Karnataka High Court
Mr Neeraj Verma S/O Late Mr. G K Verma vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2020
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P.B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NOs.34797-800/2009 (LA-RES)
c/w
WRIT PETITION NOs.13427/2012 (LB-BMP), 2496-2502/2010
(LA-RES), 37479-83/2009 (LA-RES), 39012/2011 (LB-BMP),
39013/2011 (LB-BMP), 39228-236/2011 (LB-BMP),
44256/2011 AND 44259/2011 (LB-BMP) AND
58175/2014 (LA-RES)
IN W.P. NOs. 34797-800/2009
BETWEEN:
1. MR. NEERAJ VERMA
S/O. LATE MR. G. K. VERMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.131,
AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT, DOMLUR EAST
BANGALORE - 560 071
2. M/S. ECOM SCIENCE CONSULTING
PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956), HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. A007 NATASHA GOLF
VIEW APARTS, 2 NEW RING ROAD DOMLUR,
BANGALORE - 560 071
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
DILIP KUMAR BHARATEE
3. MR. P. MOHAN MURTHY
S/O. K. P. PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1971, E BLOCK, A MAIN ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010
4. MR. B. SUNIL SHETTY
S/O. K. CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.385 AND 386
AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT, DOMLUR,
BANGALORE - 560 071
2
5. SMT. GEETHA KOUSALYA AKA GEETHA MADHUKAR
W/O. LATE M. MADHUKAR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT NO. 17A, BWSSB QUARTERS, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 041
6. MR. VIJAYANAND RAGATE
S/O. BASAVANAPPA RAGATE
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
7. MR. DAYANAND RAGATE
S/O. BASAVANAPPA RAGATE
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
8. MR. MALLIKARJUN
S/O. BASAVANAPPA RAGATE
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
PETITIONER NOs. 6 TO 8 RESIDING AT:
NO. 20/115, BDA MIG FLAT, 'E' BLOCK,
DOMLUR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE.
9. MR. SRINIVASA RAO K.
S/O. K. MOHAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO. 661/3, 5TH MAIN,
VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE - 560 003
10. MRS. AMARESHWARI .K.
W/O. K. MOHAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO. 98/3, 6TH MAIN,
13TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. SHAKER SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL &
SRI. B.V. SHANKAR NARAYAN RAO ADVOCATES FOR P -1 TO 4,
SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFER
SHAH, ADVOCATES FOR P-2 & P-5 TO P-10)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE
2. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT LAND ACQUISITION -2
M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE
3
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, VISWESHWARAIAH
TOWER, BANGALORE
4. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA
W/O. RAMAIAH, NO. 2468/A, 2ND CROSS,
4TH B MAIN ROAD, HAL 3RD STAGE, BDA
EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 017. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
SRI. K.R. NITYANANDA, HCGP FOR R -1 TO 3
SRI. M. B. NARAGUND, SR. COUNSEL FOR SIR D. RAJU
ADVOCATES FOR R-4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:
04.08.2009, (ANNEXURE-R) & ORDER DATED: 01.10.2009, (ANNEXURE-S)
ISSUED BY THE R1, AS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ARBITRARY AND
ILLEGAL AND GRANT CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS AND ETC.,
IN W.P. NO. 13427/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B. L. SURESH,
S/O. B. LAKSHMANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.45,
III CROSS, 10TH MAIN, INDIRA NAGAR
II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 038.
2. SRI. C. R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN,
S/O. LATE. C. RAMASWAY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
3. SMT. PRABHAVATHI,
W/O. C. R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YERS,
(2) AND (3) ARE R/AT NO: 277,
6TH CROSS, DOMLUR LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 071. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT
4
M. S.BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 1.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER, VISVESWARAYYA TOWERS,
III FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE.
4. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER (EAST-SUB-DIVISION),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
UTILITY BUILDING, BANGALORE.
5. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (DOMLUR),
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
DOMLUR SUB-DIVISION, 12TH FLOOR, PUB
BUILDING, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG FOR SRI. K.R. NITYANAND,
HCGP FOR R - 1 & 2
SRI ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R - 3 TO 5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS
WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED
COMMUNICATIONS AT ANNEXURE - A AND B BY THE R1 AND ANNEXURE -
C BY THE R5 AND ETC.,
IN W.P. NOs.2496-2502/2010
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. D.S.MEERA @ MEERA RAJENDRA,
W/O B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/O NO.15, II CROSS, JALA BHAVAN LAYOUT,
EAST-END MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 041.
2. SMT. T. A. VIJAYA,
W/O T. ANANTHA PADMANABHA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. NO.92,
1ST 'B' CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 019.
3. SRI VITTALA MADMANNAYA,
S/O. P. V. MADMANNAYA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O NO.1190, PADMALAYA, 5TH MAIN,
5
SECTOR-7, HSR LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 102.
4. SMT. S GAYATHRI,
W/O. S. SUNDAR RAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, FLAT NO.303,
D-1 BLOCK, 54/1, GIRI APARTMENTS,
2ND PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE.
5. SMT. SANGANA LAKSHMI,
W/O. SANJAY P. R/O. VILLA NO.202,
ADARSH PALM RETREAT, OUTER RING ROAD,
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 103.
6. SMT. PRANUTHI JAYAPRAKASH,
W/O. JAYAPRAKASH T,
NO.16/26, BENSON TOWN, BINNY CRESENT,
BANGALORE.
7. SMT. B.L. SUBBAMMA,
W/O. T. A. THIPPE GOWDA,
NO.16.26, BENSON TOWN,
BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA AND SRI. M.R. SHALAMALA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER, VISVESWARAYA TOWERS,
III FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU.
6
4. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER
(EAST SUB-DIVISION), BRUHAT
BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
UTILITY BUILDINGS, BENGALURU.
5. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA
D/O RAMAIAH, R/96 NO. 2468/A,
2ND MAIN ROAD, HAL 3RD STAGE,
BDA EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 017.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG FOR SRI. K.R. NITYANANDA,
HCGP FOR R - 1 & 2
SRI GURURAJ JOSHI AND SRI. ANAND R.B. ADVOCATES FOR R - 3 & 4
SRI M.B. NARAGUND SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. D. RAJU ADVOCATES FOR R-5)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT
RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED
COMMUNICATIONS AT ANNEXURE - A AND B BY THE R1 AND ETC.,
IN W.P. NOs. 37479-83/2009
BETWEEN:
1. S. MOHAN
SON OF SRI. V. SANJEEVI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 124, AMARAJYOTHI
LAYOUT, DOMLUR, BANGALORE - 560 071
2. N.N.RAVI
SON OF N.R. NAGARAJ SETTY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
NO. 153/1, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN,
1ST CROSS, CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE - 560 018
3. PRABHA S.
WIFE OF MR. L. SURESH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
NO. 20/1, "MARUTHI NILAYA"
KRISHNA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE - 560 004
4. MANJULA JAGANNATH,
W/O. S. N. JAGANNATHA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 14, 8TH CROSS,
PIPE LINE ROAD, MALLESWARAM,
7
BANGALORE - 560 003.
5. MYTHILI N.
W/O. R. NARAYANAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 505,
CLASSIS MANSION, 6TH CROSS,
19TH MAIN, KODIHALLI, AIRPORT ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 008. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHANMUKAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO. 3
SRI. S. SHAKER SHETTY AND SRI B.V. SHANKARA NARAYANA RAO,
ADVOCATES FOR P -1, 4 & 5)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE
2. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT LAND-ACQUISITION-2)
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, VISWESWARAIAH
TOWER, BANGALORE
4. MUNIVENKATAMMA
WIFE OF RAMAIAH,
NO. 2468/A, 2ND CROSS
4TH B MAIN ROAD, HAL 3RD STAGE,
BDA EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 017. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG FOR SRI. K.R. NITYANANDA,
HCGP FOR R-1 TO 3
SRI M.B. NARAGUND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. D. RAJU, ADVOCATES FOR R-4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED:
04.08.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE AJ AND ORDER DATED: 01.10.2009 VIDE
ANNEXURE AK AS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL
AND GRANT CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF/S DEEMED FIT AND APPROPRIATE
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ETC.,
8
IN W.P. NO. 39012/2011
BETWEEN:
MR. SRINIVASA RAO K.
S/O K. MOHAN RAO,
AGED 35 YEARS, R/A. NO. 661/3,
5TH MAIN, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE - 560 003. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. ROAD, BANGALORE
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
MAYO HALL, M G ROAD, BANGALORE
3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
DOMLUR SUB-DIVISION, 12TH FLOOR, PUBLIC
UTILITY BUILDING, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE
4. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA
W/O. LATE RAMAIAH
AGED MAJOR, R/O. NO.2468 A 2ND CROSS,
4TH B MAIN ROAD, HAL 3RD STAGE, BDA LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 017. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA ADVOCATE FOR R - 1 TO 3
R-4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE - A ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO. 3 DATED: 04.10.2011. AND DIRECT THAT THE
PETITIONER MAY BE PROVIDED WITH A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND
HIMSELF IN THE PROCEEDINGS IF ANY BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO. 1
TO 3 ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 4. AND ETC.,
IN W.P. NO. 39013 /2011
BETWEEN:
MRS. AMARESWARI K.
W/O. K. MOHAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A. NO. 98/3, 6TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
MR. K. MOHAN RAO
9
S/O. LATE K. KOTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/A. NO. 98/3, 6TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. ROAD, BANGALORE
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST)
MAYO HALL, M G ROAD, BANGALORE
3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
DOMLUR SUB-DIVISION, 12TH FLOOR, PUBLIC
UTILITY BUILDING, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE
4. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA
W/O. LATE RAMAIAH
R/O. NO. 2468 A 2ND CROSS,
4TH B MAIN ROAD, HAL 3RD STAGE,
BDA LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 017. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA ADVOCATE FOR R - 1 TO 3
SRI M.B. NARAGUND, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. D. RAJU,
ADVOCATE FOR R -4 (VK NOT FILED))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE - A ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO. 3 DATED: 04.10.2011. AND DIRECT THAT THE
PETITIONER MAY BE PROVIDED WITH A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND
HIMSELF IN THE PROCEEDINGS IF ANY BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO. 1
TO 3 ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 AND ETC.,
IN W.P. NOs. 39228-236/2011
IN W.P.NO. 39228/2011
BETWEEN:
S MOHAN
S/O LATE V SANJEEVI
AGED 61 YEARS, NO.124, II CROSS,
AMARJOTHI LAYOUT, DOMLUR,
BANGALORE - 560 071
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) ...PETITIONER
10
IN W.P.NO. 39229/2011
BETWEEN:
M/S. ECOM SCIENCE CONSULTING PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. A007,
NATASHA GOLF VIEW APARTMENT NO.102, NEW RING ROAD,
DOMLUR, BANGALORE - 560 071
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, DILIP KUMAR BHARATEE ...PETITIONER
IN W.P.NO. 39230/2011
BETWEEN:
1. B A MOHIDEEN
AGED 74 YEARS
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
2. ASIF MASOOD MOHIDEEN
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
3. AHMED SHAFEE MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
2 & 3 ARE REP. BY PA HOLDER
PETITIONER NO.1 HEREIN
ALL ARE RESIDING AT ANSHREE RESIDENCY
60 FEET ROAD, SANJAYNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 094 ...PETITIONERS
IN W.P.NO. 39231/2011
BETWEEN:
MANJULA JAGANNATH
W/O S N JAGANNATH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
NO. 14, 8TH CROSS
PIPELINE ROAD (DATTATREYA
TEMPLE STREET), MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) ...PETITIONER
IN W.P.NO. 39232/2011
BETWEEN:
VENKATESHA PRASAD
11
S/O LATE B RADHAKRISHNA SHETTY
AGED 61 YEARS, NO.174, 3RD CROSS,
LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS
BANGALORE - 560 003
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) ...PETITIONER
IN W.P.NO. 39233/2011
BETWEEN:
NEERAJ VERMA
S/O LATE G K VERMA
AGED 69 YEARS, NO.131, AMARJOTHI LAYOUT
DOMLUR, BANGALORE - 560 071
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) ...PETITIONER
IN W.P.NO. 39234/2011
BETWEEN:
B SUNIL SHETTY
S/O K CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY
AGED 51 YEARS, NO.133, AMARJOTHI LAYOUT
DOMLUR, BANGALORE - 560 071 ...PETITIONER
IN W.P.NO. 39235/2011
BETWEEN:
ROBIN D' CRUZ
S/O WILLIAM D' CRUZ
AGED 71 YEARS, NO.K-08,
DIAMOND DISTRICT,
OLD AIRPORT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 008
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) ...PETITIONER
IN W.P.NO. 39236/2011
BETWEEN:
SMT. S PRABHA
W/O L SURESH
AGED 56 YEARS, NO.20/1,
MARUTHI NILAYA, KRISHNA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. SHAKER SHETTY SR. COUNSEL FOR P - 1 TO 3 AND 6 TO 9
SRI. B.V. SHANKAR NARAYANA RAO ADVOCATE FOR P - 4 & P - 5)
12
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. UNDER SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001
3. SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
III FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK,
V V TOWERS, BANGALORE - 560 001
4. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA
W/O RAMAIAH, AGED MAJOR
NO. 2468/A, II CROSS,
4TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, HAL II STAGE,
BDA EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 017.
5. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002. ... COMMON RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG FOR
SRI. K.R. NITYANANDA, HCGP FOR R - 1 TO 3
SRI. M. ADINARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4
SRI. ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 READ
WITH 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED: 04.10.11 PASSED BY R5 VIDE ANNEXURE - F
ACCORDING TO LAW AND ETC.,
IN W.P. NOS. 44256/2011 and 44259/2011
BETWEEN:
1. CAROL PEREIRA
W/O LEONARD JOHN PEREIRA
AGED 55 YEARS, NO.2/515,
CWS COLONY, HAL III STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 075
2. MYTHILINI N
13
W/O R NARAYANAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO. 505, 'CLASSIC MANSION'
6TH CROSS, 19TH MAIN
KODIHALLI, AIRPORT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 008. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.V. SHANKARA NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR P1 & P2)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. UNDER SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001
3. SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
III FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK
V V TOWERS, BANGALORE - 560 001
4. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA
W/O RAMAIAH, AGED MAJOR
NO. 2468/A, II CROSS,
4TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, HAL II STAGE,
BDA EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 017
5. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002.
... COMMON RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG FOR
SRI. K.R. NITYANANDA, HCGP FOR R-1 TO 3
SRI. M.B. NARAGUND, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. D. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-4
SRI. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA FOR
SRI. I. G. GACHCHINMATH, ADVOCATES FOR R-5)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 READ
WITH 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED: 04.10.2011 PASSED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT
AS PER ANNEXURE - F ACCORDING TO LAW AND ETC.,
14
IN W.P. NO. 58175/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI. ABHISHEK PODDAR,
S/O SRI. B.K. PODDAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O NO. 3/1-1, ALI ASKER ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 052. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.V. SATISH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPT.)
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
VISVESWARAYYA TOWERS, III FLOOR,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
4. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER
(EAST SUB-DIVISION),
BBMP, UNITY BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER,
DOMLUR SUB-DIVISION,
12TH FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BLDG.
