AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties on merits.
The appellants being not satisfied with the relief granted to them by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 33087/2010 dated 3.4.2012, the present appeal is filed.
According to the appellants, they are the owners of 26 guntas of land in Sy. No. 28/2 and 2 acres 37 guntas of land in Sy. No. 30/2 of Doddakallasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. These lands were notified for the benefit of the BDA for the formation of 9th stage, J.P. Nagar Layout, Bangalore vide preliminary notification dated 17.11.1988 and final notification dated 31.12.1992.
According to the appellants, an award came to be passed only in regard to Sy. No. 28/2 measuring 26 guntas of land and as on today, no possession is taken by the BDA. So far as Sy. No. 30/2 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas is concerned, the BDA has neither passed the award nor has taken the possession. Therefore, they requested the respondents to de-notify the land as required under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
The learned Single Judge having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, directed the respondents to consider the applications of the appellants as early as possible but not later than the outer limit of 4 months. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.
Mr. R.L. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not granting relief to the claimants and directing the respondents to de-notify the land under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. He further submits that in view of the Central Act No. 30/2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, since the possession is not taken and the award is not passed in respect of one survey number and even though award is passed, no possession is taken in regard to another survey number, the entire acquisition proceedings lapses in view of Section 24 of the aforesaid Act. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent is lapsed on account of the subsequent Act.
The learned Counsel for the BDA is not disputing that in regard to one survey number though award is passed, possession is not taken and so far as other survey number is concerned, though final notification is of the year 1992, as of now, neither the award is passed nor possession is taken. In this background in view of Section 24 of the new Act, the acquisition proceedings initiated earlier automatically lapses due to new enactment.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside declaring that due to non passing of the award and not taking possession of the property by the BDA before the new Act came into force, any proceedings taken place earlier to the new Act under the Land Acquisition Act is deemed to have been lapsed.