G. Ramaiah vs Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka and Others

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Petitioner has sought for quashing the award dated 8.5.1991 Annexure-H and also to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the mutation entry dated 4.5.2007 Annexure-J.

According to the petitioner, land in question was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for grant of Houses Sites Act, 1972 to the extent of 2.00 acres in Sy.No. 146 of Mandiganahalli Village, Magadi Taluk. The preliminary Notification was issued on 17.3.1979 and the final Notification taking possession of the land is dated 4.9.1979. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even after eleven years, the award has not been passed and it came to be passed on 8.5.1991. Hence, the petition on the ground that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act contemplates the passing of the award within two years.

Heard the Counsel representing the parties.

It is the submission of the petitioner''s Counsel that the Apex Court has held that if the award is not passed within two years, necessarily, the acquisition proceedings lapses and the land must revert back to the land owner. Apart from that, another line of argument canvassed by the Counsel is, notice has not been served on the petitioner and he was not aware of the proceedings and only when the mutation entry came to be entered as at Annexure - J, he was notified as such, the acquisition proceedings has lapsed.

Per contra, Government Advocate submitted that, as per the final Notification, land vested in the Government itself (Section 3(5) of the Act) Also it is submitted, in similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , referring to Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, held that when already possession is taken, question of award being passed belatedly cannot be taken into consideration so far as holding the acquisition proceedings valid or not. It is also submitted, that the ratio laid down in the case of Mariyappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. ILR 1998 Kar 1339 rendered by the Apex Court is not applicable to the case on hand and the same has been distinguished by this Court. Accordingly, in support of his argument, he has relied upon the case of D.V. Lakshmana Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and others, .

It is further allied by the petitioner''s Counsel that the judgment of this Court distinguishing two of the judgments viz., Mariyappa''s case and D.V. Lakshmana Rao''s case judgment is only in respect of Land Acquisition Act and not directly in connection with the acquisition of the property for formation of sites under the Act.

In Satendra Prasad Jain''s case noted supra, it is held when Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, Government takes possession of the land prior to the making of the award u/s 11 and thereupon, the owner is divested of title to the land which is vested in the Government.... Section 11(a) can have no application to the cases of Acquisition u/s 17 because lands have already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the said Act by which land vested in the Government can revert to the owner.

As per the date of events, there is a preliminary Notification on 17.3.1979; final Notification of vesting of the land with the Government is on 4.4.1979. Though award came to be passed belatedly, even Section 11A has no application in view of the ratio laid down. Apart from that, this Court in similar circumstances, referring to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Mariyappa''s case, has already made a distinction of Satendra Prasad Jain''s case where a decision of the larger Bench of the Apex Court is being followed by the Single Judge of this Court contrary to the finding given in Mariyappa''s case. Although it is a later judgment as noted, wherein the Apex Court has held that amendment made in 1984 including Section 11A have to be read in the Karnataka Act, 1979 so far as enquiry, award, reference to Court, payment of compensation and apportionment of the award amount. On principle, though Mariyappa''s case has laid down the law as per Section 11A, award has to be passed within two years, the fact remains that since already possession is taken in view of the urgency Clause by way of final Notification and vesting of the land with the Government, the principle is that as laid down by the larger Bench that there cannot be an order to revert the land back to the owner on the ground that it is a belated award.

In the circumstances, petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is entitled for compensation, he can claim for the same, in accordance with law.