SRI. KRISHNA REDDY vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11551 OF 2019 (LA-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 25329 OF 2017 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 25759 OF 2017 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 11550 OF 2019 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 11553 OF 2019 (LA-RES)

IN W.P.NO.11551/2019 BETWEEN: 1. M. SURESH KUMAR S/O A.R. MUTHUKUMAR AGE: MAJOR

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.231/1 2ND CROSS, 29TH MAIN BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560068 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MITHUN.G.A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

® Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 20.05.2002 AND 02.08.2003 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURES-A & B DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SECTION 11A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 FOR BEING NOT MADE AN AWARD WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY CONSTITUTION BENCH IN 2010(2) SCC 533 AT PARA 11 AND FURTHER TO HOLD THAT THE ACQUISITION DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED EVEN OTHERWISE UNDER THE NEW ACT, UNDER SECTION 24(1)(A) READ WITH SEC. 25 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 AS NO AWARD UNDER THE NEW ACT HAS BEEN PASSED WITHIN 12 MONTHS BY INITIATING FRESH ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE NEW ACT UPON COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW ACT AND ETC. *****

- 3 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

IN W.P.NO.25329/2017 BETWEEN:

AND:

- 4 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS PER THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION AND FINAL NOTIFICATIONS DATED 20.5.2002 & 2.8.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & B ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SECTION 11-A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT OF 1894 FOR NOT MAKING AN AWARD WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO

- 5 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

YEARS FORM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE CONSTITUTION BENCH REPORTED IN [2002] 3 SCC 533, PARA 11 AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SECTION 24 & 25 OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 24 AND 25 OF THE ACT, CENTRAL ACT 30 OF 2013 AND ETC.

***** IN W.P.NO.25759/2017 BETWEEN:

VENKATASWAMAIAH @ K. VENKATASWAMAPPA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.68, 11TH MAIN BTM 1ST STAGE, DRC POST BENGALURU-560029 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. SHILPA RANI AND ANUSHA.L, ADVOCATES OF BALAJI ASSTS.)

AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001

- 6 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED PER THE FINAL 1/02.03 AND NO.KAM DT. 20.05.2002 AND 02.08.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER S. 11A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT OF 1894 FOR NOT MAKING AWARD WITHIN PERIOD 2 YEARS THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE CONSTITUTION BENCH REPORTED IN 2003 (2) SCC 533, PARA 11, AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED U/S 24 & 25 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT OF 2013 AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.24 AND 258 OF THE ACT, CENTRAL ACT 30 OF 2013 AND ETC.

*****

- 7 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

IN W.P.NO.11550/2019 BETWEEN

M. SURESH KUMAR S/O A.R. MUTHU KUMAR AGED:MAJOR R/A NO.331/1, 2ND CROSS 29TH MAIN ROAD NEAR GAYATHRI APARTMENT BTM I PHASE, BANGALORE-560068

...PETITIONER (BY SRI.K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MITHUN.G.A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

- 8 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION NO.LAQ/SR/1/2002-2003 DATED 20.05.2002 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FINAL NOTIFICATION IN BEARING SL.NO.3/BHU/SWA/BE/2003 DATED 02.08.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-B RESPECTIVELY, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SECTION 11A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 FOR BEING NOT MADE AN AWARD WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY CONSTITUTION BENCH IN 2010(2) SCC 533 AT PARA 11 AND FURTHER TO HOLD THAT THE ACQUISITION DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED EVEN OTHERWISE UNDER THE NEW ACT, UNDER SECTION 24 (1)(A) READ WITH SEC 25 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 AS NO AWARD UNDER THE NEW ACT HAS BEEN PASSED WITHIN 12 MONTHS BY INITIATING FRESH ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE NEW ACT UPON COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW ACT AND ETC. *****

IN W.P.NO.11553/2019 BETWEEN:

SRI. T.R.RAMASWAMY REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

- 9 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BENGLAURU-560099

A. SRI.R.T.VENKATASWAMY SINCE DEAD BY LRS

B.N.RATNA W/O R.T. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

B. ROOPESH R V S/O LATE R.T. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

BOTH (A) AND (B) ARE R/AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT

A. SRI. R.T. SRINIVASA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS

R.S.DEEPTHI D/O LATE R.T.SRINIVASA REDDY AGED 25 YEARS

B. R.S. DIVYA D/O LATE R.T. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED 23 YEARS

BOTH (A) AND (B) ARE R/AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT

- 10 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

PETITIONERS NO.1, 2, 5 AND 6 ARE R/A RAMASAGARA VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MITHUN.G.A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE PRELIMINARY

- 11 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

NOTIFICATION AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 20.05.2002 AND 02.08.2003 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURES A & B DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SEC.11A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 FOR BEING NOT MADE AN AWARD WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY CONSTITUTION BENCH IN 2010(2) SCC 533 AT PARA 11 AND FURTHER TO HOLD THAT THE ACQUISITION DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED EVEN OTHERWISE UNDER THE NEW ACT, UNDER SEC.24 (1)(A) READ WITH SEC 25 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 AS NO AWARD UNDER THE NEW ACT HAS BEEN PASSED WITHIN 12 MONTHS BY INITIATING FRESH ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE NEW ACT UPON COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW ACT AND ETC.

