TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourts, where suits may have been filed against acquiring bodies, the land owners cannot now take advantage of the same so as to contend that no award has been made and consequently there has been no payment or deposit of the compensation and that possession of the acquired land continues with them. The land owners having had the benefit of interim orders granted in their favour in proceedings initiated by them against the acquisition cannot take benefit under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court or the civil courts which may have granted interim orders in favour of the land owners, ought to consider the aforesaid aspect before applying Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in favour of the land owners. Though a number of other issues were raised on the legality of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 and though other points for consideration were raised/framed by the High Court reproduced hereinabove, since none of the issues are adjudicated by the High Court on merits, we have no other alternative but to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petitions afresh and to adjudicate on all the other issues, other than the lapse of acquis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2.1 That a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894 ) on 03.09.1994 in respect of 172 acres 22 guntas of land owned by respondent No.4 herein Trust in Srigandadakaval Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru for establishing a mega market by the appellant APMC, Bangalore. 3.2.2 One Rajajinagar House Building Cooperative Society challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1), before the High Court of Karnataka by way of Writ Petition No.28988/1994. It was the case on behalf of the said society that the land should be acquired for them and not for APMC. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 23.12.1995. 3.3.3 Thereafter a notification/declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 10.10.1996 and published on 13.10.1996. A draft award was prepared in respect of 172 acres 22 guntas of land on 12.08.1998. 3.3.4 On the instructions given by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant APMC deposited Rs.9,14,14,873/on 19.08.1998 towards approximate cost of the acquisition. 3.3.5 It appears that the aforesaid Rajajinagar House Buil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the writ petition filed Vishwaneedam trust in which an order of stay of dispossession had been passed by the High Court. The said compensation was accepted by respondent No.4 under protest. Respondent No.4 Trust original land owner filed a Land Acquisition Case No.1/2003 seeking enhancement of compensation which seems to be pending. 3.5 Thus, Writ Petition No.3884/1998 filed by respondent No.4 original land owner was in respect of 172 acres 22 guntas of land. Writ Petition Nos.3714037146/ 2000 was in respect of 100 acres of land and Writ Petition No.708/2000 was filed by Vishwaneedam Trust in respect of second acquisition (part). 3.6 A common statement of objections was filed by the appellant APMC to all the writ petitions. 3.7 That the APMC filed IA No.01/2007 in W.P. No.37140/2000, to permit APMC to hand over 9 acres of land out of 65 acres 11 guntas to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and 4 acres to the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB). That vide order dated 21.03.2007, the learned Single Judge allowed the said IA No.01/2007 and granted permission to the APMC as prayed. 3.8 At this stage, it is required to be noted that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration. 3.11.2 On remand the Tribunal passed a fresh order dated 22.09.2015 and declared that 265 acres 24 guntas of land held by respondent No.4 Trust was excess land. That the order passed by the Tribunal dated 22.09.2015 was challenged before the High Court and the High Court vide order dated 02.05.2017 set aside the order passed by the Tribunal dated 22.09.2015 and once again remitted the matter to the Tribunal. 3.11.3 That the Tribunal passed a fresh order dated 28.11.2017 and declared that 354 acres 10 guntas was excess land. The order passed by the Tribunal dated 28.11.2017 was again the subject matter before the High Court by way of Writ Petition No.55344/2017. By judgment and order dated 30.06.2021, the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the Tribunal s order dated 28.11.2017. It is reported that against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 30.06.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.55344/2017, the State has preferred a writ appeal being W.A. No.1089/21, which is reported to be pending before the Division Bench of the High Court. 3.12 That all the aforesaid writ petitions being W.P. No.3884/1998 (in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in respective Writ Appeal No.1732/2014 and others along with accompanied appeals, the APMC, Bangalore, has preferred the present appeals. 4 Shri V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant APMC has vehemently contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has erred in holding that the acquisitions in respect of the lands in question have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. 4.1 It is further contended that in respect of acquisition of 172 acres land no award was declared in view of the stay granted by the High Court in various proceedings. It is submitted that therefore subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable. It is submitted that therefore the High Court has erred in declaring that the acquisitions have lapsed under subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. 4.2 It is further submitted that so far as the acquisition in respect of 100 acres of land situated at Herohalli Village is concerned, the award in respect of 65 acres of land was declared and the possession was also taken over. Further, the amount of compens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Bench of this Court reported in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court holding that the acquisitions have lapsed under subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013, is not sustainable. 4.8 A number of submissions are sought to be made by Shri V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant APMC on repeal of the Act, 1894 in view of the enactment of the Act, 2013 and the effect of the Act, 2013 on the acquisitions under the Act, 1894. However, for the reasons stated hereinbelow and as the High Court has not at all considered any of the submissions/issues on the validity of the notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 and the High Court having considered and dealt with the applicability of subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 and having held that the acquisitions have lapsed under subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013, we propose to remand the matter to the High Court to decide the other issues raised afresh, in accordance with law and on merits. Therefore, we have not dealt with any of the submissions made by Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 24 of the Act, 2013 and the High Court has not at all decided the other issues which were placed before it. We propose not to deal with any of the submissions on other issues on which there is no decision by the High Court and we confine the present appeals to the decision of the High Court declaring and holding that the acquisitions have lapsed under subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 and for the other issues we propose to remand the matter to the High Court. 6.3 Now so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court holding and declaring that the acquisitions have lapsed under subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013, Shri Singh learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Trust has fairly conceded that in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the view taken by the High Court that the acquisitions have lapsed under subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable. However, he has submitted that the learned Single Judge and even the learned Division Bench of the High Court were right in holding so, considering the law prevailing at that time when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnexureD By way of amendment the original writ petitioners also prayed to declare the acquisition proceedings having been lapsed under the provisions of the Act, 2013. 8.2 That the learned Single Judge framed the following common points for consideration: a. a. Whether the disposal of these petitioners should be deferred pending adjudication and determination by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk of the excess holdings or otherwise under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 of the very lands which are the subject matter herein. b. Whether the possession of a portion of the lands in question having said to have been given to APMC can be said to be valid and in accordance with law. c. Whether the invocation of Section 17 of the LA Act in the acquisition of a portion of the lands for the same purpose was justified. d. Whether the acquiring authority could keeping abeyance the mandate to pay or deposit the compensation amount pending disposal of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal in respect of the lands. e. Whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of the 2013 Act. Despite the fact that a number of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue. By such a practice, it would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision. Therefore, to avoid such an eventuality, the courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved. 9 Now, so far as the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013, is concerned, the same is unsustainable in view of the decision of the Constitution bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). This Court has concluded in paragraph 365 and 366 as under: 365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Nondeposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of nondeposit 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 nonpayment or nondeposit 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e civil courts, where suits may have been filed against acquiring bodies, the land owners cannot now take advantage of the same so as to contend that no award has been made and consequently there has been no payment or deposit of the compensation and that possession of the acquired land continues with them. The land owners having had the benefit of interim orders granted in their favour in proceedings initiated by them against the acquisition cannot take benefit under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court or the civil courts which may have granted interim orders in favour of the land owners, ought to consider the aforesaid aspect before applying Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in favour of the land owners. 10 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the view taken by the High Court while declaring the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under subsection (2) of section 24 of the Act, 2013, is unsustainable and is just contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case Indore Development Authority (supra). Even the same is also not disputed by Shri C. U. Singh, learned Senior Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
