- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30744 WP No. 32378 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 32378 OF 2016 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: CHIKKATHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O NANJUNDAIAH, R/O NO.6, RAJENDRA NAGARA MAIN ROAD, N.R.MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 007 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. DEEPA SREE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTER OF REVENUE, MULTI STOREYED BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB-DIVISION, MYSORE-577201. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB-DIVISION, MYSORE-577201. 4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE SUB-DIVISION, MYSORE-577201. 5. MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MYSORE CITY, MYSORE-577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30744 WP No. 32378 of 2016 SRI. PALLAVA R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION RD 28 BHUSWAMY 2014, DATED 16.10.2014 AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-K 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 R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has assailed a preliminary notification bearing No.LAQCR-202/2012-13 dated 02.07.2013 issued by respondent No.2 and a final notification bearing No.RD 28 BHUSWAMY 2014, dated 16.10.2014 issued by the respondent No.1 under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents not to trespass upon her property without following the due process of law. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that she is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.32/4 of Kesare Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District, measuring 1 acre 15.08 guntas. She contends that during August 2010, she came to know that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30744 WP No. 32378 of 2016 respondent No.5 was trying to lay a storm water drain in her property under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) scheme. She contends that since this was done without following the due process of law, she filed a suit in O.S.No.585/2010 against the respondent No.5 for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent No.5 from interfering with her possession. The application filed therein for interim injunction was dismissed. Following this, she filed M.A.No.11/2011 before the III Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysore, which was allowed and an interim injunction was granted on 26.10.2011 restraining the respondent No.5 from interfering with her possession. (ii) The respondent No.5 then initiated proceedings before the competent authority who issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 02.07.2013 proposing to acquire 8 guntas out of Sy.No.32/2 belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner filed her objections to the said notification on 11.10.2013. She contends that without considering the objections filed, the respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 16.11.2013 stating that the petitioner's land to an extent of 8 guntas is required. The petitioner again objected to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30744 WP No. 32378 of 2016 the acquisition on various grounds. The objection so filed was rejected by the respondent No.3 in terms of an order dated 30.04.2014. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 issued a final notification dated 16.10.2014 under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act declaring its intent to acquire 8 guntas of land for renovation of storm water drain. (iii) The suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.585/2010 was decreed and the respondent No.5 was permanently restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner without following the due process of law. Petitioner contends that the respondent No.5 started discharging storm water into the drain resulting in ruining the remaining property. Petitioner contends that no award is passed in terms of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act or under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 2013'). The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the preliminary notification, final notification and has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to restrain the respondents from encroaching or entering on her property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30744 WP No. 32378 of 2016 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions: (i) that the preliminary notification was issued on 02.07.2013, while the Act of 2013 came into force with effect from 01.01.2014. Therefore, any proceedings to acquire the land must have been initiated under the provisions of the Act of 2013, and the respondents could not have fallen back upon Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to issue a notification. In support of this contention, she relied upon Section 114(2) of the Act of 2013 and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to contend that the respondent No.1 could not have continued the acquisition under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. (ii) Although an award was passed on 10.08.2016 and approved on 12.01.2017 under the provisions of the Act of 2013, the award must have been passed in accordance with Section 25 of the Act of 2013 i.e., within one year from the date of the declaration, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30744 WP No. 32378 of 2016 failing which, the entire proceedings for acquisition should lapse. She therefore, contends that the impugned notifications are liable to be set at nought. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4, who have filed a statement of objections contending that the respondent No.1 vide a Circular dated 05.03.2014 had set out the circumstances as to when, where and how the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 will apply and under what circumstances the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would apply relating to time, method and calculation of compensation etc., It is contended that land acquisition proceedings commenced with issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act before 31.12.2013 and therefore, the Circular dated 05.03.2014 issued by the State Government is applicable. It is contended that as per the Circular, the notification under Section 6(1) and award under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act had to be passed within two years. It is claimed that the final notification was gazetted on 20.12.2016 and the award was passed on 13.01.2017 and therefore, the guidelines prescribed in the Circular dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30744 WP No. 32378 of 2016 05.03.2014, which extended the time for passing of award under Section 25 of the Act of 2013 was completely followed. Hence, it is claimed that the petition is liable to be dismissed as the acquisition is valid in the eyes of law. It is also contended that since the preliminary notification is issued prior to 13.12.2013, the question of applicability of the Act of 2013, by resorting to Section 24 of the Act of 2013, would not arise and that the petitioner is only entitled for modification or re- determination of the award. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the final notification was gazetted on 06.11.2014 and the award was passed on 10.08.2016 and approved on 12.01.2017 and hence, the proceedings are well within time as prescribed under Section 6 and Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act. He also contended that the land in question was used for the purpose of a storm water drain and no purpose would be now served in setting at nought the notifications issued. 6. Respondent No.5 has also filed a statement of objections on similar lines and stated that the land is already - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30744 WP No. 32378 of 2016 utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired and hence, at the most, the petitioner is entitled for re-determination of the compensation. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 reiterated the above contentions. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5. 9. The preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 02.07.2013. The Act of 2013 came into force with effect from 01.01.2014. Section 114 of the Act of 2013 provided for repeals and savings, which reads as follows:- "114. Repeal and saving.–(1) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) is hereby repealed. (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act the repeal under sub-section (1) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeals." - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30744 WP No. 32378 of 2016 10. (i) Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, regarding the effect of repeals, reads as follows:- "6. Effect of repeal.—Where this Act, or any [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not -- (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30744 WP No. 32378 of 2016 and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. (ii) A reading of Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, makes it more than apparent that any liability accrued or incurred under a repealed enactment would stand saved notwithstanding the repeal. 11. In the case on hand, the land in question was proposed for acquisition for formation of a storm water drain. In view of the Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991, the respondent No.1, was conferred with a privilege to proceed with the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the respondent No.1 was bound to declare its intent to acquire the land within one year from the date of publication of the notification, as provided in Section 6(ii). The respondent No.4 being the Land Acquisition Officer was bound to take steps for finalization of the award within two years from the date of the final notification as provided under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, failing which, the entire acquisition proceedings would lapse. In the instant case, the final notification dated - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30744 WP No. 32378 of 2016 16.10.2014 was published in the official gazette on 06.11.2014 and by virtue of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, the notification came into effect from 06.11.2014. The award was passed on 10.08.2016 but approved on 12.01.2017 which is evident from the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.5 and this is clearly beyond the prescribed period of two years under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, without going into the other contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the fact that the land is already put to use by the respondents, it would only be appropriate to declare that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed for non-compliance of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act. As a consequence, the petitioner is entitled for re-determination of the compensation as prescribed under Section 25 of the Act of 2013 and if need be, the respondents may issue a fresh publication or fresh notification under the provisions of Act of 2013 and proceed in accordance with law. 12. The writ petition stands disposed off on the above terms. Time for compliance of the aforesaid is fixed at three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30744 WP No. 32378 of 2016 Order. The petitioner shall not in any manner disturb or damage or vandalize the storm water drain already constructed in her property and also shall not obstruct the usage of the storm water drain. If compensation is not re-determined within the time stated above after publishing a notification under the provisions of Act, 2013, the petitioner is at liberty to take whatever steps needed to protect her interest in her property. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63