AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy
The petitioners claim as owners of 2 acres of land, each, in land bearing Survey No. 64 of Mandakalli village, Mysore District, which totally measures 10 acres and 10 guntas. The petitioners claim that they have purchased the land under five registered sale deeds dated 6.5.1996 and that the mutation was effected in their names in the records pertaining to the land in question with effect from the year 1995-96. The petitioners claim that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the land. It is on 28.11.1996 that a notification u/s 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''KUDA Act'' for brevity,) was issued proposing to acquire the land of the petitioners along with other lands, for the purpose of establishing a heavy truck terminal.
The petitioners had filed objections to the acquisition proceedings claiming that the land was not suitable for acquisition and that the petitioners are left with no other agricultural lands and that such other lands that were available have been acquired for the purpose of Varuna Channel by the State and that the petitioners had purchased the land in question to establish an industry.
It was also pointed out that respondent no. 2 was in possession of land in Survey nos. 179 and 180, which are located adjacent to the Regulated Market Committee and that the land can be used for the very purposes for which the lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired. The objections were ignored and a declaration u/s 19(1) of the KUDA Act was made as on 3.6.1997 and was duly published in the Official Gazette.
It is stated that several land owners had challenged the acquisition proceedings before this court in writ proceedings in WP 8024-26/1991, which was allowed by this court by its order dated 3.4.1998, holding that there was no prior sanction for the Scheme as required u/s 18(3) of the KUDA Act and that the objections filed by the petitioners therein were not considered as required u/s 18(1) of the KUDA Act. The entire acquisition proceedings were thus held to be illegal. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, respondent no. 3, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore Urban Development Authority had passed an award in respect of the land and notices of the award were also sent to the petitioners.
Since this court had quashed the acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands, which were part of the same Scheme, the petitioners were under the impression that the Scheme would not be pursued and that the petitioners would be given back their lands, as even the compensation amount which was in deposit was withdrawn by them and there was indication of the entire proceedings being abandoned. But, it transpires that the amount had been redeposited by the respondents and the petitioners, therefore, had made several representations to delete their lands from acquisition proceedings. They had approached the Minister, Urban Development in this regard and he also recommended the deletion of lands from the acquisition proceedings.
It is also contended that more than 5 years had elapsed from the date of the Scheme having been declared and therefore the Scheme itself had lapsed and since no action had been taken by the respondents to delete the land of the petitioners from the acquisition proceedings or to drop the acquisition proceedings, the petitioners who continued to be in possession of the property, are before this court.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the above sequence of events, would emphasize that it is already held in respect of the very proceedings that the final notification was not preceded by prior sanction u/s 18(3) of the KUDA Act and therefore, is vitiated. Secondly, even if the petitioners had not questioned the acquisition proceedings, the Scheme not having been implemented within 5 years from the date of final notification, in terms of Section 27 of the KUDA Act, the entire proceedings would lapse and Section 36 becomes inoperative. The question of the respondents utilising the land for any other purpose, if it has not been utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired, it can only be on the basis of fresh sanction given by the State Government, in the absence of which, the land claiming to have been vested in the State is not tenable and seeks to place reliance on the following authorities, in support of his contentions:
Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others, ,
Poornima Girish vs. Revenue Department, 2011 (1) AIR Kar. R 613,
Chikkaboraiah Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ,
Naganna (Deceased) by L.Rs and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ,
A. Krishnamurthy vs. Bangalore Development Authority, 1996 (3) Kar. LJ 506,
Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh and Others, .
While the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that an extent of 27 acres 36 guntas of land bearing various survey numbers, of Bandipalya and Mandakalli Villages, Mysore, had been proposed for acquisition under the preliminary notification dated 28.11.1996. This was for the formation of a truck terminal, as the project was taken up under the assistance of the Asian Development Bank (Hereinafter referred to as the ''ADB'', for brevity), the State Level Co-ordination Committee, constituted for the purpose of granting approval in respect of the projects taken up under the ADB Scheme, had approved the project of construction of the truck terminal by the respondents. When the projects are taken up under the assistance of the ADB, the State Government would dispense with the need for prior approval of the State Government u/s 18(3) of the KUDA Act and therefore, the State Government had enclosed a copy of the Circular and informed the authority that there was no need for obtaining sanction in respect of the project.
