- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 51339 OF 2017 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. V.T LAKSHME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O THOPEGOWDA MAJOR, R/O SY.NO.1/2B CHIKKAHONNANA HALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK - 573 201. 2. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O THAMMEGOWDA MAJOR, R/O SY.NO.1/2B CHIKKAHONNANA HALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK - 573 201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M S BUILDING BANGALORE- 560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERY DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M S BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HASSAN DSITRICT HASSAN - 573 201. 5. VICE CHANCELLOR KARNATAKA STATE ANIMAL MEDICAL SCIENCE ANIMAL AND FISHERY SCIENCE UNIVERSITY NANDHINAGAR, BIDAR-59210 6. DEAN ANIMAL MEDICAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY KORAMANGALA GATE, ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14.10.2008 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Originally land measuring 22 guntas along with 4 guntas in Sy.No.1/2B of Chikkahonnenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 Hassan Taluk, Hassan District, belonged to one Smt.Renuka. Said Renuka for legal necessities sold 11 guntas along with 2 guntas of kharab in terms of deed of sale dated 25.01.2006 in favour of petitioner No.1 and had conveyed another extent of 11 guntas along with 2 guntas of kharab in terms of deed of sale dated 25.01.2006 in favour of petitioner No.2. As such petitioners are absolute owners of the said lands. 2. That the respondent -State by Preliminary Notification dated 06.09.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act sought to acquire 9 acres 36 guntas of land of various survey numbers situated at Satyamangala and Chikkahonnenahalli villages, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan which included lands belonging to the petitioners. A Final Notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 14.10.2008 was issued involving the land of the petitioners for acquisition for the purpose of construction of Veterinary College. 3. Contention of the petitioners is that despite issuance of final notification as above the respondents have neither passed the award nor have taken possession and that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 petitioners are still continuing to be in possession of the land. That the petitioners had made request to the concerned Minister seeking to leave their land out of acquisition as that was their only source of livelihood and shelter. They had also made a representation to respondent No.1 on 30.10.2009. Respondent No.1 had forwarded the representation to respondent No.2 seeking opinion of the concerned on the requisition made by the petitioners inasmuch as no steps were taken by the respondent authorities upon the representation so made by the petitioners. Petitioners issued yet another representation seeking withdrawal of their land from acquisition. Respondent No.4 forwarded the same to the respondent No.6 and sought opinion of respondent No.5 for dropping the land from acquisition. It is contended that the respondents had issued another notification dated 01.02.2010 under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act denotifying the lands mentioned therein from acquisition on the ground that the same were not acquired for the purpose for which it is sought to be acquired. Notwithstanding the above, since the respondent authorities did not take any action pursuant to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 repeated requisition made by the petitioners to denotify the land from acquisition, petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition and also taking this Court through the inter office correspondence ensued between the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Deputy Commissioner, as well as between the Dean, Veterinary College, Hassan and Land Acquisition Officer, submits that the respondent authorities were indeed considering the request of the petitioners inasmuch as land consisting of their house has not been handed over to the respondent college and that petitioners had no other source of shelter. He vehemently submits petitioners continuing to be in possession of the property and respondent authorities have not placed any documents on record that the possession has indeed been taken by them. He also refers to the photographs and submits that the respondent beneficiary has enclosed the land which was acquired leaving out the land and residential houses which is in possession of the petitioners. Hence, he submits petition be allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 5. In response, learned AGA appearing for the State submits that after issuance of the Final Notification on 14.10.2008, award was passed on 28.10.2009. Notification under sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 31.05.2010. Thereby process of acquisition was completed within time prescribed under the Statute. He also submits that the petitioners having accepted the process of acquisition have approached this Court after lapse of 10 years. Thus, on both counts petition does not survive for consideration. 6. Supplementing the submissions made by learned AGA, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6-beneficiary submits that the land being claimed by the petitioners in respect of which acquisition has been completed, is reserved for the purpose of construction of quarters for the staff of Veterinary College. Status-quo with regard to the property is maintained only in view of pendency of the proceedings. The land is very much required for the complete and effective usage of the college for the purpose for which it was acquired. She submits that the acquisition has been completed complying with all the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 requirement of law as such even on the question of law, petition do not survive for consideration. 7. Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 drawing the attention of this Court to the memo dated 24.08.2021 which was filed in furtherance to the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2021 submit that the award has been passed on 28.10.2009 and names of the petitioners is found at page No.6 at Sl.No.2, wherein it is indicated that a sum of Rs.3,00,685/- each to the petitioners has been determined and the said award along with the amount payable to the other land owners has been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner who in turn has sent for approval. 8. Learned AGA at this juncture submits that since the petitioners who had participated in the award proceedings, if have not received the award amount within a period of three months, the amount would be sent to treasury and that petitioners are at liberty to seek disbursement of the award amount if they have not received the same. 9. Heard and perused the records. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 10. Mahazar report dated 17.04.2024 along with survey report and sketch and the copy of the photograph of the petitioners residential house existing has been produced by the learned AGA along with memo dated 19.04.2024 indicating the existence of residential houses of the petitioners on the subject property. 11. There is no dispute to the fact that the lands being claimed by the petitioners were subject matter of acquisition and award in respect of the same has been passed on 28.10.2009. There is also no dispute of the fact a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued specifically referring to the lands of the petitioners along with other lands acquired evidencing the possession having been taken. 12. The grievance of the petitioners is that they had made representations to the respondents and other concerned seeking exclusion of their lands from acquisition inasmuch as there exists residential houses which belong to the petitioners and which are their only source of shelter. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 13. It is settled position of law that when once the acquisition is complete complying with all the requirements to be made by the respondent authorities with regard to passing of award and taking the possession within the time stipulated under the Act, the land vests with the State free from all encumbrances and the person who is in possession of the acquired land is nothing more than a trespasser. Though petitioners claim to be in possession of the acquired lands, their possession cannot be recognized as lawful in view of the acquisition having been completed, inasmuch as once the acquisition is completed the land would vest with the State free from all encumbrances. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Land and Building Department through Secretary and anr Vs Attro Devi and others in Civil Appeal No.2749/2023 at paragraph 11 referring to the earlier Judgment in the case of Indoor Development Authority Vs Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 reiterating the same has held as under: "11. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority's case (supra) had opined that satisfaction of either of the conditions namely either taking possession of the acquired land or payment of compensation to the landowners would be sufficient to save the acquisition from being lapsed in terms of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Various questions posed before the Constitution Bench of this Court were also answered. Relevant para-Nos. 362 and 366 are extracted below: “362. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (supra) is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been followed, are also overruled. … ... 366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under: 366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. 366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. (emphasis supplied) 366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non payment or non deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b). 366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2). 366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. 366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.” 12. The issue as to what is meant by "possession of the land by the State after its acquisition" has also been considered by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority’s case (supra). It is opined therein that after the acquisition of land and passing of award, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. The vesting of land with the State is with possession. Any person retaining the possession thereafter has to be treated trespasser. When large chunk of land is acquired, the State is not supposed to put some person or police force to retain the possession and start cultivating on - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 the land till it is utilized. The Government is also not supposed to start residing or physically occupying the same once process of the acquisition is complete. If after the process of acquisition is complete and land vest in the State free from all encumbrances with possession, any person retaining the land or any re-entry made by any person is nothing else but trespass on the State land. Relevant paragraphs 244, 245 and 256 are extracted below: "244. Section 16 of the Act of 1894 provided that possession of land may be taken by the State Government after passing of an award and thereupon land vest free from all encumbrances in the State Government. Similar are the provisions made in the case of urgency in Section 17(1). The word "possession" has been used in the Act of 1894, whereas in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, the expression "physical possession" is used. It is submitted that drawing of panchnama for taking over the possession is not enough when the actual physical possession remained with the landowner and Section 24(2) requires actual physical possession to be taken, not the possession in any other form. When the State has acquired the land and award has been passed, land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The act of vesting of the land in the State is with possession, any person retaining the possession, thereafter, has to be treated as trespasser and has no right to possess the land which vests in the State free from all encumbrances. 245. The question which arises whether there is any difference between taking possession under the Act of 1894 and the expression "physical possession" used in Section 24(2). As a matter of fact, what was contemplated under the Act of 1894, by taking the possession meant only physical possession of the land. Taking over the possession under the Act of 2013 always amounted to taking over physical possession of the land. When the State Government acquires land and draws up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to taking the physical possession of the land. On the large chunk of property or otherwise which is acquired, the Government is not supposed to put some other person or the police force in possession to retain it and start cultivating it till the land is used by it for the purpose for which it has been acquired. The Government is not supposed to start residing or to physically occupy it once possession has been taken by drawing the inquest proceedings for obtaining possession thereof. Thereafter, if any further retaining of land or any re-entry is made on the land or someone starts cultivation on the open land or starts residing in the outhouse, etc., is deemed to be the trespasser on land which in possession of the State. The possession of trespasser always inures for the benefit of the real owner that is the State Government in the case. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 xxxx 256. Thus, it is apparent that vesting is with possession and the statute has provided under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1894 that once possession is taken, absolute vesting occurred. It is an indefeasible right and vesting is with possession thereafter. The vesting specified under Section 16, takes place after various steps, such as, notification under Section 4, declaration under Section 6, notice under Section 9, award under Section 11 and then possession. The statutory provision of vesting of property absolutely free from all encumbrances has to be accorded full effect. Not only the possession vests in the State but all other encumbrances are also removed forthwith. The title of the landholder ceases and the state becomes the absolute owner and in possession of the property. Thereafter there is no control of the landowner over the property. He cannot have any animus to take the property and to control it. Even if he has retained the possession or otherwise trespassed upon it after possession has been taken by the State, he is a trespasser and such possession of trespasser enures for his benefit and on behalf of the owner." (emphasis supplied) 15. Though learned counsel for the petitioner insists that the contents of correspondence ensued between the authorities with regard to the petitioners being in possession be taken note of, which is indeed taken note as above, the same would not in any manner lend legality to their possession after passing of the award and issuance of notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Contention of petitioners being in lawful possession cannot be countenanced. Petition is disposed of. Since the petitioners are claiming to be in possession of the subject land despite the same having - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:4237 WP No. 51339 of 2017 been acquired as noted above, respondent-authorities are at liberty to take action with due process of law. Petitioners are also at liberty to seek remedy in the nature of seeking compensation which is admittedly deposited by the respondent authorities in the treasury. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18