***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.07.2022, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER 1. The petitioners in W.P.No.11551/2019 are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. To declare that the acquisition proceedings as per the preliminary notification and final notification dated 20.05.2002 and 02.08.2003 respectively vide Annexures-A & B deemed to have been lapsed under section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for being not made an award within stipulated period of 2 years from the date of Order of Learned Single Judge, as per the law laid down by Constitution Bench in 2010(2) SCC 533 at para 11 and further to hold that the acquisition deemed to have been lapsed even otherwise under the new Act, under

- 12 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

Sec.24(1)(a) read with sec.25 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 as no award under the new Act has been passed within 12 months by initiating fresh acquisition proceedings under the new act upon commencement of the new act; and b. Without prejudice to their right, further declare that acquisition proceedings under Sec.24 and 25 of the Central Act 2013 being not passed any award within two years or otherwise, within one year under Act 2013, according to law, there is no acquisition in the eye of law and the one on which the Respondents are contending that they are entitled to pass the award not sustainable in law and accordingly quash the acquisition proceedings initiated according to the Endorsement in Case No. LAQ No. (8)SR 4/02-03 dated 22.12.2018 that was handed over to the Petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police, Hebbagodi on 05.01.2019 in respect of the land in question in the interest of justice and equity. c. To declare that in terms of the Judgement of the Full Bench held in (Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others) reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, the land acquisition is deemed lapsed under Sec.24(2) of the 2013 Act, as there is no award being passed prior to commencement of the New Act 2013 nor Possession being taken till date, in the interest of justice and equity. “The Petitioner No.1 is the son of 2nd Petitioner. The Petitioner No.1 is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.142 measuring 5-00 acres situated at Goolimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The 1st Petitioner and 2nd Petitioner jointly owned Sy. No.143 measuring 5 Acres. 2nd Petitioner has executed the General Power of Attorney dated 23.08.2007 in favour of 1st Petitioner for challenging this acquisition by him. The 2nd Petitioner is the mother of 1st Petitioner, however, on the basis of the power of attorney in respect of 2½ Acres, that

- 13 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

being jointly in Possession with the 1st Petitioner, by means of power of attorney, the Petitioners are filing this petition challenging acquisition of Sy. No.142 and 143 of Gulimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The Petitioners while being in Possession of the same, the Respondents having published a Notification bearing NO.LAQ/SR/1/02-03 dated 20-5-2002 followed by a final Notification came to be published in the Gazette vide Notification No. RD/3/LAW-Be/03 dated 02.08.2003. The said notification being published after one year, same came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.11298/2005. Copy of the Preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A and copy of the final notification dated 02.08.2003 is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-B. Copy of the General Power of Attorney dated 23.08.2007 in favour of the Petitioner No.1 is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-C”.

- 14 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

b. Issue a writ certiorari quash the communication dated: 07.01.2021 addressed from the deputy secretary (Revenue department) addressed to regional commissioner and declare that 07.01.2021 is not an award within meaning of award as defined under The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 ACT No.30 OF 2013. c. Pass any other appropriate order or orders or directions as deems fit by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest justice and equity. AMENDED PRAYER INSERTED AS PER ORDER DT. 04.07.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT d. Issue of writ of certiorari quashing the award dt. 25.08.2020 bearing number AQ (8) SR 14/2002- 2003 (ANNEXURE V) passed by the Respondent No.5 herein the Special Land Acquisition officer u/s. 11 of 1894 Act land bearing No.106/1 an extent 11 Acres and 12 Guntas land situated in Goolimangala Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, and in the event of prayer (a) the writ petition is not granted by this Hon’ble court, the respondents maybe directed to pass fresh award u/s 30 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 in strict compliance and provisions of 2013 Act and the GOs issued from time to time on the subject of granting compensation in accordance with law. “The Petitioners are the absolute owners of the proper bearing Sy.No.106/1 measuring 9 acres 12 guntas situate Gulimangala village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. The land was notified along with other survey numbers, totally 42 acres 31 guntas of land. The State Government proposing to issue a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was published in the official

- 15 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

gazette dated 20.5.2002. A copy of the said notification dated 20.5.2002 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A”.