M.G. ROAD, MAYO HALL,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
6. MUNIVENKATAMMA,
W/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O NO. 2468A, 2ND CROSS,
4TH B MAIN ROAD, BDA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 017. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG FOR
SRI. K.R. NITYANANDA, HCGP FOR R-1 & 2
SRI. B.V. MURALIDHAR AND SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATES FOR R -3 TO 5
SRI. M.B. NARAGUND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. D. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R - 6)
15
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS
WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED
COMMUNICATIONS AT ANNEXURE - A & B BY THE R-1 AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
20.12.2019 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In these bunch of petitions, petitioners have assailed internal communications dated 4.8.2009 and 1.10.2009 (Annexures - R and S), further corrigendum dated 4.10.2011 to endorsement dated 9.9.2011 (Annexure - A in W.P.39012/2011 and W.P.39013/2011, W.P.39228/2011 and W.P.39223-39236/2011 (Annexure - F), W.P.44256 and 44259/2011 (Annexure - F), W.P.13427/2012 (Annexure - C) and order dated 22.07.2013 vide Annexure - P in W.P.No.58175/2014. In other words, over all challenge is to the internal communications between the Revenue Secretary and Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 4.8.2009 for implementation of Supreme Court decision in the case of HMT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs SYED KHADAR reported in ILR 1995 Kar. 1962 (For short hereinafter referred to as 'HMT Society'), whereby Supreme Court has directed for restoration of the land to the land owners; one more internal communication between Revenue Secretary and Deputy Commissioner (East 16 Range), BBMP dated 1.10.2009, corrigendum dated 4.10.2011 to the endorsement dated 9.9.2011 of the Assistant Revenue Officer, Domlur Sub-Division, Bengaluru and order of the Addl. Commissioner (East), BBMP, Bengaluru passed in the file dated 22.7.2013 bearing No.AAE/KMC/114A/26/12-13. These communications/orders pertain to restoration of the acquired land to the erstwhile owners pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in HMT Society's case.
2. Brief facts of the case is that Sy.No.66/1 measuring 0.14 guntas, Sy.No.65/5 measuring 0.26 guntas and Sy.No.67/3 measuring 0.21 guntas, overall 1 acre 21 guntas of Domlur Village was allotted to Amarjyoti House Building Co-operative Society (For short referred to as 'Amarjyoti Society') through the Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'BDA' for short). In turn Amarjyoti Society is stated to have allotted sites/land to its members like some of the petitioners herein and some of the petitioners are subsequent purchasers. On 28.12.1981 preliminary notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act among other survey numbers in Domlur Village, totally measuring 82 acres 19 guntas. Final notification was issued under 17 Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 12.10.1982. BDA proceeded to issue approval of sanction to the Secretary of Amarjyoti Society, a Private Layout on 12.01.1983. Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 29.08.1985. There were certain complaints/issues relating to allotment of acquired land to various societies including Amarjyothi Society for which the State Government constituted a committee called GVK Rao Committee. Committee submitted its report on 18.6.1985. In this backdrop on 29.7.1989 out of 82 acres 19 guntas, only 38 acres 29 guntas is stated to have been taken into possession. It is learnt that no physical possession is taken and it is kept vacant even to this day. On 05.09.1990 one Sri K M Rangadhama Shetty, stated to be the agent of Amarjyoti Society executed a sale deed in favour of one Sri D L Suresh. One Sri Narayana Reddy filed W.P.17775/1986 questioning the validity of acquisition of lands in favour of certain House Building Co-operative Societies which was decided by Division Bench of this Court on 18.6.1991 and it is reported in ILR 1991 Kar.2248. The said decision was the subject matter before the Apex Court in C.A.3011-3019/1995 which was disposed on 21.2.1995 and it is reported in ILR 1995 Kar. 1962 wherein Supreme Court passed the order against various Co-operative 18 Societies, for the purpose of present case i.e., Amarjyothi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., & Narayana Reddy's decision are relevant. Extract of the relevant portion are reproduced herein:
Amarjyothi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd vs State of Karnataka supra "These Special Leave Petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioner Amar jyothi House Building Co- operative Society Ltd. for setting aside the judgment of the High Court, quashing the Notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring lands for the petitioner society. From the Judgment of the High Court, it appears that this Society also had entered into an Agreement with a developer who had assured to get the lands in question acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Petitioner Society paid huge amount to the said developer for the said object. In this case also there is no order of the State Government, granting prior approval for acquisition of the lands in question, as required by Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act. The High Court has also referred to the Report of Mr. G.V.K. Rao, about the bogus members. According to the finding, the Society had admitted 4,050 bogus members. As such, there is no scope for taking a view contrary one which we have taken while disposing of the Appeals Nos. 3011-19/95 (arising out of S.L.P(C)Nos. 11482-90 of 1991) filed on behalf of the H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society. These Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
2. In the Appeals Nos. 3011-19/95 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11482-90 of 1991, after the dismissal of the Appeals a direction has been given that as a result of the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings including the Notifications in question, the possession 19 of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their lands or not. A further direction has been given that on restoration of the possession of the land owners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in this case. The petitioner, the respondents and the State Government including all concerned authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at an early date.
State of Karnataka vs Narayana Reddy, Supreme Court has held as under:
The Special Leave Petition has been filed on behalf of the State of Karnataka against the same Judgment of the High Court, quashing the Notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring lands for different House Building Co- operative Societies. The State of Karnataka has purported to justify the issuance of those Notifications. Whether the lands in question had been acquired in accordance with law has been examined in detail in the case of H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society. In view of the reasons given in the said Judgment, the Special Leave Petition has to be dismissed. No cost, In the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11482- 90 of 1991, after the dismissal of the appeals a direction has been given that as a result of the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings including the notifications in question, the possession of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their lands or not. A further direction has been given that on restoration of the possession to the land owners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their 20 lands. We issue a similar direction even in this case.
The petitioners and the respondents including all concerned authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at an early date".
3. In W.P.3838-3845/1995 filed by some of the land owners which was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches on 8.7.1998, it was the subject matter of W.A.6017-6018/1997 (AMAR JYOTHI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. vs THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER) was dismissed on 18.09.1998 holding that Society has got bogus membership and consent of the owner has no impact on it. On 28.6.2003 BDA rejected the approval of the layout plan which was presented by the Amarjyoti Society. Thereafter, BDA proceeded to cancel the modified sanctioned plan by passing a resolution on 28.6.2003. On 29.9.2003 BDA sought Amarjyoti Society to furnish modified plan and list of allottees. Amarjyoti Society forwarded a list of members, who were allotted sites, with a request to collect developmental charges.
4. A Public Interest Litigation was filed by the Welfare Association. Writ Petition No.30139/1999 was rejected on 29.7.2004.
21
5. In respect of handing over possession to the land owners, opinion of the Law Department and Revenue Department was obtained as per order dated 22.7.2009 which has attained finality after obtaining due approval by the State Government. In this backdrop, impugned communications/orders were issued by the official respondents in favour of the erstwhile land owners of the acquired land.
6. Bunch of W.P.Nos.17775 & 76/82 c/w 21417/86, 21316, 21533/86, 15625/87, 15629, 16154 to 56/87, 16494, 17159 to 63, 17458, 17699, 17700 to 81, 17792, 18093, 17841, 17489 to 93/1987, 437/88, 1453, 6263, 3189 to 90, 6810, 8304 to 306. 6940 to 952, 6977/88, 7060 to 63, 7683 to 99, 8132, 8761, 12504 to 11, 13357 to 13367/88, 4541/1987 c/w 6015, 3271 to 3276/1988 were filed before the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the parties apprised the learned Single Judge that identical matters were dismissed by the Division Bench and review petitions were pending. In this context, learned Single Judge referred the aforesaid petitions to the Division Bench on the count that it is an interpretation of Section 3(f)(vi) of the Land Acquisition 22 Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') for the benefit of Co-operative Society and cannot be treated for a public purpose and other issues are involved. Thus, on 26.09.1988, learned Single Judge referred the matter to Division Bench for disposal by invoking Section 9 of the High Court Act, 1961. Consequently, Division Bench heard and disposed of the aforesaid petitions which is known as Narayana Reddy's case (W.P.17775 and 17776/1982 and connected matters on 18.06.1991).
