Shabbir Ahammed vs State of Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No.24558/2012 dated 11.02.2013, the present appeal is filed.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is the owner of certain extent of lands situated in different survey numbers at Pane Mangalore Village in Bantwal taluk. The aforesaid lands were notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the L.A. Act'') dated 07.01.2011 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 20.01.2011 stating that they are required for the benefit of the Karnataka Housing Board.

The appellant filed detailed objections to the preliminary notification issued by the respondents. The respondents after holding an enquiry under Section 5A of the L.A. Act, issued a final declaration under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act on 28.03.2012 and the same was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 10.05.2012. Contending that the declaration of the appellant''s property under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act, is erroneous and illegal and contending that enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, was conducted as an empty formality, and without considering the grounds urged in the objection statement, the final declaration has been issued, the writ petition came to be filed.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the stage of Preliminary Hearing on the ground that if the petitioner is of the view that the award to be passed is not in accordance with the market value, the appellant can always approach the Civil Court under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.

The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge did not consider whether an enquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the L.A. Act was really conducted and report submitted by the Collector was in accordance with law or not. According to him, the lands are not suitable for construction of houses, as they are situated in a low lying area and are all wet lands.

He further submits that since the award has not been passed within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act, the appellant is entitled for the relief, since the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have been lodged under Section 11 of the Act.

Sri Raghavendra A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the second respondent-Housing Board submits that the land is required for public purpose and therefore, the appellant cannot contend that no public purpose is involved in initiating the acquisition proceedings. He further submits that if the claimants are entitled to claim the compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per Cent, the same can be agitated by them in accordance with law under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, after an award is passed. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.

During the course of arguments, it is brought to our notice that as of now, if the award is not passed, Section 11A of the Act is squarely applicable. It is also brought to our notice that on an inspection by the team of the respondents, a report is submitted that these lands are not suitable for construction of houses considering the geographical condition of the lands.

This fact is also not disputed by Sri Raghavendra Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.

When an award is not passed within two years from the date of the final declaration under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act, Section 11A is squarely applicable. Therefore, on this ground the appeal of the appellant is required to be allowed because from the date of declaration till now, there was no order of stay granted by any Court restraining the respondents from passing the award.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The acquisition of the appellant''s land initiated by the respondents is hereby declared to be lapsed on account of non-passing of the award within two years as contemplated under Section 11A of the L.A. Act.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed by quashing the acquisition proceedings.