- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 63728 OF 2012 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. IRAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KOUJALGI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 1A. LAXMAVVA W/O IRAPPA KOUJALGI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S 1A(i) MAHATESH S/O IRAPPA KOUJALGI, BEING DECEASED SEPARATE APPLICATION IS FILED. 1A.(ii) SHIVAPPA S/O IRRAPPA KOUJALGI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 1B. NEELAGANGAWWA @ GANGAWWA W/O. IRAPPA KOUJALAGI SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S 1A(i) MAHANTESH S/O IRAPPA KOUJALAGI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 2ND WIFE AND 3 DAUGHTERS AS 1ST WIFE PREDECEASED HIM. 1A(i)(a) MAHANANDA W/O. MAHANTESH KOUJALAGI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 1A(i)(b) LAXMI D/O. MAHANTESH KOUJALAGI, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 1A(i)(c) SOUMYA D/O. MAHANTESH KOUJALAGI, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 1A(i)(d) BAGHYASHREE D/O. MAHANTESH KOUJALAGI, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 1B(i) BASAVARAJ S/O IRRAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 1B(ii) UMESH S/O IRRAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 1B(iii) PRAKASH S/O IRRAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. MURIGEPPA S/O. BASAPPA KOUJALGI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. MALLAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KOUJALGI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. GURUPADAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KOUJALGI AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & ADVOCATE, R/O. JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 5. SHANKAR S/O. BASAPPA KOUJALGI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 6. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KOUJALGI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 6A. MAHADEVI W/O CHANNABASAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGED: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.. 6B. SHWETA D/O CHANNABASAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGED: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 6C. SOMNATH S/O CHANNABASAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGED: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 6D. LAXMI D/O CHANNABASAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGED: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 7. MAHADEV S/O. BASAPPA KOUJALGI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 7A. SUDHA W/O. MAHADEV KOUJALAGI, AGED: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NO.2070, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 16. 7B. PRASHANTH S/O. MAHADEV KOUJALAGI, AGED: 42 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: NO.2070, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 16. 7C. PRAVEEN S/O. MAHADEV KOUJALAGI, AGED: 39 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: NO.2070, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 16. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V. M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND ACUQISITION AND REHABILITATION, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BAGALKOT. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FOR REHABILITATION AND RE SETTLEMENT, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BAGALKOT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, JAMAKHANDI, BAGALKOT. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF LAND ACQUISITION, FOR REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT AT JAMAKHANDI, BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. KESHAVREDDY A/W SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AND DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONERS HAS LAPSED AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE AWARD BEARING NO. LAQ/SR/17/98-99 DATED 26/06/2000, PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING SYMBOLIC POSSESSION VIDE ORDER BEARING NO. LAQ/SR/17/98-99 DATED 21/08/2010 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers: A. Issue the writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other writ or order and declare that the acquisition proceedings of the land of the petitioners has lapsed and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction and quash the award bearing No. LAQ/SR/17/98-99 dated 26/06/2000, passed by the 3rd Respondent insofar as petitioners are concerned produced at Annexure-E and in the interest of justice and equity. B. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the order of taking symbolic possession vide order bearing No. LAQ/SR/17/98-99 dated 21/08/2010 passed by the 3rd Respondent produced at Annexure-G in the interest of justice and equity. C. Grant such other relief as deemed fit in the circumstances referred above. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.V.M.Sheelvant, appearing for the petitioners, learned AAG Sri.M.Keshavareddy along with learned AGA Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6. 3. The petitioners claim to be the joint owners of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.239/2 measuring 15 acres and 28 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 guntas and Sy.No.238/2 measuring 12 acres and 18 guntas in Jamkhandi. The petitioners land comes to be notified for acquisition and later denotified and again notified for acquisition on several occasions. Therefore, the dates and events become relevant to be noticed in the case at hand. On 30.04.1999, the land of these petitioners as mentioned hereinabove become the subject matter of acquisition from the hands of the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for short) for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project at Jamkhandi. The petitioners challenged the acquisition in W.P.No.17941/1999. Learned Judge of this Court grants an interim order of stay which was operating and during the subsistence of the interim order, an award comes to be passed by the Commissioner of Upper Krishna Project and the approval of the award was responsibility of the concerned Special Land Acquisition Officer. The award is said to have been declared in respect of lands of other persons and not the petitioners owing to the pendency of the petition. 4. On 19.02.2001, Writ Petition is disposed with a direction to the respondents to hold an enquiry as contemplated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 under Section 5A of the Act. The petitioners challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in W.A.No.1667/2001 feeling aggrieved by the direction to hold an enquiry. The appeal comes to be disposed on 06.06.2001 with certain directions. 5. After the aforesaid orders, comes the second Notification seeking to acquire the lands of the petitioners invoking certain emergency clause. The petitioners again challenged this Notification in W.P.No.2746/2002 which comes to be dismissed on 22.01.2007. The order of dismissal was challenged in W.A.No.446/2007 which also comes to be dismissed in the year 2009 for its non-prosecution. The subject petition is preferred on 30.05.2012 contending that the State has not passed an award within the time frame fixed, no possession is taken, no compensation is awarded. 6. Learned counsel Sri.V.M.Sheelvant appearing for the petitioners taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition would seek to demonstrate that the acquisition is deemed to have been lapsed, as possession even today has not been taken, no award, even today is passed determining compensation to the land of these petitioners. He would - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 therefore contend that the petition be allowed and the prayers as sought be granted. 