7. Overall, six judicial pronouncements were required to be taken into consideration so as to interfere with the impugned communications/orders or not. Those decisions are:
(i) W.P.17775/1981 decided on 18.6.1991 (NARAYANA REDDY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA) reported in ILR 1991 Kar.2248
(ii) C.A.3011-3019/1995 decided on 21.2.1995 (HMT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs SYED KHADER) reported in ILR 1995 Kar.1962
(iii) W.A.6017-6018/1997 decided on 18.9.1998 (arising out of W.P.27983/1995 and connctd. Matters decided on 18.3.1996) (Amarjyoti Society House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer)
(iv) W.P.35597-36251/1999 and conncted matters decided on 10.3.2000 (AMARWATAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (para.3, 4, 9 23 and 10, 14 and 20, 32 - subject matter of notification dated 28.12.1981 and 14.10.1982)
(v) W.A.No.2610-2611/2000 (L.A.) decided on 27.3.2001 (Smt.Amarvarthamma and Ors. Vs State of Karnataka) (Last para of page.21)
(vi) W.P.37217/2009 (L.A. - Res) decided on 12.11.2010 (MUNIVENKATAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and ORS. (Para.20 and 21)
8. Learned counsel Sri Shekar Shetty appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners vehemently contended that subject matter of notification dated 28.12.1981 and 12.10.1982 were not the subject matter of HMT Society's case decided by the Apex Court in C.A.3011-3019/1995 decided on 21.2.1995. That apart, owners of the land in the present case suffered orders before this Court and it has attained finality. Therefore, official respondents have committed serious blunder in restoring the land to the erstwhile owners pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of HMT Society including Amar Jyothi matter. The official respondents have not applied their mind whether the aforesaid Apex Court decision is in respect of the subject Sy.No.66/1 measuring 0.14 guntas, Sy.No.65/5 measuring 0.26 guntas and Sy.No.67/3 measuring 0.21 guntas, overall 1 acre 21 guntas of 24 Domlur Village. In support of petitioners contention he relied on the following decisions:
(i) Narayana Reddy vs State Of Karnataka reported in I.L.R. 1991 KAR 2248.
(ii) Upadhyay V State of U.P. and Ors reported in AIR 1999 SC 509 .
(iii) Devasahayam (Dead) BY LRS. Vs P. Savithramma and Others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 653.
(iv) Union of India and another v. Sri Babu Ram Lalla reported in AIR 1988 SC 344.
(v) Manohar Lal (Dead) by LRS vs Ugrasen (Dead) by LRS and Others (Civil Appeal No. 973/2007 reported in (2010) 7 SCC 557) With Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Ugrasen (dead) by LRS and Others (Civil Appeal No. 974 of 2007).
(vi) Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority vs S. Vasudeva and Others reported in (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 439
(vii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation and Another reported in (1995) 4 SCC96.
(viii) Sundarajas Kanyalal Bhathija and others vs The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 261.
(ix) Distt. Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada vs K. Sivaji and Others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 135
9. Sri B V Shankar Narayan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner reiterated the arguments advanced by the learned 25 counsel Mr.Shekar Shetty. He added additional contentions like inordinate delay of 14 years, identification of property was not undertaken and principle of natural justice has not been adhered to.
10. Mr.Shanmukappa, Learned counsel for petitioner No.3 in W.P.37439-80/2009 has also reiterated the arguments advanced by learned counsel Sri Shekar Shetty. It was contended that owners have suffered orders in W.P.No.3838-3845/1995 decided on 8.7.1998 (petitioner No.4 in W.P.3841/1995 - Sidappa). On 25.3.1986 possession of the subject land was taken over by Amarjyoti Society while approving the private layout on 12.1.1983. It was also contended that W.P.35597 and 36251/1999 and connected matter, land owners and societies' case read with W.A.Nos.2610-2611/2000 disposed of on 27.3.2001 wherein Division Bench has upheld the order dated 10.3.2000 passed in the aforesaid writ petitions. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the present writ petitions were to be allowed.
11. Mr.Shekar Shetty, learned Counsel advanced additional submissions that Narayan Reddy's case para.3 (2255 - 2339) , HMT's case para.24. It was further contended that interim order 26 has been granted on 14.12.2009 in the present case. It was also contended that Munivenkatamma, who was a land owner of the subject land suffered an order in W.P.37217/2009 decided on 12.11.2010. Pursuant to the said decision, O.S.2506/2014 is pending consideration. It was also contended that under Section 114 A of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, power to review vests with the Commissioner, Consequently, cancellation of khatha by the Asst. Revenue Officer is without authority of law. Petitioners are bonafide purchasers. Therefore, the official respondents cannot displace in the guise of implementation of the Supreme Court decision in the case of HMT Society/Amarjyothi Society cited supra. It was also contended that preliminary and final acquisition notifications dated 28.12.1981 and 14.10.1982 were not quashed.
12. Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 adopted the arguments of Mr.Shankar Narayan. He has cited the decision rendered in the case of Muniventakamma, W.P.37217/2019 (para.14) (Annexures - R and S).
27
13. Mr K V Satish, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.58715/2014 adopted the arguments of Mr.Shekar Shetty. He has reiterated that petitioner was not heard in the matter.
14. Learned Senior counsel Mr.Udaya Holla appearing on behalf of petitioners in W.P.34797-98/2009 submitted that the preliminary and final notification dated 28.12.1981 and 14.10.1982 were the subject mater of litigation i.e., by one Sri Siddappa, father- in-law of the 5th respondent - Smt. Munivenkatamma in W.P.No.3841/1995 which was dismissed on 8.7.1998 and attained finality. In the meanwhile, awards have been passed and the society has been put in possession on 29.8.1998. Society has formed a layout in the land bearing Sy.No.66/1 measuring 14 guntas, Sy.No.65/5 measuring 26 guntas, Sy.No.67/3 measuring 21 guntas totally measuring 1 acre 21 guntas situated at Domluru of Domlur Civil Area, Bengaluru North Taluk after due permission/sanction from the BDA on 20.12.1982. On 5.7.1990 society allotted sites in favour of persons like Rajendran, Mohan Shetty, Smt.Ghouse Bee and in turn she has sold half of the property in favour of Mohan Murthy, the remaining portion was sold to one Smt.Vijayalakshmi on 27.4.2000 vide site bearing Nos.131 and 130. Further Site No.133 was allotted in favour of 28 Shylaja Shetty and it was sold to Sunil Shetty (petitioner No.4) In this backdrop, Sri Siddappa father-in-law of 5th respondent - Smt. Munivenkatamma who has suffered a judicial pronouncement and it has attained finality, thus impugned actions of the official respondents amounts to res judicata. On this point he relied on two decisions reported in 1979 (4) SCC 163 para 7 and 2011(3) SCC 408 (paras.12 to 17). It was further contended that challenge to acquisition on the issue of delay is liable to be rejected. On this point he relied on ILR 2014 Kar. 1613, 2010(4) SCC 532. Impugned actions are in violation of natural justice on this point he relied on AIR 1967 SC 1269 (para.12), 2003 (4) SCC 557 (head note - e), 1973(1) SCC 409 (para.43). Earlier judgments holding acquisition notifications dated 28.12.1981 and 29.07.1989 are valid and have not been set aside by this Court or Supreme Court in the case of Smt Amarvathamma - both in Writ petition and Writ Appeal, Narayana Reddy's case and Munivenkatamma's case. In view of these facts and circumstances read with aforesaid legal issues, the impugned action of the official respondents are liable to be set aside.
15. Per contra, Sri Subrahmanya, learned Addl. Advocate General for Sri K R Nityananda, HCGP for R.1 to R.3 resisted the 29 contentions of the petitioners and heavily relied on Supreme Court decision reported in ILR 1995 KAR.1962 - HMT Society's case wherein Supreme Court examined each of the Society's case read with GVK Rao Committee's report. Supreme Court earmarked one paragraph for each society while analyzing the facts in brief. In respect of Amarjyoti Society it is observed that there is no compliance to Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act. The High Court has also referred and discussed GVK Rao report to the extent of bogus members and there is no scope for taking a view contrary to the HMT Society's case. Even though notifications dated 28.12.1981 and 17.10.1982 were not the subject matter of HMT Society's case having regard to the language of the Apex Court in the HMT Society case, to the following effect: 'quashing of the land acquisition proceedings including the notification in question, the possession of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their lands or not and further directed for restoration of the possession to the land owners and they shall refund the amount received from them as compensation otherwise in respect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in this case'.
