A.S. Bopanna, J.@mdashThe appellants are before this Court in this intra-Court appeal assailing the order dated 29.07.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P. Nos. 23968-972/20) 1 (LA RES).
2. Heard Sri V.V. Gunjal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B. Veerappa learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The appellants claim to he agriculturists owning certain portions of the land in Sy. No. 53 Hosakcrehalli, Amruthur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk which is stated to be phoded as Sy. Nos. 53/1, 53/5. 52/11, 53/7 and 53/12. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant petitions was with regard to non-consideration of the representation dated 29.06.2011 whereby they had sought for denotification of the said lands from the process of acquisition in exercise of the power u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners also claimed to be aggrieved by the mutation proceedings in M.R. No. 27/98-99 whereby the revenue entries are stated to have been mutated in the name of the Government. The contentions urged in that regard has been considered by the learned Single Judge and in the background of the decisions which have been referred relating to the nature of possession when once the property is acquired, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
4. The main contention of the appellants is that they are in possession of the lands in question and fill the revenue entries were changed to the name of the Government stating to be acquired for the Adidravida Layout, there was no threat to their ownership or possession over the property. In that background, it is also their contention that; even If the acquisition proceedings had been initiated in the year 1961, the possession thereafter is with the appellants, to the knowledge of the respondents inasmuch as they have continued to enjoy the lands. As such they continue to be the owners, at least by adverse possession. Such contention in our view is misconceived. Firstly, the very fact; that the appellants have perfected their title by adverse possession would not be open to them in the present proceedings inasmuch as no right would accrue to them if they have reentered possession of the lands which had been lawfully acquired. Secondly, the mere change of mutation entries by MR No. 27/98-99 to the name of the Government belatedly will not grant any better right to the appellants if the other process relating to acquisition has been completed in accordance with law.
5. In order to appreciate the said aspect of the matter, as rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, the preliminary notification for the purpose of acquisition of the properties in question had been issued on 17.09.1958 and the final notifications were issued on 15.06.1961 and 22.08.1961. The land owners whose names were notified at that stage, whom the appellants claim as their predecessors had questioned the process of acquisition by approaching this Court in W.P. Nos. 1185-89/1961. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 06.02.1963. Though the appellants herein claim to be ignorant of the said proceedings, the fact situation cannot be denied. That apart, despite contention of the appellants that their predecessors and subsequently the appellants have been in possession of the properties, the further proceedings would indicate that such contention cannot be accepted since the records relied on by the respondents before the learned Single Judge would reveal that the award was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur on 15.05.1965 determining the compensation. The award notices contemplated u/s 12(2) of the LA Act was also served on the concerned parties on 14.05.1965. Subsequent thereto, applications u/s 18 of the LA Act were filed and the proceedings before the Reference Court was conducted and the compensation was enhanced by the order dated 06.04.1968.
6. That being the position, in a circumstance where the land owners had been notified, award was passed and the compensation was enhanced at the instance of the land owners, it would not be open for the appellants to contend at this stage that they have acquired certain rights under inter se transactions and have continued to remain in possession. Therefore, in such circumstance, when the question was as to whether the claim of the appellants to have continued in possession of the property can be accepted, the learned Single Judge has considered the said aspect threadbare by relying on several pronouncements of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and has arrived at the conclusion that the claim of the appellants to be in settled possession cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the appellants was unable to point out any error committed by the learned Single Judge except to continue to contend before us that the appellants are in possession and the land is not required for the purpose for which it was proposed to be acquired. We are therefore in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge.
7. In addition to what has been considered by the learned Single Judge, the learned Government Advocate has further relied before us upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
In that view, we find no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeals being devoid of merit stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