- 16 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

District, and in the event prayer (a) if the writ petition is not granted by this Hon’ble Court, the respondents maybe directed to pass fresh award u/s 30 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement 2013 in strict compliance and provisions 2013 Act and the Gos issued from time to time on the subject of granting compensation in accordance law. “It is submitted by the Petitioner that Sy.No.106/2 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas of land situate at Gulimagala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District, originally belonged to Pilla Reddy and Pilla Reddy sold the property in favour of Krishnappa vide Sale Deed dated 30.10.1937. Copy of the Sale Deed is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A. The said Pilla Reddy died on 06.03.1973. Even though the Sale Deed took place on 30.10.1937, after the death of Pillary Reddy, the pahanis stood in the name of grandsons of Pilla Reddy viz., Jayarama Reddy and C.L. Venogopal Reddy, children of late Lakshmaiah Reddy. Therefore, after the death of Krishnappa, the Petitioner being the son of Krishnappa, moved an application for change of pahanis in his name. However, the Tahsildar has mutated the revenue entries in the name of Jayarama Reddy, Venugopala Reddy, grand children of Pilla Reddy vide order dated 12.4.2012. This order dated 12.04.2012 was challenged by the Petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru in Revision Petition No.34/2013-14”.

- 17 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

vide Annexure-A and final notification in bearing SL.No.3/Bhu/Swa/be/2003 dated 02.08.2003 vide Annexure-B respectively, in so far as petitioner is concerned deemed to have been lapsed under section 11A of the land acquisition act, 1894 for being not made an award within stipulated period of 2 years from the date of the order of learned single judge, as per the law laid by Constitution Bench in 2010(2) SCC 533 at para 11 and further to hold that the acquisition deemed to have been lapsed even otherwise under the new Act, under Sec.24 (1)(a) read with Sec 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 as no award under the new act has been passed within 12 months by initiating fresh acquisition proceedings under the new act upon commencement of the new act; and b. Without prejudice to their right, further declare that acquisition proceedings under Sec.24 and 25 of the Central Act 2013 being not passed any award within two years or otherwise, within one year under Act 2013, according to law, there is no acquisition in the eye of law and the one on which the Respondents are contending that they are entitled to pass the award not sustainable in law and accordingly quash the acquisition proceedings initiated according to the Endorsement in Case No.LAQ No.(8)SR 4/02-03 dated 22.12.2018 vide Annexure-H that was handed over to the Petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police, Hebbagodi on 05.01.2019 in respect of the land in question in the interest of justice and equity; and c. To declare that in terms of the Judgement of the Full Bench held in (Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others) reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, the land acquisition is deemed lapsed under Sec.24(2) of the 2013 Act, as there is no award being passed prior to commencement of the New Act 2013 nor Possession being taken till date, in the interest of justice and equity.

- 18 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

“It is submitted that Sri. Rama Nathan S/o Ramaswamy along with two others namely, Deivanai and Alagammai are the owners of land bearing Sy. No.144 measuring 5 Acres situated at Gulimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The Petitioner has been given power of attorney by them by executing a General Power of Attorney dated 20.05.2004 for filing aforesaid acquisition. Hence, the Petitioner is the Power of Attorney holder of Ramanathan & others. It is how, the Petitioner based on the power of attorney is challenging the same in his name as a P.A. holder. The Petitioner is the son- in-law of the said Rama Nathan. Based on this power of Attorney, earlier, in fact, he filed Writ Petition bearing W.P. No.11302/2005, which finally reached the Supreme Court and disposed off in S.L.P. No.2834-2842/2014, pursuant to which, as liberty was given by the Supreme Court, the Petitioner is challenging the same as power of attorney holder of them. He is the power of attorney authorized by them for challenging the said acquisition. The Petitioner while being in Possession of the same, the Respondents having published a Notification bearing NO.LAQ/SR/1/02-03 dated 20-5-2002 followed by a final Notification came to be published in the Gazette vide Notification No. RD/3/LAW-Be/03 dated 02.08.2003. The said notification being published after one year, same came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.11302/2005. Copy of the Preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A and copy of the final notification dated 02.08.2003 is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-B. A Copy of the Power of Attorney is produced as ANNEXURE C. 5. The petitioners in W.P.No.11553/2019 are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

