Judgment:
1. This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 11952 of 2006 being aggrieved by the order dated 25-9-2008 wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches as well as on merits.
2. The appellant herein filed W.P. No. 11952 of 2006 seeking for quashing of Annexures-D and E preliminary notification dated 13-6-1983 and final notification dated 30-7-1984 issued by the first respondent and also Annexure-C, dated 10-7-2006 issued by the third respondent declining to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and for a direction for quashing the preliminary and final notifications issued by the first respondent respectively.
3. It is averred in the petition that petitioner purchased land bearing Sy. No. 185/2A measuring 10 1/2 guntas situated at Dakshina Nala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District under registered sale deed dated 16-3-2006. Pursuant to the purchase, petitioner applied for change of mutation in RTC and made application in Form 12 to the Village Accountant and the Village Accountant made a recommendation for entering the name of the petitioner. However, Revenue Inspector made an order referring to the land acquisition dated 30-7-1984 and rejecting the entry of mutation, same was endorsed by the third respondent-Tahsildar, Holenarasipura Taluk on 10-7-2006 as per Annexure-C to the writ petition. It is further averred that in respect of the said land purchased by him, preliminary notification was issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Final notification was issued on 13-7-1984 as per Annexures-D and E respectively, petitioner and eight others filed W.P. Nos. 19284 to 19292 of 1984 questioned. Annexures-D and E in respect of lands referred to in the writ petition and acquisition was set aside and thereafter, no steps were taken for completing acquisition and in view of non-completion of the scheme even after lapse of 28 years, the scheme has lapsed, entry had been made in the name of the vendor of the petitioner and therefore, writ petition for the above said reliefs as the name of the petitioner has been wrongly refused to be entered in the revenue records and for quashing of the acquisition proceedings.
4. The petition was resisted by the respondents by averring that petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the writ petition as he has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings initiated vide Annexures-D and E in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 185/2A measuring l0 1/2 guntas situated at Dakshina Nala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District (schedule land). Petitioner was not owner of the schedule land and had no right, title or interest in the said land. Acquisition of land was not the subject-matter of the W.P. Nos. 19284 to 19292 of 1984, it was by Lakshmamma wife of Siddappa who was the kathedar and member of the schedule land. The said Lakshmamma had not challenged Annexures-D and E in the writ petition which culminated in the order passed at Annexure-F and the order dated 30-7-1987 passed in the said writ proceeding. Order of the Deputy Commissioner made under Section 3(3) of the Act and final notification published in the Official Gazette insofar as it relates to land belonging to the petitioner is concerned, is set aside and petitioner had nothing to do with the schedule land and it was notified for acquisition and the notification has become final and conclusive and Land Acquisition Officer has passed award on 21/24-2-1990 to fix the compensation payable to the notified lands and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Single Judge after considering the contention of the Counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the material on record held that petitioner has purchased the schedule land on 16-3-2006, land had been acquired during the year 1983 itself. There is delay of 23 years in filing the writ petition and petitioner is guilty of laches and delay, being the subsequent purchaser after the acquisition is completed he is not entitled to challenge the acquisition when the land has been already been acquired, question of entering the name in the revenue records does not arise and accordingly, hold that there is no merit in the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition by order dated 25-9-2008. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25-9-2008, this appeal is filed by the writ petitioner.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition and acquisition proceedings ought to have been set aside and direction ought to have been issued to enter the name of the petitioner-appellant as he has purchased the land under a registered sale deed dated 1-3-2006 by paying valid consideration and the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate argued in support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. We have given careful consideration to the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record.
9. The material on record would clearly show that petitioner has acquired right to the schedule land comprised in Sy. No. 185/2A measuring l0 1/2 guntas in Dakshina Nala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District under registered sale deed dated 16-3-2006. The material on record would also show that preliminary notification under Section 3(1) of the. Act was issued on 13-6-1983 and final notification was issued on 13-7-1984 and thereafter order awarding compensation has also been passed under the said Act and compensation has been paid to the kathedar. It is well-settled that a person purchasing the property which has already been acquired prior to the date of purchase cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. Even otherwise, there is delay of 23 years in challenging the acquisition proceedings and no ground whatever is made out for quashing the acquisition proceedings as the petitioner has become owner of the property only on 16-3-2006 and the lands have been acquired and sites have been formed and granted under the Act. When the land which is purchased by the petitioner has already been acquired and granted to landless persons under the Act, question of entering the name of the petitioner in the revenue records would not arise and no ground whatever is made out for quashing the acquisition proceeding's and there is also no merit in the contention that acquisition proceedings has lapsed and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition both on the ground of delay and laches and on merits and we do not find any ground to take a different view and accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in this writ appeal and pass the following order:
The writ appeal is dismissed.