High Court of Karnataka Hears Writ Appeals Challenging Quashing of Land Acquisition Notifications for Cooperative Housing Society. Key Legal Issues Involve Compliance with Scheme Requirement Under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Lapsing of Proceedings Under Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

Writ appeals against the order of a single judge quashing land acquisition notifications.

Appellant society sought to set aside the quashing order and uphold the acquisition.

The single judge had quashed the acquisition proceedings on the grounds that Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not complied with and no scheme was approved.

The single judge, by judgment dated 7 April 2003 in W.P. Nos.766/1997, 37048-49/1995, and 37227-28/1995, quashed the acquisition notifications dated 17 July 1992 and 3 May 1993.

1) Whether the procedure contemplated under Part VII or Chapter III of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1961 is applicable for acquisition of lands in question? 2) Whether the appellant has submitted any “scheme” to the Government for acquisition of the lands and whether such “scheme” has been approved by the Government or not? 3) Whether the acquisition proceedings in any manner lapsed under Section 24 of the new Land Acquisition Act, 2013 or not?

Appellant argued that Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Sections 38-40) is not applicable because the appellant is a cooperative society, not a company, and acquisition was for a public purpose, so only Section 4 applies. Appellant contended that a scheme was submitted to the Government and approved, as materials on record show a list of members, site requirements, and distribution plan. Appellant argued that possession of the land was taken, layout formed, and buildings constructed, thus physical possession deemed taken under Section 16 of the Act, and the acquisition cannot be quashed on that ground. Appellant submitted that the respondents cannot raise new grounds under Section 24 of the 2013 Act as these were not available under the old Act. Respondents/land owners argued that the provisions of Part VII were not complied with, and no valid scheme was submitted or approved as required under Section 3(f)(vi). Respondents contended that actual possession of the land was not taken and no compensation was paid to the land owners, therefore the acquisition lapsed under Section 24 of the 2013 Act. Respondents further argued that there were discrepancies in the extent of land required and acquired, and that the single judge had correctly quashed the notifications after a detailed consideration of the facts and law.

Ratio not explicitly mentioned

the provisions under part VII of the Land Acquisition Act ... had not been complied and Sections 38 to 40 have not been strictly followed, therefore, the acquisition was illegal. the appellant Society is a Co-operative Society within the meaning of the definition and the Government has accorded approval to the Co-operative Society for the purpose of forming lay out for the benefit of its members there is absolutely no scheme provided to the Government. actual possession of the land has not been taken, and no compensation has been paid and therefore, the acquisition lapses u/s.24 of the new Act.

The appellant cooperative society sought acquisition of lands at Bogadi village for residential sites. The Government issued a Preliminary Notification on 17.7.1992 and a Final Notification on 3.5.1993 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Land owners filed writ petitions challenging the notifications. The single judge, by order dated 7.4.2003, quashed the acquisition proceedings. The appellant society filed the present writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the single judge's order.

• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 3(f)(vi), 4, 16, 38, 39, 40
• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: 24
• Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: 4