- 19 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

a. To declare that the acquisition proceedings as per the preliminary notification and final notification dated 20.05.2002 and 02.08.2003 respectively vide Annexures A & B deemed to have been lapsed under Sec.11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for being not made an award within stipulated period of 2 years from the date of the Order of Learned Single Judge, as per the law laid down by Constitution Bench in 2010(2) SCC 533 at para 11 and further to hold that the acquisition deemed to have been lapsed even otherwise under the new Act, under Sec.24 (1)(a) read with Sec 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 as no award under the new act has been passed within 12 months by initiating fresh acquisition proceedings under the new act upon commencement of the new act; and

b. Without prejudice to their right, further declare that acquisition proceedings under Sec.24 and 25 of the Central Act 2013 being not passed any award within two years or otherwise, within one year under Act 2013, according to law, there is no acquisition in the eye of law and the one on which the Respondents are contending that they are entitled to pass the award not sustainable in law and accordingly quash the acquisition proceedings initiated according to the Endorsement in Case No.LAQ No.(8)SR 4/02-03 dated 22.12.2018 that was handed over to the Petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police, Hebbagodi on 05.01.2019 in respect of the land in question in the interest of justice and equity. c. To declare that in terms of the Judgement of the Full Bench held in (Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others) reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, the land acquisition is deemed lapsed under Sec.24(2) of the 2013 Act, as there is no award being passed prior to commencement of the New Act 2013 nor Possession being taken till date, in the interest of justice and equity.

- 20 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

“The Petitioners are the owner of the land, bearing Sy. No. 69 measuring 4-00 Acres 05 Guntas and Sy.No.145 measuring 5-00 acres 03 Guntas of Goolimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. These Petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Petitioners while being in Possession of the same, the Respondents having published a Notification bearing NO.LAQ/SR/1/02-03 dated 20-5- 2002 followed by a final Notification came to be published in the Gazette vide Notification No. RD/3/LAW-Be/03 dated 02.08.2003. The said notification being published after one year, same came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.11300/2005. Copy of the Preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A and copy of the final notification dated 02.08.2003 is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-B”.

- 21 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

No.11298/2005, WP No.11832/2005, WP No.10876/2005, WP No.11300/2005, WP No.11302/2005 and WP No.11299/2005. All of which came to be disposed of by common judgment dated 22.11.2010. This Court taking into consideration that the acquisition was for a public purpose in order to save the acquisition came to a conclusion that if an award is passed on the current valuation of the property, the interest of the land owners would be safeguarded and as such, passed the following order: ORDER i. Writ petitions are partly allowed. ii. The Writ Petitions in so far as it relates to quashing of preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 and the final notification dated 02.08.2003 are hereby dismissed. iii. The impugned award dated 30.01.2005 is hereby quashed. iv. The Land Acquisition Officer is hereby directed to pass a fresh award by taking into consideration the market value of the lands in question as on today.

- 22 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

v. If the Petitioners are dissatisfied with the compensation to be determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is open for them to seek enhancement of compensation as per law. Ordered accordingly. 8. The said order came to be challenged by the petitioners-land losers by way of writ appeal in WA Nos.33-34/11. 9. The beneficiary of the land acquisition namely the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) had also filed writ appeals in WA Nos.45/2011, 47/2011 and 52/2011 challenging the quashing of the award passed. All the above Writ Appeals were taken up for consideration together and disposed by a common order dated 5.9.2011. 10. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ appeals vide order dated 05.09.2011. The writ appeals filed by the land losers in WA Nos.33- 34/2011 were dismissed so also the writ appeals filed by the APMC in WA Nos.45/2011, 47/2011 and 52/2011 dismissed.

- 23 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

- 24 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

- 25 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

22.11.2010 which had not been done until 07.01.2021. 14.3. Writ Appeals which were filed in WA Nos.33- 34/2011 and other connected matters came to be disposed by the Division Bench of this Court on 5.9.2011. Though the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the acquisition is liable to be quashed, it was saved in public interest since the Government would have to start the acquisition proceedings from the beginning and as such, the Division Bench affirmed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 14.4. Even while the matters were pending before the Division Bench of this Court, there was no order of stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the time for passing the award had not been extended by the Division Bench. As such, it was but required of the

- 26 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

authority concerned to pass the award within the time prescribed. 14.5. On a Special Leave Petition being filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court also did not intervene in the matter and dismissed the Special Leave Petition by its order dated 17.4.2017. Thus, he submits that the award ought to have been passed in terms of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (L.A. Act for short) within a period of two years from the date of the judgment in WP No.11298/2005 and other connected matters i.e., 22.11.2010, despite which no award has been passed within the said period of two years. 14.6. Even otherwise, he submits that the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeals on 5.9.2011. Assuming that the respondents

- 27 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

were awaiting the orders passed in the writ appeals, the award ought to have been passed within two years from 5.9.2011. Alternatively, the said award not having been passed, he submits that the acquisition proceedings are required to be quashed. 14.7. Alternatively, he submits that on coming into force of The Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short LARR Act) on 1.4.2013 in terms of Section 25 thereof, an award would have to be passed within a period of 1 year from the date of the LARR Act coming into force. In this regard, he relies upon Section 25 of the LARR Act which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 25. Period within which an award shall be made.–The Collector shall make an award within

- 28 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under section 19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months if in its opinion, circumstances exist justifying the same: Provided further that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.

