30 years delay in case; land restored to Ministry of Power

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has restored 2 acres and 10 guntas of land in Kodigehalli, Bengaluru to the Ministry of Power which was originally acquired in 1985 for construction of staff quarters for Southern Eastern Electricity Board.

A division bench of the High Court held that the heirs of the original land owners approached the court 30 years late and therefore the case “suffered from delay and laches.” N Nanjundappa and Chikkananjappa purchased 2 acres and 10 guntas of land on March 15, 1954.

On April 19, 1985 the land was notified for acquisition for the benefit of staff quarters for Southern Eastern Electricity Board. An award was passed in October 1986. The two land owners filed an application for enhancement of compensation which was rejected in 1988.

However, after a period of 30 years from the award date, on April 4, 2016, a writ petition was filed by the heirs of Nanjundappa and Chikkananjappa seeking a declaration that the “proceedings for acquisition of scheduled land have lapsed under the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act.”

The single-judge bench in 2017 allowed the petition “on the ground that neither the possession of the land in question was taken nor compensation has been paid to the owners of the land.” This was challenged by the Ministry of Power in an appeal filed in 2017. The judgement on this appeal was delivered by the division bench recently.

Overturning the single-judge order, the division bench said, “The learned Single judge could not have recorded a finding that owners of the land are in possession of the land in question. The learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that no ground to challenge the land acquisition proceedings even on a new ground was made out as the owners of the land were not in possession of the scheduled land.”

Allowing the appeal the HC said, “The challenge to the acquisition proceedings suffered from delay and laches. The owners of the land themselves have sought enhancement of the amount of compensation. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid to the owners of the land cannot be sustained in the eye of land.”