16. The contention that notifications dated 28.12.1981 read with 14.10.1982 have not been quashed is concerned, reading of the Apex Court decision it is crystal clear to the extent 30 irrespective of the fact whether is there any challenge to the acquisition of their lands or not, direction is for restoration of the possession to the land owners. The contentions of the petitioners that the matter has attained finality before this Court in respect of Sidappa, father-in-law of Smt.Munivenkatamma and further, in the case of Smt.Munivenkatamma. Further, contentions relating to res judicata, delay, principles of natural justice, would also not come in the way of implementation of the Apex Court decision in the case of HMT Society, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned actions,. In fact the petitioners have no locus standi to question the implementation of the Apex Court decision in HMT Society, since dispute is among State, Society and erstwhile owners. If at all the petitioners are feeling aggrieved by the impugned actions, they must approach Apex Court and seek necessary clarification, whether land owners are entitled for restoration of the land irrespective of the fact whether their land was subject matter of HMT Society's case, since HMT Society's case is not in respect of any particular land acquisition notifications. If there is any finality in respect of the petitioners land before this Court, parties are bound by the Apex Court decision in the case of HMT Society. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as 31 petitions are not maintainable in respect of impugned actions, since official respondents have only implemented the decision of the Apex Court in HMT Society's case read with Amarjyothi Society's case
17. Learned counsel appearing for BBMP submitted that BBMP has carried out the directions of the Apex Court read with the State Government directions in canceling the khatha stood in the name of the petitioners while restoring in the name of the erstwhile owners of the respective lands pursuant to judicial pronouncement. One of the contentions on behalf of the petitioners advanced was that the Assistant Revenue Officer was not the competent authority to cancel the khatha. The Commissioner of BBMP is empowered to delegate his powers which has been delegated to the Assistant Revenue Officer. Hence, aforesaid contentions of the petitioner that Assistant Revenue Officer's decision to cancel the khatha and restoring the same in the name of erstwhile owners is not tenable. Petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned actions of the BBMP.
Learned Senior Counsel Sri M B Nargund appearing for respondent No.5 - Smt. Munivenkatamma vehemently contended 32 that petitioners have no locus standi to question the impugned actions. Impugned actions are relating to internal correspondences among official machinery read with the erstwhile owners of the land bearing Sy. No.66/1 measuring 0.14 guntas, Sy.No.66/5 measuring 0.26 guntas and Sy.No.67/3 measuring 0.21 guntas, overall 1 acre 21 guntas of Domlur Village. The undisputed facts are that petitioners were allotted sites by the Amarjyoti Society or allottees in turn sold the property to a third person - some of the petitioners herein. The implementation of the Apex Court decision in the case of HMT Society was among the official respondents, Amarjyoti Society and erstwhile owners. If the petitioners rights are affected by virtue of implementation of the Apex Court decision cited supra, they have a remedy before the Apex Court. Thus, writ petitions are not maintainable on the count of locus standi. That apart, Amarjyoti Society who suffered an order before the Apex Court in the case of HMT Society cited supra, had accepted the Apex Court decision and it has attained finality irrespective of the fact that whether challenge to the land acquisition was the subject matter or not, Apex Court has commanded the official respondents to restore the acquired land to the land owners without reference to any particular land acquisition notification. Amarjyoti Society has 33 not filed review petition/curative petition so as to review the HMT Society decision. The Apex Court decision irrespective of challenge to the land acquisition notifications, it has commanded the official respondents to restore the acquired land to the erstwhile land owners while invoking Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners that land owners suffered decision before this Court, has attained finality, is not tenable. That apart in the case of Munivenkatamma - 5th respondent this Court held that writ petition is not maintainable and liberty is given to agitate her grievance before appropriate forum and she has filed O.S.2506/2014 and it is pending consideration. Moreover, Amarjyothi Society is not one of the petitioner in these bunch of petitions.
18. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that when the petitioners have no locus standi, then the question of entertaining their pleas like resjudicata, delay, natural justice would not arise. Insofar as notifications dated 28.12.1981 and 29.07.1989 have not been set-aside by this Court or Apex Court, has no substance in view of the crystal clear directions of the Apex Court in the case of HMT Society wherein it is held that question of land acquisition proceeding including notifications in question, possession of land 34 shall be restored to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether, they had challenged the acquisition of their lands or not and for restoration and possession to the land owners, for refund of amounts received by them as compensation. Thus, petitioners have not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned action. If the petitioners right is affected in the guise of implementation of the Apex Court decision in the case of HMT, in such an event, they have a remedy only before the Apex Court. Apex Court in HMT Society has taken note of entire land acquisition proceedings of various societies and its conduct read with GVK Rao's report and each of the House Building Co- operative Society's conduct and further observations relating to involvement of one Shri. K.M. Rangdhama Shetty, who was alleged to be kingpin, who had colluded with official machinery, in not issuing an order by the State Government like granting prior approval for acquisition of the lands in question as contemplated under Section 3(f)(VI) of the Act. Further, from the report of the GVK Rao about the bogus members, in the case of HMT Society, the Apex Court examined in depth and further, the principle laid down in the case of HMT Society referred to the case of Amarjyoti Society also as is evident from the Judgment of HMT Society (ILR 35 1995 Kar.1962). In view of these facts and circumstances, petitioners have not made out prima facie case so as to interfere with the impugned actions, since the official respondents have implemented the Apex Court decision in the case of HMT Society. One of the paragraphs decided in the HMT Society is Amarjyoti Society wherein it is made crystal clear that there is no scope for taking a view contrary to the one which is taken while disposing HMT Society's case and so also command has been issued to the extent that the possession of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their lands or not.
19. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
20. Core issues in these petitions are:
(i) Whether impugned actions are in terms of HMT Society's case or not?
(ii) Further, in the absence of quashing of acquisition proceedings vide preliminary and final notifications dated 28.12.1981 and 12.10.1982, whether restoration of acquired land pursuant to HMT Society's case is permissible or not?
21. HMT Society's is a lead case wherein issues of the other Societies were dealt by the Apex court. They are as follows: 36
Sl. No. Names of the Societies mentioned in HMT Case 01 H.M.T. House Building Co-Operative Society vs M. Venkataswamappa 02 Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd.
vs Narayana Reddy 03 Amarjyothi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.
vs State of Karnataka 04 The Bangalore City Chickpet House Building Co-
Operative Society Ltd. vs Venkamma @ Venkatamma 05 REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-Op. Society Ltd vs Sri Neelakantaiah 06 State Of Karantaka vs Narayan Reddy
22. The six judicial pronouncements which are required to be taken into consideration so as to interfere with the impugned communications/orders and the relevant portion of the said judgments are culled out hereunder:
(i) W.P.17775/1981 decided on 18.6.1991 (NARAYANA REDDY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA) reported in ILR 1991 Kar.2248
(ii) C.A.3011-3019/1995 decided on 21.2.1995 (HMT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs SYED KHADER) reported in ILR 1995 Kar.1962
(iii) W.A.6017-6018/1997 decided on 18.9.1998 (arising out of W.P.27983/1995 and connctd. Matters decided on 18.3.1996) (Amarjyoti Society House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer)
11. It is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the finding given by the learned Single Judge that there is no prior approval of the scheme of the appellant by the Government as prescribed by Section 3 (f)
(vi) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and on that ground also the acquisitions are liable to be quashed, is erroneous.