14.8. No award having been passed in terms of Section 11 of the L.A.Act within the prescribed time and alternatively since no award having been passed within the prescribed time under Section 25 of the LARR Act, the acquisition proceedings have spent itself on account of no award having been passed and as such, he submits that the acquisition is required to be quashed.

- 29 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

- 30 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

proceedings would have to be quashed, on account of the same having lapsed both in terms of Section 11 read with Section 11A of 1894 Act and Section 25 of LARR Act, 2013. 15.3. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kolhapur Municipal Corpn. v. Vasant Mahadev Patil reported in 2022 (5) SCC 758 more particularly para 37 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:- 37. Therefore, once the reservation of land under the development plan is deemed to have lapsed by operation of law and it is released from reservation, no writ of mandamus could have been issued by the High Court directing the Corporation to still acquire the land and to issue a declaration under Section 19 of the 2013 Act (as in the meantime, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been repealed and the 2013 Act has been enacted). Once by operation of law, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed, it is lapsed for all purposes and for all times to come.

15.4. Relying on the aforesaid para, he submits that the acquisition having lapsed by operation of

- 31 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

law, it is deemed to have lapsed for all times to come and as such, the same would have to enure to the benefit of the petitioners. 16. Dr.Nanda Kishore, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6-APMC would submit that: 16.1. The time period under Section 11A of the L.A.Act had not commenced in view of the matter being pending before the Division Bench and thereafter before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The proceedings before the Hon’ble Apex Court having been disposed only on 12.04.2017 on which date the LARR Act 2013 was in force, there was a period of five years from the date of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court available for the respondent to pass an award. Hence, neither Section 11A of the L.A.Act, 1894 nor Section 25 of the LARR Act, 2013 are applicable to the present facts.

- 32 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

16.2. Assuming but not conceding that the ground of lapsing was available to the petitioners, the same ought to have been raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The same not having been raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court, it cannot be raised before this Court. By relying on Article 144 of Constitution of India and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIRUPATI BALAJI DEVELOPERS (P) LTD., AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 5 SCC 1, more particularly, para 29 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 29. While quoting the several authorities and references as hereinabove we should not be misunderstood as calling “the Supreme Court a superior court and the High Court an inferior court”; all that we wish to say is that jurisdictionally, and in the hierarchical system, so far as the exercise of appellate jurisdiction is concerned, undoubtedly, the Supreme Court is a superior forum and the High Court an inferior forum in the sense that the latter is subjected to jurisdiction, called “appellate jurisdiction”, of the former.

- 33 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

16.3. This Court is bound by the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court by its order dated 12.04.2017 having upheld the acquisition, the question of this Court now holding that the acquisition is lapsed would not at all arise. In support thereof, he also relies upon the decision in the case of GURMEET SINGH VS. DHIRENDRA KUMAR reported in (2005) 13 SCC 434 and Sompal Singh v. Sunil Rathi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 1. By relying upon the decision in Union of India v. Jaiswal Coal Co. Ltd., reported in (1999) 5 SCC 733 and CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2007) 10 SCC 736, he submits that if this Court were to entertain the above Writ Petition, the same would be contrary to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the year 2017. 16.4. He submits that even if there is a delay in passing of the award, the same is not

- 34 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

attributable to the beneficiary. The delay if any is caused by the State and/or SLAO for which the beneficiary should not be held liable and usufructs of the acquisition not be denied to the beneficiary. 16.5. The Writ Petitions are hit by delay and latches inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court having disposed of SLP in the year 2017, the Writ Petition having been filed in the year 2019 and therefore, they are belated and on this ground, he submits that the Writ Petitions are to be dismissed. 17. Sri.Nityananda, learned AGA appearing for the State would submit that: 17.1. The earlier proceedings having attained finality before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the re- adjudication of the matter by filing the present Writ Petition is mischievous.

