- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 47095 OF 2013 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR.VIJAY.C KAPOOR S/O LATE HARNAMDAS KAPOOR AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT 192, 6TH MAIN, DEFENCE COLONY INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 038. 2. MR. NARENDER KAPOOR S/O LATE HARNAMDAS KAPOOR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.1, UNION STREET, CIVIL STATION BANGALORE - 560 001 FOR HIMSELF AND AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF LATE SATYA PRAKASH KAPOOR. 3. MR. RAVINDER KAPOOR S/O LATE HARNAMDAS KAPOOR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.1, UNION STREET, CIVIL STATION BANGALORE - 560 001. 4. MR. ARUN KAPOOR S/O LATE HARNAMDAS KAPOOR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.12, BUCKMAN PLACE, CHERRY HILL NEW JERSEY 08002, U.S.A. [REP. HEREIN BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. ASHOK ASRANI.] Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 5. MR. KULBHUSHAN KAPOOR S/O LATE HARNAMDAS KAPOOR AGED AOBUT 64 YEARS [R/AT NO.1, UNION STREET, CIVIL STATION BANGALORE - 560 001] 6. MR. KUL DEEPAK KAPOOR S/O LATE HARNAMDAS KAPOOR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.6, QUEENS COURT MONTIETH ROAD CHENNAI - 600 008. 7. 7(a) 7(b) MR. VIKRAM KAPOOR S/O LATE HARNAMDAS KAPOOR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.1, UNION STREET, CIVIL STATION BANGLORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MS. HARISHINI KAPOOR D/O OF LATE MR. VIKRAM KAPOOR RESIDING AT 201,1, UNION STREET SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 005. MR. SAMEER KAPOOR S/O LATE MR. VIKRAM KAPOOR R/AT 201, 1, UNION STREET SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 005. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHINTAN CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR P2 TO P7(a), SRI.RAVISHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATE FOR P1(a)) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION PODIUM BLOCK, OPP: GENERAL POST OFFICE BANGALORE. 4. THE SPECIAL TASHILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE. 5. THE CONVENER SRI BHEEMESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE MAKALI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1-R4; SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENTS CULMINATING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION & FINAL NOTIFICATION IMPUGNED. QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION ISSUED U/S 4 (1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 ACT, 1894 BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 24.04.1976 AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioners claiming to be erstwhile owners of land measuring 5 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.2/2 and 3 acres in Sy.No.5/7 totally measuring 8 acres 12 guntas situated in Makali Village, Nelamangala Taluk which was subject matter of acquisition in terms of the final notification dated 25.04.1977 issued by respondent No.1 for the benefit of respondent No.4 are before this Court for the second time seeking following reliefs: "a) Call for the records on the file of the Respondents culminating the Preliminary Notification and Final Notification impugned; b) Issue a write of Certiorari, Similar Writ, Order or Direction and quash The Preliminary Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Respondents bearing No.LAQ 25R.1121/1967-68 dated 24.04.1976, as at Annexure A; c) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Similar Writ, Order or Direction and quash the Final Notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Respondents - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 bearing No.RD.110 AQB 1977 dated 25.04.1977, as at Annexure B; d) Issue a Writ of Prohibition, Similar Writ, Order or Direction and direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Properties by the Petitioners; 2. Appropriate at this juncture to note that the petitioner had on earlier occasion approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.12221/2011 challenging the preliminary and final notification on the ground of award having not been passed. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 06.06.2011 dismissed the said petition. Being aggrieved by the same petitioners preferred appeal in W.A.No.5992/2011 by order dated 31.01.2012. The Division Bench of this Court at paragraph 4 has observed as under: ''4. We are not inclined to grant permission to withdraw the writ petition. Writ petition was considered and decided on merits and while dismissing the writ petition learned Judge in paragraph 7 observed that necessary particulars/essential facts were not mentioned in the petition and, therefore, petitioners cannot contend that there has been any delay in passing the award. In view thereof, we are allowing the appellants to withdraw the appeal with liberty to the appellants to file appropriate proceedings in the event they get necessary particulars/essential facts so as to contend that acquisition of the land of the appellants has lapsed. In other words, if the appellants get reply from the concerned information officer to their application under RTI Act, stating that award has not been passed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 and/or if copy of the award is furnished and if it supports their contention that acquisition of the land of the appellants had lapsed, it is open to the appellants to file appropriate proceedings. '' and disposed of the petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court. Pursuant to the liberty so reserved petitioners apparently had made applications under the Right to Information Act regarding award if any having been passed and possession of the land having been taken. 3. In response to which the respondent authorities had apparently provided information regarding award having been passed and possession having been taken as per Annexures "Q", "R", "S", "T", "U". Based on these documents, the petitioners have approached this Court yet again questioning the entire process of acquisition and also invoking the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as `Act, 2013'). 4. Sri Chintan Chinnappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners taking this Court through the documents annexed to the petition more particularly a letter dated - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 16.04.2012 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, Bengaluru at Annexure-R wherein it is stated that notice under sub-section(2) of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been issued and also similar letter at Annexure-S wherein it was informed that notification under sub-section (2) of Section 16 had been issued, and further referring to the notification at Annexure -U wherein there is a reference of only to 3 acres 38 guntas of land in Sy.No.2/2 and there being no reference to any portion of land in Sy.No.5/7, vehemently submits that the acquisition is incomplete for non compliance of the statutory requirement as contemplated under Sections 12 and 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. 