7. Per contra, the learned AAG Sri.M.Keshavareddy would contend that the land of the petitioners though possession has not been taken, there is no time limit prescribed as once the land is notified for acquisition and the amount of award is determined for payment of compensation, what remains is taking of possession which can be done at any time. He would seek dismissal of the petition on the score that the challenge to the Notification issued in the year 2007 has been dismissed and the dismissal cannot mean that the petitioners can urge all those contentions now before the Court, particularly when the acquisition is for the public purpose, it cannot vest back with the land owners. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts link in the chain of events, are all a matter of record. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 10. The lands of these petitioners become the subject matter of acquisition in the year 1998-99, which comes to be challenged in W.P.No.16318 of 1998 C/w W.P.Nos.9032 of 1998 and connected matters. The learned Single Judge by the following order disposes the petitions: “3. Mr.С.В. Srinivasan, learned counsel, for the petitioner in W.P.No.13770/98, forcefully contended that the Government is not utilising the acquired land and there is no point in acquiring further land. Besides there is also delay in the matter which has rendered the acquisition unnecessary and wastage of public exchequer. Ms. Rosa Paramel, learned Government Pleader, disputed this submission and submitted that the land was acquired for purposes of rehabilitating the persons being dislocated by virtue of submersion of their land in view of Upper Krishna Project or Almatti Dam and this is a question of fact which has to be enquired into. Taking into account the legal circumstances there is no hard and fast rules laid down in the matter and it has to be ascertained by the factual position and after examining whether the acquired land is necessary for purposes of rehabilitation and are sufficient for the purposes explained in the acquisition notification. It is seen that the Government has not applied its mind properly in deciding the matter as it is. 4. From the facts and circumstances stated above and taking into account the various other circumstances I feel that the urgency as stated is fictituous. The notification was issued initially on 31.3.1990 dispensing the enquiry contemplated under Section 5A of the Act and the final notification is seen issued only on 2.4.1998 after lapse of eight years. Now after 1998 three years have also lapsed and nothing transpired thereafter. In view of these circumstances the enquiry contemplated under Section 5 A of the Act would not in any prejudice the Government. The Government shall examine all the aspects putforth by the petitioners in detail before - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 proceeding further in the matter. The impugned orders are quashed. A fresh decision shall be taken in the matter as expeditiously as possible after affording opportunity to the petitioners and after considering their objections referred to in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.” 11. The impugned orders stood quashed. A direction was issued for taking a fresh decision as expeditiously as possible after affording opportunity to these petitioners and considering the objections. This is called in question before the Division Bench in W.A.No.1667/2001. Writ Appeal comes to be disposed by the following order: “We see no legal infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge by which the notification dispensing with the enquiry under Sec.5 A of the Land Acquisition Act was quashed and the Government was directed to examine the question as to the need for acquisition and other relevant aspects afresh. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that straightaway the land acquisition proceedings should have been quashed instead of allowing a fresh enquiry into the matter. It is that the land already acquired and taken possession of is more sufficient for rehabilitation of displaced persons and there is absolutely no need for acquiring the disputed land. The learned Judge left it open to the authorities concerned to examine this aspect as well. It is not appropriate for this Court to get into the factual details and return a finding on the question whether the land already acquired is sufficient. Suffice it to observe that the competent authority, while making enquiry under Sec.5 A and the Government which has to issue the final notification under Sec.6(1), have to duly consider the objections raised by the appellant. We have no reason to think that if the land is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 really not needed for rehabilitation purpose, the respondents will still go ahead with the acquisition.” 12. A further direction was issued that the competent authority while making an enquiry under Section 5A and the government has to issue Final Notification under Section 6(1), the objections of the appellants were directed to be duly considered. After the disposal of the Writ Appeal, comes the Notification of the year 2007 again seeking to acquire the lands of the petitioners invoking Section 17 of the Act-an urgency clause. This comes to be dismissed on the following reasons: “8. Hence, having considered the objections of the petitioners, the same were overruled and a recommendation was made to the State for acquiring the said land. The land is acquired for the purpose of rehabilitating the displaced persons. It is the bounden duty of the State to rehabilitate the displaced persons by providing them suitable area. Indeed, the State has found that the land which is in their possession is not sufficient enough to rehabilitate the displaced persons. It is also noticed that the enquiry under Section 5(a) of the Act was conducted and fair opportunity was given to the petitioners and their objections were considered and overruled. It is also noticed that the alternate land proposed by the petitioners was not accepted by the authorities since they were not suitable. Insofar as the land belonging to the Government to the extent of 559 acres 39 guntas in Sy.No.30, the objections were overruled on the ground that the said land is a rocky land on the hills which is about 10kms away from Kankanwadi village and 12 kms away from the same place. Since the said Government land was not suitable for rehabilitating the displaced persons, it was given up. 9. To my mind, the sufficiency or otherwise of the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 requirement of the State as to the extent of land which is necessary, has been considered and set at rest by the two rulings of this Court referred to above. Indeed, it is always prerogative of the State to assess their requirement and acquire the land accordingly, which has been done. If any authority is required for this proposition, one will have to refer to the ruling of the Apex Court in the case SUBHASHGIR KUSHALGIR GOBAVI AND OTHERS VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER reported in AIR 1996 SC 3169. Since the only contention urged by the counsel appearing for the petitioner fail, I do not find any compelling reason to step in and quash the acquisition proceedings. Petition stands rejected. Rule discharged. Mr. Sridhar Hiremath, learned AGA is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.” 13. Writ Appeal is filed against the said order which comes to be dismissed for default. Therefore, the challenge to the Notification of the year 2007 fails. 14. It would have been altogether a different circumstance if the State had acted immediately to take possession of the lands of the petitioners by passing an award within the time frame stipulated under the Act. The State does not do so. Though the order in Writ Petition was 22.01.2007 where claim of the petitioners for retention of the lands and quashing of the acquisition failed, the award is passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer which was approved by the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 Commissioner of Upper Krishna Project but the State till today has not approved the award. The Deputy Commissioner who was the Commissioner of the Upper Krishna Project, though has approved the award by the Deputy Commissioner, till today no notice on the award as obtaining under Section 12 is issued. This is an admitted fact as the endorsement issued to that effect, reads as follows: ““ಕಾಟಕ ಸರ ಾರ ಕ ಂ:ಭೂಾ:5:ಎ.