- 35 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

17.2. No relief that the acquisition is lapsed can be sought for and as such, the acquisition proceedings cannot be nullified in the manner requested. 17.3. The competent authority had passed an award on 20.12.2018 which was sent for approval to Deputy Commissioner/Regional Commissioner on 24.12.2018, there being certain lacuna, the competent authority was directed to represent the award for approval, which was so submitted on 27.05.2019. The matter was again referred back to the competent authority, since there was no reference as regards the deposit of the amounts by the beneficiary. The competent authority rectified the same and resubmitted the award for approval on 26.08.2020, which came to be approved on 07.01.2021. Therefore, the competent authority has acted within the time frame. The compensation has been calculated on

- 36 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

the basis of what has been directed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11298/2005 and as such, the petitioners now cannot claim any prejudice caused to them. The award being passed within a reasonable period of time frame and cannot be said to have lapsed under Section 25 of LARR of 2013. On these grounds, the Writ Petitions are required to be dismissed. 18. Heard Sri.V.Lakshminarayana, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.25329/2017 and W.P.No.25759/2017 and Sri.K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.11551/2019, W.P.No.11550/2019 and W.P.No.11553/2019, Dr.Nanda Kishore, learned counsel for APMC in all matters and Sri.Nityananda, learned AGA for the State and Special LAO in all the matters and perused the papers. 19. The points that would arise for consideration are:

- 37 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

- 38 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

- 39 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation - In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.

21.3. A perusal of the above provision would indicate that the Collector is required to make an award under Section 11 of L.A.Act within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of L.A.Act. 21.4. It further provides that if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for acquisition would lapse. The explanation to the said provision provides that in computing the period of two years, the period which any action or proceedings to be taken is stayed by an order of the Court shall be excluded.

- 40 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

21.5. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which speaks of declaration reads as under:- 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. – (1) Subject to the provision of Part VII of this Act, [appropriate Government] is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2)], that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders [and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (I) irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5A, sub- section (2)]; [Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1) (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification:]

- 41 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

Provided further that] no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. 21.6. In terms of Section 6 of L.A.Act, a declaration made therein is required to be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situated and the said declaration is stated to be a conclusive evidence that the land is required for public purpose. 21.7. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as under:- 11. Enquiry and award by Collector. – [(1)] On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objection (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land [at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub- section (1)], and into the respective interests of

- 42 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of- (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, or whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him: [Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorize in this behalf: Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf. [(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement. (3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or

- 43 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act.] 21.8. In terms of Section 11, the Collector after enquiry into the objections, if any etc., after ascertaining the true area of the land, the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land as also apportionment of compensation is required to determine the compensation in the form of an award. 21.9. A reading of Section 6 of L.A.Act., would indicate that the date on which the publication is made in the gazette and/or the local newspapers would be conclusive proof that the land is required for public purpose. Upon the said publication, the Collector is required to make an enquiry and pass an award in terms of Section 11 of L.A.Act and the period in which

- 44 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

the award is to be passed is fixed at two years from the date of publication of declaration in terms of Section 11A of L.A.Act. The only deduction and/or extension of time is that as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 11A of L.A.Act whereunder the period of stay if any by a Court could be excluded. Thus, merely because a Writ Petition is filed challenging the acquisition would not by itself extend the period fixed under Section 11A of L.A.Act. 21.10. As a corollary, in the event of the Writ Petition being dismissed/allowed, a Writ Appeal being filed, when it is dismissed/allowed and a Special Leave Petition being filed challenging the order passed in a Writ Appeal, merely because a Writ Petition or a Writ Appeal or a Special Leave Petition being filed would not by itself extend the period prescribed under Section 11A of the L.A.Act.

- 45 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

21.11. For the Explanation to come into effect and/or extension of time to take place, it is required that a positive order of stay be granted by the Court insofar as any action/proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the declaration. This in my considered opinion will also have to be such that the same would come in the way of passing an award under Section 11 of L.A.Act since if the order of stay does not come in the way of passing of an award, there is nothing which could be said to have prevented the Collector from passing such an award. 21.12. Thus, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 by holding that mere filing of a Writ Petition, Writ Appeal or Special Leave Petition would not extend the period fixed under Section 11A of L.A.Act for making an award. The award would continue to require to be made within a period of two years from the date on which the final declaration

- 46 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

was published. It is only in the event of an order of stay being granted by any Court which had an effect of staying any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the declaration that the period during which the stay order was in operation would be excluded or as a corollary, the period fixed under Section 11A of L.A.Act would be extended by the time period during which the stay was operational. 22. Answer to Point No.3: What is the reference point of time for considering the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 22.1. This aspect has already been adverted to in answer to Points No.1 and 2 above. A perusal of Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of L.A.Act which has been reproduced hereinabove, indicates that the last date of publication and giving of such public notice, shall be the date of publication of the declaration.