In support of this contention that there is prior approval of 37 the scheme of the Government, he relied upon the letter dated 10-10-1986 (Annexure-A) produced by the appellant as an additional document on 7-1-1998. It is seen from the said letter that it is addressedby the Revenue Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Revenue Department, Bangalore, to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, and it reads as follows:-
"Sub: Acquisition of 122 acres 20 guntas of land in Kempapura Agrahara, Challaghatta villages, Bangalore North Taluk in favour of Amarajyothi House Building Co-operative House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore.
...
With reference to the above subject, I am directed to convey the approval of Government for acquisition of 122 acres 20 guntas of lands in Kempapura Agrahara and Challaghattavillages, Bangalore North Taluk, in favour of the said society as recommended by the three men committee.
You are requested to initiate acquisition proceedings as per Rules to acquire the land. A copy of the notification may be sent to Government for reference. "
It is significant to note that it is nowhere mentioned in the above letter that the appropriate Government mentioned is satisfied that the land intended to be acquired is needed for 'Public Purpose' in terms of Section 3 (f) (vi) of the Act. So, the above communication cannot be termed to be the approval or satisfaction of the Government regarding the need of the land sought to be acquired for a public purpose within the meaning of Section 3 (f) (vi) of the Act. The validity of a similar approval given by the Government came-up for consideration in the earlier decision in the case of 'H.M.T., HOUSEBUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. SYED KHADER and while dealing with the 38 scope of Section 3 (f) (vi) of the Act, the Court emphasized that:-
".... in the absence of the scheme submitted by the Society for its approval, the Government cold have approved of the scheme under Sec.3 (f) (vi) of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of the approval of the scheme, the acquisition is bad. It is held by the Supreme Court that prior approval is not formal, but it is a condition precedent for acuquisiton of Land for housing scheme of co- operative Society..."
In the above decision, it was held that no scheme was filed by the Society and the there was no approval of the scheme and in the absence of the scheme submitted by the Society for its approval the Government could not have approved the scheme under Section 3 (f) (vi) of the Act and in the absence of the approval of the scheme the acquisition is bad. In the instant case also, the above communication does not indicate that the appellant- society filed scheme before the Government and that the Government has given approval to that scheme. Therefore, in the absence of the approval of the scheme by the Government, it must be held that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to these cases are not valid and are liable to be quashed. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned Single Judge in the review petitions and held that the above said letter Annexure-A does not indicate that it is an approval of the Government of the scheme as such. For the reasons given above, we agree with the said conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of VISWAMBER TRUST vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA and others (Writ Appeal No. 260 of 1995, decided on 31st of March 1997), the certified copy of which is produced as 'Annexure-C', wherein it was held following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SUMITRAMMA that the letter conveying approval of the Government is sufficient that there is a prior approval of the scheme by the Government and no separate order granting approval 39 is required. He also producedthe certified copy of the order dated 8-7-1997 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 10787/97 which confirmed the said Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in VISHAMBER TRUST's case (Annexure-D). Placing reliance on the above decision, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the letter Annexure-A dated: 10-10-1986 conveying approval of the Government is to be treated as the prior approval given by the Government to the scheme and no separate order granting approval is required. But, as a similar letter Annexure-A came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in H.M.T. HOUSEBUILDING CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD's case and it was interpreted in the context that the acquisitions were not found to be for 'Public Purpose' and were made in favuor of bogus house building co-operative societies that the said letter does not indicate that there was prior approval of the scheme by the Government, the same finding holds good even in the present case. Even otherwise, as the acquisitions pertaining to these cases are found to be the result of the colourable exercise of power and are vitiated by legal mala fides on account of the fact that the said acquisitions are not found to be for any public purpose and that they are made in favour of bogus members of the appellant-Society, on this ground itself, the present acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed in these proceedings.
iv) W.P.35597-36251/1999 and conncted matters decided on 10.3.2000 (AMARWATAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (para.3, 4, 9 and 10, 14 and 20, 32 - subject matter of notification dated 28.12.1981 and 29.7.1981)
9. Sri.Mandagi, learned counsel for the Petitioner in WP.35597/99 submits that pursuant to the letter of the Under Secretary dated 13-7-1999, the LAO., handed over possession to the land owners after receiving the compensation amount paid to them and therefore the Government should have afforded and opportunity to the petitioners before cancelling the letter of the Under Secretary by its order dated 2-9-1999. It is further 40 submitted by Sri.Mandagi, that this Court in the case of Naryan Reddy -vsState of Karnataka (ILR 1991 Karnataka 2248) has cancelled the acquisition of certain lands by the Government for the benefit of several societies recording a finding that the acquisition is vitiated by mala fides. One of such acquisition is for the benefit of Amar jyothi Co-operative Society. The said finding was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of HMT House Building Co-operative Society -vsSyed Khader (ILR 1995 Karnataka 1962) by passing the following order insofar as Amar jyothi co-operative Society is concerned.
"These Special Leave Petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioner Amar jyothi House Building Co- operative Society Ltd., for setting aside the Judgment of the High Court, quashing the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring lands for the petitioner Society. From the Judgment of the High Court, it appears that this society also had entered into an Agreement with a developer who had assured to get the lands in question acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Petitioner Society paid huge amount to the said developer for the said object. In this case also there is no order of the State Government, granting prior approval for acquisition of the lands in question as required by Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act. The High Court has also referred to the Report of Mr.G.V.K.Rao, about the bogus members. According to the finding, the Society had admitted 4,050 bogus members. As such, there is no scope for taking a view contrary one which we have taken while disposing of the Appeals Nos.3011-19/95 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.11482-90 of 1991) filed on behalf of the H.M.T.House Beuilding Co-operative Society. These Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No. Costs.
2, In the Appeals Nos.3011-19/95 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.11482-90 of 1991, after the dismissal of the Appeals a direction has been given that as a result of the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings including the Notifications in question, the possession 41 of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their lands or not. A further direction has been given that on restoration of the possession of the land owners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in this case. The petitioner, the respondents and the State Government including all concerned authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at an early date."
v) W.A.No.2610-2611/2000 (L.A.) decided on 27.3.2001 (Smt.Amarvarthamma and Ors. Vs State of Karnataka) (Last para of page.21) W.P. No. 39960 of 1999 was filed by a Co-operative society by name Amarajyothi House Building Co-operative Society Limited which is the 5th respondent in the writ petition filed by the land owners and for whose benefits and at whose instance the land was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites. In that writ petition the Society prayed for quashing the letter dated 13-7-1999. In the communication dated 13-7-1999 sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Government/Under Secretary, directions were given to the Land Acquisition Officer to restore the possession of the lands acquired, to the land owners and to effect the mutation in the revenue records. This direction was purportedly given pursuant to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3011-19/95 (H.M.T House Building Co-operative Society Vs. Syed Khader and group of other connected appeals reported in AIR 1995 SC 2244). That writ petition was also dismissed evidently for the reason that the said order issued by the Under-Secretary to the Government was cancelled by the G.O. dated 2-9-1999, which, as already stated, has been upheld by the learned single Judge.
Learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions gave the following directions:
42
" 2. The Society is directed to allot sites to its members who have filed applications for allotment of site in the layout formed in the lands acquired pursuant to the notifications issued under Secs. 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the L.A.Act. If there are no vacant sites available for allotment of sites in the said layout it is open for the society to allot sites in the other lay out to be formed by it. In the event no sites are available the society is directed to refund the amount to its members with interest at 12% per annum.
Compliance by one year from today.
3. The state Government is directed to keep Sri C. Nagaiah Deputy Secretary, Sri Puttanna, Under Secretary, Sri Rudrappa, incharge Land Acquisition Officer and Sri G.A.Jayaramareddy, Special Tahasildar under suspension forthwith pending enquiry.