ಆ.17:98-99 ೇಷ ಭೂಾ!ೕಾ! ಾ"ಗಳ ಕ%ೇ", ಕೃ'ಾ( )ೕಲ+ಂ,ೆ -ೕಜೆ, ಜಮಖಂ1., 2ಾಂಕ: 17/02/2010. 3ಾನ5 ಮ6ಾ ವ5ವಾ8ಪಕರು, ಭೂಾ!ೕನ, ಕೃ'ಾ( )ೕಲ+ಂ,ೆ -ೕಜೆ, ನವನಗರ, ;ಾಗಲ ೋಟರವ"<ೆ. 3ಾನ5=ೇ, ಷಯ:- ಜಮಖಂ1 ?ಾಲೂ@ನ ಜಮಖಂ1 ಸAೇ ನಂ.238/2 6ಾಗೂ 239/2 ಗಳನುB ಕಂಕಣAಾ1 ಪDನರವಸE ೇಂದ ಾGH 3ಾನ5 ಉಚK ಾ5Lಾಲಯದ ಡ§ÄèN.ನಂ.2746/02 ರ ಆOೇಶದ ಪ ಾರ ಕಲಂ 12(2)ರ ೋQಸುಗಳನುB ಭೂ3ಾRಕ"<ೆ Sಾ5" 3ಾಡುವ ಸೂಕT 3ಾಗದಶನ Uೕಡುವ ಕು"ತು ಉWೆXೕಖ:- 1) ಕಲಂ 6(1)ರ ಕಾಟಕ =ಾಜ5 ಪತ ಪ ಕಟYೆ 2:20-05- 99 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 2) 3ಾನ5 ಉಚZ ಾ5Lಾಲಯ, ;ೆಂಗಳ[ರು ರವರ ಡ§ÄèN ನಂ. 2746/02 3) ಈ ಾLಾಲಯದ ಪತ ಾ3ಾನ5 ಐEೕಪD ಕಡತ ನಂ.17/98-99, ¨sÁUÀ-1, ¢£ÁAPÀ:08-08-2000. 4) ತಮ^ ಾLಾಲಯದ ಪತ ಸಂ:_ಎಂ:ಎ`.ಎ.ಕೂ5- 1/Uವ:23:08-09:575, 2ಾಂಕ:06-06-2009. 5) ಈ ಾLಾಲಯದ ಪತ ಸಂ:ಭೂಾ:ಎ.ಆ:17:98- 99:135, 2ಾಂಕ:07-11-09 6) ತಮ^ ಾLಾಲಯದ ಪತ ಸಂ: _ಎಂ:ಎ`.ಎ.ಕೂ5- 1/Uವ:231:08-09:3601, 2ಾಂಕ:12-01-2010. =0= )ೕRನ ಷಯ 6ಾಗೂ ಉWೆXೕಖ ೆG ಸಂಬಂ!cದಂ?ೆ ಜಮಖಂ1 ?ಾಲೂ@ನ ಕಂಕಣAಾ1 <ಾ ಮದ ಪDನರವಸE ೇಂದ ಾGH ಜಮಖಂ1 ಸAೇ ನಂ. 238/2, dೇತ 12-18 ಎ/ಗುಂ, 6ಾಗೂ 239/2 dೇತ 15ಎ.28ಎ/ಗುಂeೆಗಳನುB ಉWೆXೕಖ(1)ರ1 ಕಲಂ6(1) ಪ ಕಟYೆ <ೊಂಡು, ಭೂಾ!ೕನಪ1c ೊಂ1ದು+. ಆದ=ೆ ಸದರ ".ಸ.ನಂ.ಗಳ ಜfೕನುಗಳ dೇತ ಗಳನುB ಕ;ಾg ?ೆ<ೆದು ೊಳh;ಾರOೆಂದು ಉWೆXೕಖ(2)ರ1 i ೕ ಈರಪj ಬಸಪj ೌಜಲH 6ಾಗೂ ಇತರರು 3ಾನ5 ಉಚK ಾ5Lಾಲಯ ೆG mೕ=ೆ6ೋH ತ,ೆLಾnೆ ತಂದು 6ಾಜರಪ1cರು?ಾT=ೆ. ಆದ=ೆ ಸದ" ಪ ಕರಣವನುB ಪ"iೕRಸWಾH, ಸದ" ಜfೕನುಗಳ ಕ;ಾg o1ಸ;ಾರOೆಂಬ ಬ<ೆp 3ಾತ 2ಾಂಕ:02-06-99 ರಂದು vÀqÉLಾnೆ Uೕ1ದು+, ಾರಣ ಈ ಜfೕನುಗಳ ಬ<ೆp ಐEೕಪD ರqಸಲು ಅ1s-ಆತಂಕಗಳt ಇರುವD2ಲXAಾದ+"ಂದ ".ಸ.ನಂ. 238/2 dೇತ 12-18 ಎ/ಗುಂ. ಇದು 1) ಈರಪj 2) ಮು"<ೆದ+ 3) ಮಲXಪj 4) ಮ6ಾOೇವ 5) ಗುರಪj 6) ±ÀAPÀæ¥Àà 7) ಚನಬಸಪj ತಂ:ಬಸಪj ೌಜಲH ಇವರ 6ೆಸ"ನ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå LEೕNನಂ?ೆ ದರ ರೂ.19,30,752-00 Uಗ!ಪ1c, 6ಾಗೂ ಅದರಂ?ೆ ".ಸ.ನಂ. 239/2 dೇತ 15ಎ.28ಎ/ಗುಂeೆ )ೕRನ ಭೂ3ಾRಕರ 6ೆಸ"ನRX ಾ3ಾನ5 ಐEೕNನಂvÉ gÀÆ.15,23,943-00 ದರ Uಗ!ಪ1c ಉWೆXೕಖ(3)ರ1 ಾ3ಾನ5 ಐEೕಪD ಮAdÆj ಆH ¢£ÁAಕ:08-08-2000 ರಂದು uೂೕಷYೆLಾHರುತTOೆ. ಆದ=ೆ ಭೂ3ಾRಕರು ಇನೂBªÀgÉUÀÆ ಪ"6ಾರ ಧನವನುB ಪ,ೆದು ೊಂ1ರುವD2ಲX. 6ಾಗೂ 12(2)ೋQಸು eÁå" 3ಾ1ದ ಕು"ತು LಾವDOೇ OಾಖWೆಗಳt ಸಹ ಇರುವD2ಲX. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 ಅದರಂ?ೆ ಡ§Äè¦.ನಂ.2746/2002 (ಎ`.ಎ.) ಸದ" ಪ ಕರಣವನುB 3ಾನ5 ಉಚZ ಾ5LಾಲಯವD E"ಸG"cದು+, ಾರಣ ".ಸ.ನಂ. 238/2, dೇತ 12-18 ಎ/ಗುಂ. 6ಾಗೂ 239/2 dೇತ 15ಎ.28ಎ/ಗುಂeೆಗಳನುB ಪDನರವಸE ಅ! ಾ"ಗಳt, PÀÈ)ೕ.-ೕ. ಜಮಖಂ1 ರವ"<ೆ ಹಾTಂತ"ಸ;ೇ ೆಂದು ಉWೆXೕಖ(4)ರನಯ ಈ ಾLಾಲಯ ೆG ExಸWಾHOೆ. ಅದ+"ಂದ ಉWೆXೕಖ(4)ರ1 ಸೂqcದ ಪ ಾರ 2ಾಂಕ:27-10-2009ರಂದು cಬgಂ2-ಂ2<ೆ ಸದ" ಜfೕನುಗಳ ಕ¨ÁÓ ೊಡಲು 6ೋOಾಗ ಸದ" ಭೂ3ಾRೕಕರು ಭೂಾ!ೕನ ಾy+ ಕಲಂ 12(2) ೋQಸುಗಳನುB 3ೌzಕAಾH ೇxದ ಪ ಾರ ಸದ" ಕಲಂ 12(2) ೋQಸುಗಳನುB ಈಗ ೊಡಲು ಬರುವDOೋ? 6ೇ<ೆ ಎಂಬ ಕು"ತು ತಮ^ ಸೂಕT 3ಾಗದಶನ ಾGH ಉWೆXೕಖ(5)ರ1 ನಂEಸWಾHತುT. ಆದ=ೆ ಈ<ಾಗWೇ ಾ3ಾನ5 ಐEೕಪD 2ಾಂಕ:08-08-2000 ರಂದು uೂೕಷYೆ ಆHದು+. ಆ Aೇ{ೆ<ೆ Uಯ3ಾನುಾರ ಕ ಮ ಜರುHಸ;ೇ ಾHದು+, ಇಷು| ಳಂಬದ ನಂತರ ಕಲಂ 12(2)ೋQಸುಗಳನುB Uೕಡುವದು ಸೂಕT ಕ ಮವಲX ಎಂದು ಉWೆXೕಖ(6)ರ ಪತ ದ ಮೂಲಕ ಈ ಾLಾಲಯ ೆG EಳಸWಾHOೆ. 2ಾಂಕ:05-02-2010 ರಂದು 3ಾನ5 ಉಪ ಮ6ಾ ವ5ವಾ8ಪಕ=ಾದ i ೕ ಎಂ.«í. ೕರಭದ ಯ5 6ಾಗೂ 3ಾನ5 ೇಷ _WಾX! ಾ"ಗ{ಾದ i ೕ ,ಾ// c. ಾಗಯ5 ರವರು ಕಂಕಣAಾ1 ಆ.c. ೇಂದ ೆG ;ೇQ Uೕ1ದ ಸಂದಭದRX ಪDನಃ ಸj¶ÖÃಕರಣ ೋ" ಪತ ಬ=ೆಯಲು 3ೌzಕAಾH ಸೂqcರು?ಾT=ೆ. ಾರಣ 2ಾಂಕ:08-08-2000 ರಂದು ಾ3ಾನ5 ಐEೕಪD uೂೕಷYೆLಾHರುವ ಈ )ೕWೆ Excದ ಸAೇ ನಂ.238/2 6ಾಗೂ 239/2 ಗಳ ಭೂ3ಾRಕರುಗx<ೆ ಈಗ 12(2)ರ ೋQಸು 6ೊಸOಾH ತLಾ"c Sಾ5" 3ಾಡಲು ಬರುತTOೆyೕ ಎಂಬುದನುB ಕು"ತು ಸೂಕT 3ಾಗದಶನ Uೕಡ;ೇ ೆಂದು ಆದರಪ~ವಕAಾH ೋರWಾHOೆ. ತಮ^ ಾc, ¸À»/- «ೇಷ ¨sÀƸÁé!ೕಾ! ಾ"ಗಳt PÀÈ)ೕ-ೕ ಜಮಖಂ1.” - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 Therefore, it becomes clear that no notice was issued under Section 12(2) notifying the petitioners of passing of an award as the endorsement reads that Section 12(2) notice has to be freshly issued. Even today, the said notice is not issued. The land of these petitioners was never taken possession of. Possession would be actual possession. What possession is taken by the SLAO is a symbolic possession but not the competent authority as necessary in law. Therefore, the possession continues to be with the petitioners even today. Therefore, the issue becomes clear that no possession is taken, no award is