- 47 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

22.2. Thus, there could be two situations which could arise viz., there could be one final declaration which is published. If that be so, then the date on which the said final declaration was published would be the date of the declaration. However, if there are multiple final declarations published, for example, if there are five final declarations published, then it is the date on which the last declaration i.e., 5th declaration was published, which would be the reference point of time for considering the period fixed under Section 11A of L.A.Act. 23. Answer to Point No.4: What is the reference point of time for calculating the time period prescribed under Section 25 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? 23.1. Section 24(1) of LARR Act reads as under:- 24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.–(1) Notwithstanding anything

- 48 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,— (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 23.2. Section 25 of LARR Act reads as under:-

- 49 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

Provided that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months if in its opinion, circumstances exist justifying the same: Provided further that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned. 23.3. In terms of Section 24(1) of LARR Act where the land acquisition proceedings are initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if no award under Section 11 of the L.A.Act has been made, then the provision of LARR Act for determination of compensation would apply. 23.4. In the event of award being made under Section 11 of L.A.Act, then the land acquisition proceedings shall continue under the provisions

- 50 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

of the Land Acquisition Act as if the said Act has not been repealed. 23.5. Thus, if no award under Section 11 of L.A.Act has been passed prior to LARR Act coming into force, then by applying the provision of LARR Act, the compensation would be required to be determined by the Collector that is to say that the enquiry in terms of Section 23 of LARR Act would have to be made by the Collector and the award rendered. 23.6. The time period in such a situation would have to be calculated in terms of Section 25 of LARR Act by deeming the final declaration to have been published on the date on which the LARR Act came into force i.e., on 01.01.2014 and the period prescribed under Section 25 of LARR Act would be applicable thereto requiring the award to be passed within the period of 12 months

- 51 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

from the date of publication of the declaration in such case being the deeming fiction of the publication of the declaration being 01.01.2014. 23.7. The said period could be extended by a period of 12 months by the Appropriate Government if the circumstances exist justifying the same by recording reasons. In the event of the award not being rendered within the said period, then the land acquisition would lapse. 23.8. Hence, I answer Point No.4 by holding that reference point of time for calculating time period prescribed under Section 25 of LARR Act for an acquisition initiated prior to LARR act coming into force would be the date on which the LARR Act came into force being on 01.01.2014. 24. Answer to Point No.5: Whether in the given facts and circumstances, the acquisition proceedings in the present matter has lapsed?

- 52 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

24.1. In furtherance to the answers above and applying the said answers to the above points to the present case, it is seen that the preliminary notification was issued on 20.05.2002, the final notification came to be published on 02.08.2003, which came to be challenged before this Court and this Court by way of common judgment dated 22.11.2010 quashed the award dated 30.01.2005 and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh award by taking into consideration the market value of the lands as on today (i.e., date of the judgment being 22.11.2010). The learned Single Judge has also reserved the right of the land loser to challenge the acquisition by seeking for enhancement. 24.2. The said order dated 22.11.2010 came to be challenged by the APMC in W.A.Nos.45, 47 and

- 53 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

52 of 2011 and the land losers had challenged in W.A.Nos.33-34/2011. 24.3. Admittedly, there was no order of stay passed by the Division Bench in the said Writ Appeals. The Writ Appeals came to be dismissed on 05.09.2011. The learned Single Judge having directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh award on the market value of the land as on the date of judgment being 22.11.2010, at best, the Land Acquisition Officer by taking the benefit of Section 11A of L.A.Act ought to have passed an award within a period of two years from 22.11.2010 i.e., by 21.11.2012. 24.4. The Writ Appeals having been disposed on 05.09.2011, the land loser filed the Special Leave Petition in SLP Nos.2834-42/2014 which came to be disposed by order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 17.04.2017. The fact that has

- 54 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

to be taken into consideration is that neither the State nor the beneficiary had challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal. It is only the land loser who had challenged the same by way of a SLP Nos.2834-42/2014. 24.5. Thus, the State and the beneficiary of the acquisition had accepted the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Even assuming that the period prescribed under Section 11A of L.A.Act would have to be calculated from the date of judgment of the Writ Appeal viz., 05.09.2011, the period of two years expired on 04.09.2013. 24.6. If the provision of Section 25 of LARR Act were to be applied to the present case by applying deeming fiction that the final declaration is deemed to have published on 01.01.2014 i.e.,