4. The State Government is further directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings on all the Officers referred to above forthwith."
vi) W.P.37217/2009 (L.A. - Res) decided on 12.11.2010 (MUNIVENKATAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and ORS. (Para.20 and
21)
6. It appears private co-operative societies who were miffed by the Judgment of the High Court, had carried the matter to the Supreme Court by seeking special leave and all such matters came to be disposed of by the Supreme Court in terms of its Judgment rendered in the case of 'HMT HOUSE BUILDING CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. SYED KHADER', reported in ILR 1995 KAR 1619 (SC).
7. While affirming the Judgment of the High Court rendered in the case of NARAYANA REDDY's case (supra) and similar Judgments, the supreme court went 43 further in observing that the benefit of quashing such acquisition proceedings and the notifications issued for such purpose will also enure in favour of such of land owners who perhaps might not have chosen to question the legality of acquisition proceedings pursuant to the notifications in respect of their lands and general direction was issued to the State Government, the acquiring authorities and officials functioning under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also to provide co- operative house building societies to ensure that such land owners from whom possession had been taken over pursuant to the notification which had come to be quashed whether it actually questioned the legality of the notification or not are to be restored with land which had been taken possession from them and benefit of the Judgment rendered by the High Court has to be extended to even land owners who are not before the court.
8. It appears that nevertheless, the State and its officers were lethargic in implementing the general order and directions issued by the Supreme Court in respect of all such acquisition proceedings which had come to be found fault with the High Court and notifications for which purpose had been acquired and many land owners seeing inaction had represented to the authorities for implementation of the direction issued by the Supreme Court as contained in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in HMT's case (supra).
9. It appears that in respect of several land owners, the State Government and its officials became active and had restored possession of the land which had been taken possession of under the various notifications in their favour and it is the version of the present petitioner that on a representation made by the petitioner to the concerned authorities, the possession of the subject land has been restored in favour of the petitioner, but the sale deeds which had been executed by the private co-operative societies for whose benefit the acquisition proceedings had been initiated and executed in favour of their members which are all 44 registered at the office of the jurisdictional Sub- Registrar have come in the way of full enjoyment of the restored property by the petitioner and a possible cloud on the title to the property and therefore has approached this court seeking for the following reliefs:
"i. Declaring that the sale deeds executed by the 3rd Respondent Society to the Respondent No. 4 to 6 & 10 and the sale deeds executed by the Respondent No.4 to 6 to 7 to 9 are null & void ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.10 & 11 to delete the entries made in its Registry in respect of the execution of the following sale deeds:
a) Sale Deed dated 27.02.1991 executed by the 3rd Respondent in favour of the 4th Respondent and registered as Document No.3850/90-91.
Book No.I, Volume No.3070, Pages 51-52 registered on 04.03.1991 in the office of Sub Registrar, Shivaji Nagar and the Sale Deed 23.09.2009 executed by the 4th Respondent in favour of 7th Respondent having registration No.560/2009-10 in Book No.1 Vide Annexure-
M&R
b) Sale Deed dated 01.03.1991 executed by the 3 Respondent in favour of the 5th Respondent rd and registered as Document No.3849/90-91, Book No.I, Volume No.3070, Pages 49-50 registered on 01.03.1991 in the office of Sub Registrar, Shivaji Nagar and the Sale Deed 15.07.2004 executed by the 5th Respondent in favour of 8th Respondent having registration No. 2026/2004-05 in Book No.1 Vide Annexure-N &S
c) Sale Deed dated 21.06.1990 executed by the 3rdRespondent in favour of the 6th Respondent which is registered as Document No.837/90-
91. Book No.I, Volume No.2994, Pages 7-8 in the office of Sub Registrar, Shivaji Nagar and 45 the Sale Deed 29.08.2003 executed by the 6th Respondent in favour of 9th Respondent having registration No.3247/2003-04 in Book No.1 Vide Annexure-P & T
d) Sale Deed dated 10.05.2002 executed by the 3rd Respondent in favour of the 10th Respondent which is registered as Document No.532/2002- 03 in Book No.I in the office of Sub Registrar, Shivajinagar vide Annexure-Q"
10. Submission of Sri Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the developments leading to the present factual position is not in dispute: that when once the acquisition proceedings are quashed or even when similar notifications under which acquisitions were made in favour of private co-operative societies have all been found fault with, in terms of the law declared and directions issued by the supreme court in its Judgment in HMT's case (supra) and such benefit automatically enures to the other land owners also whose lands had been acquired under different notifications for the benefit of private co-operative housing societies and when once the state government itself had taken action for restoring possession of such lands which had been acquired by the state government under different notifications in favour of the different private co-operative societies which all have been found fault with by the supreme court in general, whether or not such notifications had been challenged by the land owners either before this court or before the supreme court and when the Government itself had taken such action for restoration, it is also the duty of the Government to ensure that such land owners who had clear title to the property earlier should be restored with clear title to the property and as the state government is not very active for such purpose, it has become necessary for the petitioner to approach this court to seek for declaration of clear title to the property in the wake of such developments and particularly when petitioner has been restored with possession of the subject lands etc., and it is therefore 46 that the present writ petition for the reliefs as noted above.
The aforesaid decisions were required to be taken note off with reference to the Apex Court decision in the case of HMT Society. In other words, even to this day whatever direction rendered by the Apex Court in HMT Case holds the field. Thus, all the other decisions except HMT Society case are not relevant for the case on hand for the reason that in the HMT Society, each and every Society's case has been elaborately considered including Amarjyoti's case. It is to be noted that Amarjyoti's case is not with reference to any particular notification. However, at the relevant period whatever the land acquisition notification other than what has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that notifications dated 28.12.1981 and 14.10.1982 were not the subject matter and cannot be taken into consideration for the reason that Apex Court has observed in the case of Amarjyoti Society. That in the Amarjyoti Society case also, there is no order of the State Government for grant of prior approval for acquisition of the land in question as required by Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act. This Court and Apex Court also referred to the report of Committee of GVK Rao about the bogus members. According to the findings, the Society had admitted 4050 bogus members. As such, there is no scope for taking a view contrary to one which was taken while disposing the appeals (arising out of SLP (c) nos.1148-90/1991 filed on behalf of the HMT Society). In other words, Amarjyoti Society's case has been decided in terms of HMT Society. Further, a direction has been issued to restore the possession to the land owners and they shall refund the amount received by them as compensation. The aforesaid decision is not with reference to any particular notification. It applies for each and every notification and it is only with reference to various societies. In the present case, Amarjyoti Society, is a part of the HMT Society case. The land owners might have suffered an order before this Court, however, the Apex Court decision is binding on the official respondents, land 47 owners and society. Therefore, even if the owners have suffered an order before this Court, ultimately the Apex Court in HMT Society case is binding. Consequently, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved, they must approach the Apex Court seeking review of the order passed in the HMT Society case. Amarjyoti Society should have apprised the site allottees/members relating to pendency of the case before the Apex Court and further, if there is any transaction subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of HMT Society dated 21.02.1995, in all fairness Society should have apprised the concerned allottee/member. Even, in subsequent decision this Court has not taken note of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of HMT Society decided on 21.02.1995 to the extent that nullifying the action of the acquisition proceedings and handing over land to the various Society including Amarjyoti Society and further, restoration of the land to the erstwhile land owners. Even the official respondents delayed the process of implementation of the Apex Court in the guise of pendency of litigation before this Court. In view of these facts and circumstances, petitioners have remedy only before the Apex Court to seek necessary review/modification of the judgment dated 21.02.1995 passed in C.A.Nos.3011-3019/1995.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that notifications dated 28.12.1981 and 14.10.1982 were not the subject matter of HMT Society's case. The erstwhile owners of the lands have suffered orders before this Court and it has attained finality, the official respondents have committed error in restoring the land to the erstwhile owners without appreciating the fact that aforesaid notifications were not the subject matter before the Apex Court. It is true that notifications dated 28.12.1981 and 48 14.10.1982 were not the subject matter of HMT Society's case.