Pursuant to the preliminary and the final notifications, the respondents had issued and served notices under sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''LA Act'', for brevity).
The third respondent had passed an award on 30.9.1997, which was duly approved by the Divisional Commissioner on 27.11.1997. The compensation determined in respect of the petitioners'' land was Rs. 15,67,852. When the notice u/s 12(2) of the LA Act was sought to be served on the petitioners, one of the petitioners had refused to receive the notice. A mahazar was drawn up by the Special Revenue Inspector of the authority as on 18.2.1998. As the petitioners had not received the compensation determined by the respondent, the same has been deposited in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mysore. The possession of the land in question has been taken and a notification u/s 16(2) of the LA Act was issued on 26.2.1998. The petitioners had filed applications u/s 18 of the LA Act, seeking reference to the civil court for determination of higher compensation.
It is the case of the respondents that the total extent of land, of which possession was taken, was 22 acres 31 guntas. The respondents have implemented the project of formation of a truck terminal in an extent of 12 acres 21 guntas. The remaining extent of 10 acres 10 guntas was proposed to be developed at a later stage. As the possession of the land has been taken, the land has already vested with the authority and the authority is in possession of the said land. Therefore, the scheme has been substantially implemented.
The petitioners seeking to challenge the preliminary and final notifications on the ground that the Scheme had lapsed u/s 27 KUDA of the Act, is not maintainable, for the reason that the petitioners have sought for reference to the civil court for redetermination of compensation and are therefore debarred from challenging the acquisition proceedings This is the law as laid down in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. The Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt Ltd., and others, . The petitioners have approached this court in the year 2011, seeking to challenge the preliminary and final notifications of the year 1996-97 and therefore, on the ground of delay and laches alone, the petitions would have to be rejected. Even in order to seek declaration that the Scheme had lapsed u/s 27 of the KUDA Act, the petitioners ought to have approached immediately after the lapse of 5 years from the date of final notification and the fact that the petitioners have approached this court after 14 years from the date of final notification, would disentitle the petitioners to any reliefs.
It is also pointed out that in the unlikely event of the petitioners succeeding in establishing that the Scheme had lapsed, this would hardly effect the validity of Section 16(2) and subsequent actions under the LA Act. As the land stands vested in the State, the State, therefore, is at liberty to use the land for some other public purpose or enable the authority to use it for such other public purpose. It is pointed out that it is the position of law that if the land has vested in the State and thereby the landowner would have no right in respect of the land, there is no provision in law for revesting of the land in favour of the land owner.
The earlier challenge to the acquisition on the ground that there was no prior sanction of the Scheme u/s 18(3) of the KUDA Act, it is pointed out that the Circular issued by the State Government exempting the sanction of Scheme, was not brought to the attention of the court. And also the sufficiency of the approval granted by the State Level Co-ordination Committee in respect of projects taken up under the assistance of the ADB is also not brought to the attention of the court. Though this court had quashed the preliminary notification, liberty had been granted to proceed with the acquisition proceedings from the stage of consideration of the objections filed by the parties. Therefore, the said order would not aid the petitioners and it was allowed only in part. The petitioners are certainly not entitled to a similar relief, who have come to this court after a belated period of 14 years from the date of final notification. Even if want of prior sanction could be construed as an infirmity, the same would not be a ground to be considered at this belated stage.
In the above circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, even if the Scheme has lapsed, though it is claimed that it has been substantially implemented, the fact that the land has vested in the State in the first instance and it is thereafter the same has been handed over to the authority or that there was no prior sanction of the Scheme, the acquisition proceedings have attained finality and would not lapse. The State Government is enabled to utilise the land for such other public purpose, even if the land is to be resumed by the State Government on account of the Scheme having been found to be invalid or having lapsed. The other circumstance that the petitioners have sought for enhancement of compensation is also a circumstance which would disentitle the petitioners from seeking to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
Therefore, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed.