URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of a common order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby writ petitions filed by the respondents challenging the acquisition of land under the Kamataka urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 were allowed and the acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellant quashed.

(2.) A large extent of land measuring about 69 acres 181/2 guntas situated in different survey numbers of Kasba Hobli, Bhadravathi, were notified for acquisition under Section 17 (1} of the Kamataka Urban development Authorities Act, 1987 in terms of a notification dated 10th of December, 1991. A final declaration under Section 19 of the said Act followed on 15th of October, 1992, in respect of the entire extent mentioned in the preliminary notification. Before however, an award could be made, the landowners challenged the acquisition proceedings in writ Petition Nos. 24566 and 26458 of 1993 in this Court. These petitions were disposed off on 24th of August, 1994 and 9th of March, 1994, respectively. It was at this stage that the authorities amended the scheme and restricted the same to a lesser area measuring nearly 36 acres only. The amendment was signified by a fresh notification issued on 24th of June, 1996. An award thereafter was made by the Deputy commissioner on 18th of January, 1998 which was approved on 29th of january, 1998. Before possession of the land could be taken over, a batch of writ petitions was filed in this Court by the owners inter alia contending that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed on account of the failure of the authorities to make an award within a period of 2 years from the date of the final notification as envisaged under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That submission of the owners found favour with V. P. Mohan Kumar, J. , before whom the petitions were argued. The result was that by an order dated 2nd March, 1999, the writ petitions were allowed and the entire acquisition proceedings held to have lapsed on account of the failure of the authorities to make an award within the time permitted under Section 11-A of the Land acquisition Act. The present appeals arise out of and assail the correctness of the said order.

(3.) APPEARING for the appellant Mr. Tajuddin argued that the learned single Judge was in error in holding that Section 11-A of the Land acquisition Act was applicable to acquisition proceedings under the karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. He urged that the question whether Section 11-A had any application to proceedings under the aforementioned Act was no longer res Integra having been answered in the negative by a Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Rehman and others u State of Karnataka and Others. A perusal of a copy of the said order furnished to us by Mr. Tajuddin does show that the Full Bench has while examining the question whether Section 11-A of the Land acquisition Act had any application to acquisition proceedings under the city Improvement Boards Act or under the Bangalore Development authority Act or for that matter under the Karnataka Urban development Authorities Act, has relied upon the decision of the supreme Court in Munithimmaiah v State of Karnataka and Others , and held that Section 11-A did not have any application to the acquisition proceedings under any one of the said enactments. In the light of the said decision which is binding upon us, the judgment of the learned Single Judge taking a contrary view must be held to be unsustainable. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-landowners also fairly conceded that proposition,