5. He extensively referred to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 with regard to the applicability of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 to the fact situation of the matter, and submitted that even under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24 the acquisition requires to be declared as having lapsed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 6. It is his submission that even as interpreted by the Apex Court the purpose and intent of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 is to save the lands from acquisition in respect of which neither the award is passed nor compensation paid and the possession is not taken within the said period of 5 years before coming into force of the Act, 2013. 7. Referring to Annexure-U a notification issued under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act wherein the date of taking possession is shown as 29.10.2011, learned counsel insists that the said date falls within the window period of 5 years as held by the Apex Court and as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013, as such it has to be held possession not having been taken as contemplated giving raise to cause of action under sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Act, 2013. 8. The other limb of argument is that though the respondent state has furnished the records with regard to purported deposit of compensation with the Treasury, admittedly no notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12 has been served on the petitioners which is a mandatory - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 requirement without which the process of passing the award would not and cannot be held to be completed in the manner known to law. 9. On these principal grounds seeks for allowing of the petition. 10. In response learned HCGP referring to the records submits that the petitioners themselves had participated in the award proceedings and even made claim statement before the land acquisition officer for determination of compensation. They having participated in the proceedings mere non issuance of the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12 would not render the award proceedings void or illegal. He further submits the award amount of Rs.1,25,000/- has been deposited in the year 1986 before the State Treasury. He submits once the award is passed and the amount having been deposited in the Treasury the obligation contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act stands completed and petitioners cannot insist for issuance of notice under Section 12 inasmuch as petitioners had consciously participated in the proceedings. As regards taking possession is concerned learned HCGP submits - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 possession having been taken on 29.10.2011 much prior to coming into force of Act, 2013 petitioners cannot seek to take benefit by invoking sub-section (2) of Section 24 as sought to be made, since the proceedings of passing award and taking possession stood completed and the land stood vested with the State free from all encumbrances prior to coming into force of the Act, 2013. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 11. Sri T.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 taking this Court through the records and the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Indore Development (supra) submits that once the compensation is determined and the same is deposited with the Treasury and the possession is taken much prior to coming into force of Act, 2013 all that the petitioners would be entitled to even if they have any grievance is only to the extent of compensation and payment of interest as contemplated under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act corresponding to Section 80 of the Act, 2013. He submits petitioners having consciously participated in the award proceedings cannot turn around and claim any benefit of they not having been issued notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, 2013. He refers to the orders passed by the Division Bench of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 this Court to contend all that liberty reserved to the petitioners was with regard to applicability of Section 11A of the Act alone and with regard to non passing of the award if any. Such a liberty cannot be extended by the petitioners to invoke provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition. 12. Heard and perused the records. 13. The admitted facts of the matter are as under: a) petitioners were the owners of land measuring 5 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.2/2 and 3 acres in Sy.No.5/7 of Makali village, Dasanpura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk. b) That the aforesaid lands were notified for acquisition in terms of preliminary notification dated 24.04.1976 followed by final notification dated 25.04.1977. (c) Though in the earlier round of litigation the petitioners had contended that the award has not been passed, hence sought for quashing of the proceedings, upon production of records by the learned HCGP in this round of litigation it is clear that the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 petitioners had indeed participated in the award proceedings which is not disputed. (d) Award was admittedly passed on 22.09.1986 and the same was approved on 23.09.1986 within two years as contemplated under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (e) It is also a admitted fact in view of notification under sub- section (2) of Section 16 produced at Annexure-U that an extent of 3 acres 38 guntas in Sy.No.2/2 albeit, as contended by the petitioner which ought to have been Sy.No.5/7, has been taken on 29.10.2011. 14. In the light of aforesaid undisputed factual aspects of the matter the point which requires to be considered is "whether the petitioners are entitled to raise the grounds contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013? Appropriate to refer to Section 24 which 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 contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (1 of 1894)-(a)where no award under - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 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. 15. 15. Applicability aforesaid provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24 and their meaning and interpretation is no more res integra inasmuch as the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 having extensively discussed and deliberated the aforesaid aspect of the matter at paragraphs 366.1 to 336.9 has answered the questions raised in the said matter in the following terms: "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 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 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. 