AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—The petitions were the owners of the land bearing Sy. No. 12 of Dodda Hunsur Village, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District, measuring 4 acres 33 guntas. The 1st Respondent proposed to acquire the said land in the year 1962. A final notification was issued to that effect on 2.2.1966. The Petitioners had challenged the said notification in W.P. No. 925/1966. This Court quashed the said notification as per the order at Annexure-A dated 12.6.1967. Again, the 1st Respondent sought to acquire the said land. A final notification was issued for the said purpose on 26.4.1971, which was quashed by this Court as per the order at Annexure-B dated 17.1.1974. The 1st Respondent again issued a preliminary notification dated 21.2.1976 followed by a final notification for acquisition of the said land which was also quashed by this Court In W.P. No. 1962/1977 dated 27.08.1981 (Annexure-C). Once again the 1st Respondent issued a preliminary notification dated 6.8.1998 for acquisition of the said land by invoking the urgency clause. This was followed by a final notification dated 11.3.1999. The Petitioners challenged the said notification in W.P. No. 14130/1999. This Court by an order dated 14.08.2003 quashed the final notification and permitted the Petitioners to file objections for the acquisition of their lands within 30 days. The Petitioners filed objections, which was overruled by the competent authority. The 1st Respondent issued a final notification dated 10.11.2004 which was challenged by the Petitioners before this Court in W.P. No. 5042/2005. This Court dismissed the said writ petition by an order dated 30.11.2005 (Annexure-E). The writ appeal filed by the Petitioners in W.A. No. 78/2006 challenging the above order was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 7.11.2006. The SLP filed by the Petitioners in SLP No. 20592/2006 challenging the order of the Division Bench was dismissed by the Apex Court. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed a review petition in R.P. No. 23/2007, which was also dismissed by this Court on 28.3.2008. It is the case of the Petitioners that the award notices have not been served on them as per Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act). Therefore, they have filed this writ petition for a mandamus directing the 3rd Respondent to issue notices u/s 12(2) of the Act to enable them to seek reference u/s 18(1) of the Act.
Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the successive notifications issued by the 1st Respondent, have been quashed by this Court. The acquisition of lands as per the final notification dated 10.11.2004 has been upheld by this Court. The Petitioners have lost valuable lands situated in the heart of Hunsui Town. They have not received award notices to enable them to seek reference for enhancement of compensation. Alternatively, it is argued that even if that the notices have been served, since the Petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings, they could not have filed an application seeking reference for enhancement of the compensation. He further submits that the Petitioners may be granted an opportunity to seek reference u/s 18(1) of the Act.
On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the Respondents submits that, the award has been passed a long ago and the award notices dated 29.3.2005 have been served on the Petitioners in accordance with law. Therefore, they cannot be permitted to file an application u/s 18(1) of the Act at this belated stage.
It is not in dispute that the lands have been acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation for the purpose of construction of a bus stand at Hunsur Town. It is also clear from the materials on record that the final notifications issued for acquisition of the said lands right from the year 1960 onwards have been quashed by this Court. The 1st Respondent invoked emergency clause for acquisition of the said lands dispensing with enquiry u/s 5A of the Act. The Petitioners challenged the said notification in W.P. No. 14130/1999. This Court by its order dated 14.08.2003 quashed the final notification and permitted the Petitioners to file objections. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed objections which was overruled by the 3rd Respondent and a final notification was issued thereafter. This was again challenged by the Petitioners in W.P. No. 5042/2005, which was dismissed on 30.11.2005. This order was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 78/2006 dated 7.11.2006. The SIP filed by the Petitioners challenging the said order has been rejected so also the Review Petition.
It appears that during the pendency of the above case, the 3rd Respondent passed an award and notices have been issued to the Petitioners. Learned AGA has produced the records. It is evident from the records that the notices have been issued to the Petitioners by registered posts, Most of the notices have been returned to the 3rd Respondent with a postal shara that the addressee has either ''left the place'' or has not claimed the notice. The file contains an endorsement by the Revenue Officer which states that the Petitioners have refused to take notices. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have not refused the notices at any point of time. It is clear from the records that the notices have not been received u/s 12(2) of the Act by the Petitioners. It is also evident that the notices sent by RPAD have not been served on the Petitioners for some reason or the other. There is a serious dispute as to whether the Revenue Officer has tendered notices to the Petitioners.
The Petitioners have lost their valuable lands situated in the heart of Hunsur Town. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Petitioners should be granted an opportunity to seek reference u/s 18(1) of the Act before the 3rd Respondent.
In the result, the writ petition succeeds arid it is accordingly allowed in part. The Petitioners are permitted to make an application u/s 18(1) of the Act, to the 3rd Respondent seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 3rd Respondent is directed to refer the matter to the Civil Court within ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of the application as above. No costs.