Smt. Mayamma and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The Petitioners have called into question the preliminary notification, dated 06.04.1989 (Annexure-G) and the final notification, dated 09.05.1994 (Annexure-H), acquiring the land for the benefit of the Respondent No. 2 for forming Banashankari v. Stage Layout.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri Shivaraju for Sri Vishwanath appearing for the Petitioners submits that the possession of the lands is not yet taken; the possession of the lands continues to be with the Petitioners. He submits that the lands in question originally belong to one Dharji Hanumantha Rao. He submits that the grand father of the Petitioners, one Muni Byrappa, was granted the occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question on 16.07.1981. Without showing the name of the Muni Byrappa or of his grand children (the Petitioners herein), the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 initiated and concluded the acquisition proceedings, so submits the learned Counsel.

He submits that neither the Petitioners nor their grand father Muni Byrappa were put on individual notices.

The learned Counsel further submits that there was a dispute amongst the family members of the Muni Byrappa. He further submits that the matter was taken up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court and that finally the settlement amongst them was arrived at in 2011.

He has also relied on this Court''s order, dated 27.07.2011 passed in W.P. Nos. 28101-28108/2010.

Sri Mallikarjunaiah, the learned Government Pleader for the Respondent No. 2 submits that this petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of delay and laches. The Petitioners have approached this Court after 16 years of the conclusion of acquisition proceedings.

This petition is liable to be rejected on the short ground of delay and laches. Once the acquisition proceedings are published in the Gazette, it would be deemed that, everybody has the constructive notice of the same. That apart, the acquiring body is not required to hold a roving enquiry as to who is the owner/occupant of the land being acquired. It would suffice if they act on the entries in the revenue records. The records of rights produced for the relevant years (1989-90, 90-01, 91-92, 92-93 and 93-94) do not contain the names of the Petitioners or of Muni Byrappa.

The order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 28101-28108/2010 does not come to the rescue of the Petitioners. The facts of the said case and of the instant case are entirely different.

For all these reasons, the Petitioners cannot assail the acquisition proceedings with any rate of success. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings is negatived. However, it does not mean that the Petitioners are not entitled to get any relief. It is submitted at the Bar that the parties have settled their property disputes in 2011. As per their settlement, the parties are entitled to receive the compensation on account of the compulsory acquisition of their lands. If the compensation amount is already disbursed, the parties may seek the redistribution, as per their settlement, if they so desire.

In the alternative, the Petitioners also have the liberty of approaching the Government for the withdrawal of the lands from the acquisition proceedings, provided possession of the lands is not taken by the Government from their owners.

Subject to these observations and liberties, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.