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. 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, - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 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." 16. The vehement submission being made by learned counsel for the petitioners that answer No.3 at paragraph 366.3 of judgment of Apex Court to be read to mean that the possession ought to have been taken before 5 years of coming into force of the Act, 2013, does not appeal to this Court - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 inasmuch as such interpretation may run contrary to the answer given at paragraph 366.9 of the very same judgment which is already extracted hereinabove. 17. 17. In other words if the award was passed and the possession was taken and proceeding were concluded as on the date of coming into force of Act, 2013 same cannot be reopened on any count whatsoever which stand complied with in this matter. 18. Yet another submission made by learned counsel for petitioners is with regard to payment of compensation and issuance of notice under Section 12(2) not having been complied with, the award passed is non-est. Useful for this purpose to refer to paragraphs 202 to 206 of the aforesaid judgment of Apex Court which reads as under: "202. Section 24(2) deals with the expression where compensation has not been paid. It would mean that it has not been tendered for payment under Section 31(1). Though the word “paid” amounts to a completed event however once payment of compensation has been offered/tendered under Section 31(1), the acquiring authority cannot be penalised for non-payment as the amount has remained unpaid due to refusal to accept, by the landowner and Collector is prevented from making the payment. Thus, the word “paid” used in Section 24(2) cannot be said to include within its ken “deposit” under Section 31(2). For that special provision has been carved out in the proviso to Section 24(2), which deals with the amount to be deposited in the account of beneficiaries. Two different - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 expressions have been used in Section 24. In the main part of Section 24, the word “paid” and in its proviso “deposited” have been used. 203. The consequence of non-deposit of the amount has been dealt with in Section 34 of the 1894 Act. As per Section 24(2), if the amount has not been paid nor possession has been taken, it provides for lapse. Whereas the proviso indicates amount has not been deposited with respect to a majority of landholdings in a case initiated under the 1894 Act for 5 years or more. The period of five years need not have been specified in the proviso as it is part of Section 24(2) and has to be read with it, particularly in view of the colon and placement by the legislature as held above. Two different consequences of non-deposit of compensation are : (i) higher compensation in a case where possession has been taken, payment has been made to some and amount has not been deposited with respect to majority of the holdings, (ii) in case there is no lapse, the beneficiaries would be entitled to interest as envisaged under Section 34 from the date of taking possession @ 9% p.a. for the first year and after that @ 15% p.a. 204. The word “paid” has been defined in Oxford Dictionary to mean thus: “paid past and past participle of pay; Give a sum of money thus owned.” (emphasis supplied) Cambridge English Dictionary, defines “paid” as follows: “being given money for something”. P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn., 2005, uses the following definition of “paid”: “Paid. Applied; settled : satisfied.” 205. The word “paid” in Section 31(1) to the landowner cannot include in its ambit the expression “deposited” in court. Deposit cannot be said to be payment made to landowners. Deposit is on being prevented from payment. However, in case there is a tender of the amount that is to mean amount is made available to the landowner that would be a discharge of the obligation to make the payment and in that event such a person cannot be penalised for the default in making the payment. In default to deposit in court, the liability is to make the payment of interest under Section 34 of the 1894 Act. Sections 32 and 33 (which - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 had been relied upon by the landowners' counsel to say that valuable rights inhere, in the event of deposit with court, thus making deposit under Section 31 mandatory) provide for investing amounts in the government securities, or seeking alternative lands, in lieu of compensation, etc. Such deposits, cannot fetch higher interest than the 15% contemplated under Section 34, which is in pari materia with Section 80 of the 2013 Act. Section 34 is in pari materia with Section 80 of the 2013 Act in which also the similar rate of interest has been specified. Even if the amount is not deposited in Reference Court nor with the treasury as against the name of the person interested who is entitled to receive it, if Collector has been prevented to make the payment due to exigencies provided in Section 31(2), interest is to be paid. However, in case the deposit is made without tendering it to the person interested, the liability to pay the interest under Section 34, shall continue. Even assuming deposit in the Reference Court is taken to be mandatory, in that case too interest has to follow as specified in Section 34. However, acquisition proceeding cannot lapse due to non-deposit. 206. The concept of “deposit” is different and quite apart from the word “paid”, due to which, lapse is provided in Section 24 of the 2013 Act. In the case of non-deposit for the majority of landholdings, higher compensation would follow as such word “paid” cannot include in its ambit word “deposited”. To hold otherwise would be contrary to provisions contained in Section 24(2) and its proviso carrying different consequences. It is provided in Section 34 of the 1894 Act, in case payment has not been tendered or paid, nor deposited the interest has to be paid as specified therein. In Section 24(2) also lapse is provided in case amount has not been paid and possession has not been taken." 19. Thus reading of the aforesaid provisions of law, answers given by the Apex Court would only lead to a conclusion under the fact situation of the matter that, if at all petitioners are entitled to it is only for the relief of payment of applicable interest on the compensation determined and nothing else. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:7510 WP No. 47095 of 2013 In that view of the matter petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek payment of interest on the compensation as contemplated under applicable law. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20