Ganapathl Sb late Nagappa v. NONE

(By Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, Mv.) AND:

1. State of Karnataka represented By Department of Panchayath RaJ By its Secretary, M.S.Bufldlng, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar.

3. The Chief Executive Officer. Zilla Parishad. Bidar.

4. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions. Bidar. PETflONERS

5. The Head Master, Govt. High School, Village Chitta, Taluk and District Bidar. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri Shivakumar Tengli, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of the land Sy.No.2 situated at village Chitta, ibluk and District Bidar to the extent of the land utilised etc.. This Writ Petition coining on for PrIy. Hearing in this day, the Court made the following: Group I ORDER The petitioners grievance is that their lands in question are utilised for the public purpose of housing the Government school. hospital and tank without paying any compensation to them.

2. Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, the learned counsel for the petitioners submflsthat the Government has put up the buildings on the lands in question without acquiring the lands from the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners’ umpteen number of representations seeking the payment of compensation have not evoked any response from the authorities.

3. The learned counsel submits that in an identical case, this Court. by its order, dated 20.3.1995 passed in Writ Petition No.13997 of 1987 in the case of Lachnaawwa W/o Bheemappa vs. State of Karnataka and others has taken the considered view that if the Government takes over a private property without authority of law, it is not proper to avoid the consequences by pleading delay and latches. because the land—losers have continuing cause of action. This Court In the said case directed the Government to pay the compensation after holding the enquiry. 4 The learned counsel also brings to my notice that this Court In the case of Smt.Akhtari Begum vs. the State of Karnataka and others in Writ Petition No.30383/2002 disposed of on 6.6.2005 dIrected the respondent-authorities to consider the case of Smt.Akhtari Begaum in terms of Lachmaww&s case (supra).

4. Sri Shivakumar Tengli. learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submits that petition Is liable to be rejected on the short ground of delay and latches. He submits that the erstwhile owners of the land in question may have given the lands to the Government with altruism and for charitable purposes. He submits that petitioners did not make any representation for the payment of compensation. He submits that the petitioners may not be the owners of the lands in question.

5. The learned Additional Government Advocate brings to my notice the Circulaç dated 15.11.2001 (Annexure-R3) wherein there is a reference to the persons giving up their lands for the purpose constructing schools. hospitals, etc.. If 5 development/construction has come up some 50 to 60 years ago. then the acquisition of lands cannot be resorted to.

6. Following the decision of this Court in the case of Lachmawwa (supra). the petitioners casej are required to be considered. The interests of Justice would be met by passing the following order: a) The respondent No.2 is directed to hold the Joint survey by taking the assistance of the Survey Department and in the presence of the petitioners for ascertaining as to whether the schools, hospitals and tanks have come up on the lands in question. Thereafter. the respondent No.2 shall examine with reference to the official records and also the records produced by the petitioners ascertaining as to whether the lands on which the constructions belonged petitioners/their predecessors-in-title. On enquiry, if the Deputy Commissioner finds that the said buildings have come up on the lands belonging to the petitioners/their predecessors-in-title, he shall pass the order determining the occupation charges/compensation/damages within *811 6 six months from the date of Issuance of certified copy of today’s order. b) In the alternative. if the respondent No.2. on holding the enquiry comes to the conclusion that the Government buildings have come up on the petitioners’lands, it is also open to him to recommend to the Government for their compulsory acquisition. If the Government agrees with his proposal, it has to initiate and conclude the acquisition proceedings including the passing of the award within six months from the date of the issuance of certified copy of today’s order. c) If the petitioners are not satisfied with the order determining the compensation for the acquisition of the lands, it is always open to challenge the same by filing a duly constituted suit. If the respondents resort to the compulsory acquisition of lands and consequently pass the award, the petitioners can seek the enhancement Invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. d) One of the two alternative courses directed herein above shall be complied with within the outer limit of six months from the dai.e of issuance of certified copy of today’s order. e) It is made clear that, on enquiry if It Is found that the government buildings have not come up on the private lands or that the government buildings have come up based on the consent of the owners of the lands in question. those claiming tinder the owners. who might have given their consent. permissive possession. etc.. would not be entitled to any compensation.

7. This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd! JUDGE ApI-