- 55 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

the date on which the LARR Act came into force. 24.7. By applying the principles of time period contained in Section 25 of LARR Act, the award ought to have been passed within 12 months of 01.01.2014 i.e., by 31.12.2014. If the time were to be extended by another period of 12 months, the award could have been passed by 31.12.2015. 24.8. It is no one’s case that the time period has been extended by the Appropriate Government by a reasoned order. Hence, further extension of 12 months would not apply and as such, the award ought to have been passed by 31.12.2014. 24.9. Lastly assuming that the date is to be calculated from the date on which the Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of the SLP Nos.2834-

- 56 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

42/2014 i.e., on 12.04.2017 even then the award ought to have been passed on 11.04.2018. In the present case, the award was finally passed on 07.01.2021 since the approval was granted only on that date though the proceedings for approval of the award commenced on 20.12.2018. 24.10. Looked at from any angle, the present award has not been passed within a period of two years from the date of the order passed in the Writ Petition i.e., 22.11.2010 by 21.11.2012. No award has been passed within a period of two years from the date of the order passed in the Writ Appeal i.e., 05.09.2011 by 04.09.2013. No award has been passed within 12 months of LARR Act coming into force i.e., on 01.01.2014 by 31.12.2014. No award has been passed within 12 months of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.2834-

- 57 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

42/2014 dated 17.04.2017 i.e., by 16.04.2018. In fact, the process of approval of the award commenced only on 20.12.2018 which is much beyond the period detailed herein above. 24.11. The authorities concerned were very much aware of the time period being sacrosanct and the authorities have failed to take advantage of the benefit extended by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 22.11.2010 as also by Division Bench vide order dated 05.09.2011. 24.12. Admittedly, the preliminary notification had been published on 20.05.2002 and the final declaration had been published on 02.08.2003. Today we are in the year 2022. I am of the considered opinion that the authorities have a duty to act within the time frame prescribed either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 till the time that it was in force or under the Right

- 58 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 from the date on which it came into force. If the authorities do not comply with the said time period, then the natural consequences that flows is that the acquisition would have to be declared to have lapsed. 24.13. As such I answer Point No.5 by holding that in the given facts and circumstances, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. 25. Answer to point No.6: Whether the beneficiary can claim that the delay in acquisition is by the State and/or SLAO and as such, the acquisition needs to be upheld to protect the interest of the beneficiary?

25.1. The contention of the beneficiary is that the passing of the award is not in control of the beneficiary and that the award is required to be passed by the State and/or SLAO. It is on that

- 59 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

basis it is contended that the acquisition proceedings ought to be upheld.

25.2. Though in some acquisitions, an ascertained person or entity could be the beneficiary, in most acquisition, it could be in the general interest for formation of layouts etc., where the beneficiary is not ascertained. Even in case where the beneficiary is ascertained, the acquisition proceedings are required to be initiated and completed by exercise of powers of eminent domain by the State.

No compulsory acquisition can happen or resorted to by a beneficiary on its own. Thus, from the time of issuance of the preliminary notification, conduct of enquiry, issuance of final declaration, passing of an award, taking possession of the property etc., all these

- 60 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

aspects have to be performed by the State or SLAO.

25.3. The timelines which have been prescribed under the Act are clear and it is for the State and/or SLAO to adhere to such timelines without default. If there is a default, the acquisition would have to be struck down as lapsed since the interest of the land loser would suffer on account of State or SLAO not discharging its functions in a time bound manner.

25.4. The beneficiary cannot on the basis of its interest being harmed contend that the acquisition is required to be saved and/or that on account of default by the State or SLAO, the beneficiary cannot be deprived of usufructs of the acquisition.

- 61 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

25.5. The remedy in such a case would only be for the beneficiary to lay a claim against the State claiming any damages that might have been caused to the beneficiary, which civil remedy the beneficiary would always have. Hence, I answer Point No.6 by holding that the beneficiary cannot claim that if there is delay in acquisition by the State and/or SLAO, the acquisition needs to be upheld to protect the interest of the beneficiary. In the event of there being any violation of time period prescribed, irrespective of what was the cause for the delay, the acquisition would lapse. 26. Answer to Point No.7: What order? In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petitions are allowed. ii. The preliminary notification dated 20.05.2002 and final declaration/notification dated

- 62 -

WP No.11551 of 2019 c/w WP No. 25329 of 2017, WP No. 25759 of 2017, WP No. 11550 of 2019, WP No. 11553 of 2019

02.08.2003 vide Annexures-A and B respectively are quashed. iii. Needless to say the awards if any passed would also stand quashed. iv. Liberty is reserved to the beneficiary to initiate such proceedings as may be advised against the State for recovery of damages if any caused to the beneficiary.

Sd/- JUDGE

Prs* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50