determined, no award notice on such determination is issued to the petitioners. In terms of law, award ought to have been passed within two years from 22.01.2007, is by now too well settled a principle of law. It is also well settled principle of law that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is sine qua non for any acquisition proceedings. It having not been done, admittedly in the case at hand, the proceedings are bound to be vitiated. The State though seeks to defend the action of issuance of Section 12(2) notice, the objections filed by them way back on 18.11.2013 would speak otherwise. The averment at para 10 assumes significance: - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 “10. It is submitted that, the Land Acquisition process has been done in accordance with the procedure within the time stipulated and no adequate duration is taken for the same. Regarding these Sy. Nos. 12(2) notices not available as per office records, Even though. It is not correct to state that land acquisition process is infructous only because on the whole reason that the 12(2) notice has not been issued to the land owners. Further, the Hon'ble Court in WP.No.2746/2002 dismiss on 22.01.2007 specifically stated that, the land is acquired for public purpose. Hence, the above said Writ Petition may kindly be dismiss.” The State admits that Section 12(2) notices that were issued to the petitioners is not available in the office records and further seeks to defend that the acquisition proceedings have not lapsed only because Section 12(2) notice is not issued. This runs counter to plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court or the Coordinate Benches of this Court. 15. The Apex Court in the case of HARISH CHANDRA RAJ SINGH v. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER1, at paras 3, 6 and 7, holds as follows: “3. Before proceeding to construe the material provisions of Section 18 it is necessary to refer very briefly to some other sections of the Act which are relevant in order to appreciate the background of the scheme in relation to land acquisition proceedings. Section 4 deals with the publication of the preliminary notification and prescribes the powers of the appropriate officers. Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed for any public purpose a notification to that effect shall be 1 1961 SCC OnLine SC 140 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 published in the Official Gazette and a public notice of its substance shall be given at convenient places in the said locality; that is the effect of Section 4(1). Section 4(2) deals with the powers of the appropriate authorities. Section 5-A provides for the hearing of objections filed by persons interested in any land which had been notified under Section 4(1). After the objections are thus considered a declaration that land is required for a public purpose follows under Section 6(1). Section 6(2) provides for the publication of the said declaration; and Section 6(3) makes the declaration conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose. Section 9 requires the Collector to give public notice in the manner specified stating that the Government intend to take possession of the land and calling for claims to compensation in respect of all interests in such land. Section 9(2) prescribes the particulars of such notice, and Section 9(3) and (4) provide for the manner of serving such notice. Section 11 deals with the enquiry and provides for the making of the award by the Collector. Section 12(1) then lays down that the award when made by the Collector shall be filed in his office, and shall, except as otherwise provided, be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Section 12(2) is important. It makes it obligatory on the Collector to give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. It is common ground that no such notice was given by Respondent 1 to the appellant. That briefly is the scheme of the relevant provisions of Part II of the