 6 SCC 445], wherein it is held as hereunder:<\/p>\n
“Delay in challenging the noti\ufb01cation <\/p>\n
a<\/p>\n
fatal and writ petition entails with disrms
\non grounds of Iaches. It is thus, we}1~-\u00bbse,tt1e’d: \u00ab<\/p>\n
law that when there is an inordinate  it<\/p>\n
sat.’ if ..f “* —-\n<\/p>\n
filing the writ petition and”.w’1:.eAn aiilasteps it <\/p>\n
taken in the aCquisitio:\ufb01~V.._proc’ee_di:r1Vgs,:
\nbecome \ufb01nal, the court___4_shou1d be}-oathevvvfito
\nquash the noti\ufb01’cat;i–ons.i  :’}f_’.’l:i_;\u00a2}’I.'(.:O1lI’t’A has,
\nno doubt, discretion-airy;\u00b0powe_rsV”ur;de.r Article
\n226 or   ‘quash the<\/p>\n
notifi_catiQ_n5l,,,’,._f.u’nder’  S’e<iition  4(1) and<\/p>\n
 But it shouid
\n relevant factors into
\npragnzatic'. Veontsideration. When the award
\n pasisediiand possession was taken, the<\/p>\n
in  should not have exercised its power to
\n award which is a material factor
\n   Ftaken into consideration before<\/p>\n
V  eziercising the power under Article 226. The
\n *  fact that no third party rights were created
\n .:'in the case, is hardly a ground for<\/p>\n
interference."\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-59..\n<\/p>\n
15.4. Issue No.V is therefore, answered accordingly<\/p>\n
16.1. Issue No.VI:\n<\/p>\n
Whether the refusal to de–notify the  ‘V’ <\/p>\n
by the State Government is arbitrairyy,_unreaS0ria7oIe,y   <\/p>\n
discriminatory and violative of 13?  <\/p>\n
Constitution?\n<\/p>\n
16.2. As rightly pointed: learned Advocate<\/p>\n
General, the de~noti\ufb02catio17._’order  5.’3;.Ci.2007 made in<\/p>\n
respect of land   located in the
\nsame survey number Vhas’A”oee-niyWithdrawn by the government
\nby order dated  aindvthat the Government has taken<\/p>\n
avtiniforrrii’ sta:id,_d’which, in our considered opinion, is neither<\/p>\n
 discriimiiiatoryiihorviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
16.3″; Is:-siievI:’S’Io.VI is, therefore, answered in the negative.<\/p>\n
-\u00bb ‘E<\/p>\n
-60-<\/span><\/p>\n
17. In View of the \ufb01ndings rendered on the above Issue<\/p>\n
Nos. I to V1, the writ appeal fails and accordingly, the<\/p>\n
is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
 ….   ‘\u00ab1.:;;;’:  ”  ggfs\ufb02day’ 2009<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
L F’   Ia\/SN?\/Msk’ —<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009 Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit .. 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..\u00a2’ ‘ WRIT APPEAL NO. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-222064","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-26T11:07:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"42 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-26T11:07:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":8124,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-26T11:07:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-26T11:07:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-26T11:07:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009"},"wordCount":8124,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009","name":"Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-26T11:07:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-maridev-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri M Maridev vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222064","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=222064"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222064\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222064"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222064"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222064"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}