AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Anand Byrareddy, J. - Heard the learned Senior Advocate Sri Jayakumar S. Patil.
The respondents have been served and though the Government Advocate had taken notice on behalf of the respondents, no memo of appearance is filed. The matter having been adjourned on two occasions to enable the Government Advocate to seek instructions, the learned Government Advocate again seeks time and pretends to take notice on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, the petition is heard for final disposal.
Given the facts and circumstances, there is no warrant for any statement of objections, having regard to the same.
The petitioners are said to be owners of land bearing Sy. No. 177/4B of Tumkur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and District, measuring about 28 guntas. It is stated that the said land was sought to be acquired. The land was purchased by the petitioners under a sale deed dated 9-3-1953 by one Chikkalingaiah. After his death, Mylaraiah, Bhaskarappa, Hampanna and Venkataramu have inherited the property and the petitioners are said to be the grand children of Chikikalingaiah continued to be in possession of the land. They have built two residential houses and yet another building on the said land. The respondents have notified 132 acres 34� guntas including the above property of the petitioners by a preliminary notification dated 15-7-1983 and followed by the final notification dated 17-1-1985 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of formation and development of house sites under the centrally sponsored scheme for integrated development of towns. In the final notification, however, the extent of land was restricted to 107 acres 39� guntas. The project was a time bound project and had to be completed by end of 1983-84. However, no further steps were taken insofar as the petitioners'' land was concerned. Though acquisition of petitioners'' land was kept in abeyance and as regards physical possession, it is declared at Annexure-Q wherein it is stated that adjacent lands which were also notified for acquisition, the State Government chose to withdraw from the acquisition and therefore the petitioners taking inspiration from the same had also approached the State Government seeking that land belonging to the petitioners be withdrawn, to which the State Government is said to have sought for status report of the land and by Annexure-Q, dated 30-9-2015, it is recorded that physical possession of the land in question has not been taken and that no notification under Section 16(2) had been issued and the amount of compensation awarded was kept in revenue deposit. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that there had been no further steps taken after the status report having been filed. Therefore, the present petition. The learned Senior Advocate would submit that this petition came to be filed during 2016, after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, came into effect and Act, 1894 came to be repealed by Section 114 of the Act of 2013 and in terms of Section 24(2) of the said Act, the acquisition would lapse both on account of compensation amount not having been paid to the landowners and compensation amount kept in revenue deposit and secondly physical possession of the land has not been taken.
Though learned Additional Government Advocate seeks time to obtain instructions, the above stated circumstances would clearly indicate that the acquisition proceedings, insofar as petitioners lands are concerned have been abandoned. There is no intention to take possession and to integrate the land for the development that was originally proposed. It is also for the reason that as per Annexure-Q, lands immediately adjacent to the petitioners'' lands have been dropped from acquisition. This would indicate that the petitioners land would become an island. This is one more reason why proceedings have to be quashed.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The proceedings, insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned are quashed.