Act which deals with acquisition. …….. ……… ……… 6. There is yet another point which leads to the same conclusion. If the award is treated as an administrative decision taken by the Collector in the matter of the valuation of the property sought to be acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately affects the rights of the owner of the property and in that sense, like all decisions which affect persons, it is essentially fair and just that - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 the said decision should be communicated to the said party. The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive, is an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force. Thus considered the making of the award cannot consist merely in the physical act of writing the award or signing it or even filing it in the office of the Collector; it must involve the communication of the said award to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If the award is pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights are affected by it it can be said to be made when pronounced. If the date for the pronouncement of the award is communicated to the party and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously announced the award is said to be communicated to the said party even if the said party is not actually present on the date of its pronouncement. Similarly if without notice of the date of its pronouncement, an award is pronounced and a party is not present the award can be said to be made when it is communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fairplay and natural justice the expression “the date of the award” used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the words “from the date of the Collector's award” used in the proviso to Section 18 in a literal or mechanical way. 7. In this connection it is material to recall the fact that under Section 12(2) it is obligatory on the Collector to give immediate notice of the award to the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. This requirement itself postulates the necessity of the communication of the award to the party concerned. The legislature recognised that the making of the award under Section 11 followed by its filing under Section 12(1) would not meet the requirements of justice before bringing the award into - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 force. It thought that the communication of the award to the party concerned was also necessary, and so by the use of the mandatory words an obligation is placed on the Collector to communicate the award immediately to the person concerned. It is significant that the section requires the Collector to give notice of the award immediately after making it. This provision lends support to the view which we have taken about the construction of the expression “from the date of the Collector's award” in the proviso to Section 18. It is because communication of the order is regarded by the legislature as necessary that Section 12(2) has imposed an obligation on the Collector and if the relevant clause in the proviso is read in the light of this statutory requirement it tends to show that the literal and mechanical construction of the said clause would be wholly inappropriate. It would indeed be a very curious result that the failure of the Collector to discharge his obligation under Section 12(2) should directly tend to make ineffective the right of the party to make an application under Section 18, and this result could not possibly have been intended by the legislature. (Emphasis supplied) Subsequently, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. FAKIRAPPA YALLAPPA PUJARI2, at para 8, holds as follows: “8. As mentioned earlier, no doubt, the Award was made on 25.3.1969. The application under Section 18(1) of the Act was given on 8.1.1993, i.e., after almost 24 years. The period of limitation for filing the application under Section 18(1) of the Act is 90 days and the starting point for computing the period of limitation, as per the Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, is the date of service of the notice from the Deputy Commissioner under Section 12(2) of the Act. Section 12(2) quoted 2 1995 SCC OnLine Kar 458 - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 above is a mandatory provision which provides that the Deputy Commissioner shall give immediate notice of his Award or the amendment made under Section 12A of the Act to the person interested. So, giving of notice is sine qua non for the computation of the period of limitation and, if the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is not sent and served, the period of limitation does not commence or the cause of action for filing the application under Section 18(1) of the Act does not arise. This aspect was the subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer [AIR 1961 SC 1500.]. The original Proviso to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provided that every such application shall be made (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Deputy Commissioner at the time when he made his award, within 6 weeks from the date of the Deputy Commissioner's award and (b) in other cases, within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Deputy Commissioner under Section 12(2) or within 6 months from the date of the Deputy Commissioner's award, whichever period shall first expire. Their Lordships in State of Punjab v. Mst. Quizer Jehan Begum [AIR 1963 SC 1604.] interpreting the expression “six months from the date of the Deputy Commissioner's award” quoted with the approval of the Decision in Raja Harish Chandra's case [AIR 1961 SC 1500.] observed that the knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice, the expression used in the Proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. Their Lordships in Raja Harish Chandra's case [AIR 1961 SC 1500.] observed that the expression “the date of the award” should not be interpreted in a mechanical or literal way. Their Lordships further observed that communication of the order is regarded by the Legislature as necessary that Section 12(2) imposed an obligation on the Deputy Commissioner and if the relevant clause in the Proviso is read in the light of the statutory requirement, it tends to show that the literal and mechanical construction of the said - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 clause would be wholly inappropriate. In the case of Jehan Begum [AIR 1963 SC 1604.] also Their Lordships after having followed with approval of the earlier Decision in Raja Harish Chandra's case [AIR 1961 SC 1500.] observed that a literal and mechanical construction of the words “six months from the date of the Collector's award” occurring in the second part of clause (b) of the Proviso would not be appropriate and the knowledge of the party must be actual and constructive. Their Lordships further observed that knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made; but the knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award and the contents may be known either actually or constructively. (Emphasis supplied) 16. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that the petition deserves to succeed and the prayers that are sought be granted to the petitioners. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: O R D E R [i] Writ Petition is allowed. [ii] Award bearing No. LAQ/SR/17/98-99 dated 26/06/2000, passed by the 3rd Respondent insofar as petitioners are concerned vide Annexure-E, stands quashed. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14129 WP No. 63728 of 2012 [iii] Order of taking symbolic possession vide order bearing No.LAQ/SR/17/98-99 dated 21/08/2010 passed by the 3rd Respondent produced at Annexure-G stands quashed. [iv] The petitioners are entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the orders. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RSH/CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52