However, perusal of the discussion in respect of Amarjyoti's Society's case read with further direction for restoration of land to the erstwhile owners is not with reference to any particular notification and such direction was ordered to various Societies and one among them is Amarjyoti Society. If the land owners suffered an order before this Court and it has attained finality subsequent to decision of the HMT Society case, still the Apex Court decision is binding on Amarjyoti Society, official respondents and land owners as long as Apex Court decision dated 21.02.1995 is not modified. Merely because the erstwhile land owners lost their cases before this Court, that would not come in the way of implementation of the Apex Court decision, since, Apex Court has decided HMT Society's case in general and it is binding. In this regard, petitioners have a remedy before the Apex Court to seek necessary clarification/modification of the order dated 21.02.1995.
24. The contention of the petitioners that official respondents have not applied their mind in implementation to the Apex Court decision in respect of Sy.No.66/1 measuring 0.14 guntas, Sy.No.65/5 measuring 0.26 guntas and Sy.No.67/3 measuring 0.21 guntas, overall 1 acre 21 guntas of Domlur Village is concerned, Apex Court 49 has not distinguished with reference to any particular survey Number of the land which has been handed over to Amarjyothi Society. In other words, general direction has been issued with reference to the action of State Government, since State Government has not complied with Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act and GVK Rao's report that enrolment of members by the society was bogus and one Shri .K.M. Rangdhama Shetty, representative of Amarjyothi Society played fraud. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the Apex Court's decision is not binding is not tenable, since HMT society's case is not in respect of any particular survey number or notification and it is general in nature, in particularly, Amarjyoti Society and other similarly placed Societies, since acquisition proceedings & provisions involved are identical. Lead case is HMT Society.
25. Petitioners have contended that there is delay and also identification of the property is not undertaken and principles of natural justice has not been adhered to. No-doubt there is delay in implementation of the Apex Court decision. The official respondents are of the view that after decision of the Apex Court, some more litigations were pending before this Court.
Consequently, delay in implementation of the Apex Court decision 50 would not be a hurdle. Petitioners have not apprised relating to identification of the property which was not undertaken with reference to material information. In the absence of material information, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner that property was not identified cannot be appreciable. Question of extending principle of natural justice do not arise in the present case, for the reason that official respondents are only implementing the decision of the Apex Court. Decision of HMT Society case was among the official respondents, Amarjyoti Society and other Societies. In this regard, Amarjyoti Society should have apprised the pendency of the litigation to the concerned site allottees/members, if it is prior to 21.02.1995 and so also subsequently, if there was any transaction relating to allotment/re-allotment among the society, member and third parties like some of the petitioners herein. Even assuming that notice is given to the petitioner relating to implementation of the Apex Court decision, petitioners cannot improve the things beyond the Apex Court decision. In this regard in number of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court where in it is held under what circumstances principle of natural justice formula could be invoked and it is not straight jacket formula. In other words, they have 51 remedy only before the Apex Court seeking modification or reviewing the order dated 21.02.1995. One of the counsel for the petitioner submitted that subject land was taken over by Amarjyoti Society on 25.03.1986 whereas private layout was approved on 21.01.1983. Even the dates and events reveal that prima facie there is collusion among the society and private layout approving authority as is evident from earlier decisions read with observations taken note of by the Apex Court relating to involvement of one Shri.K.Rangadhama Shetty and registration of bogus members in the Society. Question of approving private layout on 12.01.1983 is not permissible unless and until such land was handed over to the Amarjyoti Society. These factual aspects would prima facie be evident that there were certain collusion among the parties and B.D.A. officials.
26. One of the contesting respondent in the present case viz., Smt.Munivenkatamma is stated to have suffered an order in W.P.37217/2009 dated 12.11.2010. It is to be noted that after dismissal of the aforesaid case as not maintainable and matter was not decided on merit, she has filed O.S.2506/2014 and it is pending consideration. As already noted supra that Apex Court decision is not with reference to any particular notification, it is in 52 relation to each and every society which was a party before the Apex Court including Amarjyoti Society. Smt.Munivenkatamma's acquired land was allotted to Amarjyoti Society. If the Apex Court direction is implemented where Amarjyoti Society suffered an order, consequently, Smt.Munivenkatamma is entitled for restoration of her land and official respondents have carried out such procedure.
27. Some of the petitioners who are stated to be the bonafide purchasers, even their right is required to be agitated before the Apex Court.
28. Petitioners contended that Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP has no power to change the khatha and power is vested with the Commissioner, BBMP. On this issue, learned counsel for the BBMP has pointed out that Commissioner of BBMP is empowered to delegate power to his subordinate officers. Therefore, there is no infirmity in respect of change of khatha carried out by the Assistant Revenue Officer by the BBMP. Petitioners also contended that before impugned actions were carried out by the official respondents in implementation of the Apex Court decision in the case of HMT Society, petitioners should have been heard in the 53 matter. Question on Principle of natural justice to the petitioner is already discussed above.
29. Learned Senior counsel Mr.Udaya Holla contended that one Sri Siddappa, father-in-law of respondent No.5 suffered an order in W.P.No.3841/1995 and it has attained finality.
Consequently, acquisition proceeding notifications dated 28.12.1981 and 14.12.1982 has attained finality. As already noticed in the above paragraphs that Supreme Court's decision is not with reference to any particular notification, therefore, the aforesaid contention is not tenable.
30. It was further contended that the impugned action of the official respondents amounts to resjudicata, since respondent No.5 has suffered an order so also her father-in-law Sri Siddappa.
Question of principle of res judicata is not attracted for the reason that neither Sri Siddappa nor Smt Munivenkatamma have filed another Writ Petition once again with reference to the same prayer and got relief in a court of law. On the other hand, general directions were issued by the Apex Court in HMT Society case and it is being implemented. Therefore, principles of resjudicata and cited decision have no application to the present matters.54
31. Learned Senior counsel also submitted that on the ground of delay, violation of principles of natural justice and land owners suffered orders before this Court. In this regard also he has cited decision. As discussed above, on all the counts like delay, principles of natural justice and binding decisions of this Court, HMT Society decision holds the field even to this day.
32. Learned Senior counsel Sri M B Nargund appearing for respondent No.5 contended that petitioners have no locus standi since some of the petitioners are members of the Amarjyoti Society and some of the petitioners are third party. In other words, they have already purchased sites/lands from the members of the Amarjyoti Society. The impugned action of the official respondents is only implementation of the Apex Court in the case of HMT Society. If at all, the petitioners rights are being affected in the guise of implementing the Apex Court decision in the case of HMT Society, then they have remedy only before the Apex Court.
Since the official respondent's impugned action were not suo motto but it is only implementation of the Apex Court decision in the case of HMT Society. On this score, Writ Petitions are liable to be rejected.55
33. No-doubt petitioners have no locus standi to question the impugned action of the official respondent and there is no merit.
Rights of the parties have already crystalised in HMT Society's case read with Amarjyoti Society and it is to be noted that such a decision is not with reference to any particular land acquisition notification like notifications dated 28.12.1981 read with 14.10.1982, which are preliminary and final or any other notification. The petitioners would have locus standi to question the impugned action of the official respondents had Apex Court's decision in Amarjyoti was with reference to any particular preliminary or final notification relates to land acquisition, whereas Apex Court dealt with number of Societies of which Amarjyoti Society is one among them whereas Apex Court in its order held that "the possession of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their lands or not". In both HMT Society's case read with Amarjyoti Society's case, this Court and Apex Court considered violation of Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act and certain fraud/bogus in the transactions relating to acquisition of lands viz., land owners to Sri Rangadhama Shetty, Government, BDA and Amarjyoti Society which were examined by GVK Rao Committee 56 were taken note of. Further, in the light of directions of the Apex Court in HMT Society's case read with Amarjyoti Society's case, it is very much clear that acquired land is to be restored to the respective land owners. Such a direction is not in respect of any particular notification but it is with reference to each of the society including Amarjyoti Society. Therefore, they have remedy only before the Apex Court. Consequently, the contention of respondent No.5 that petitioners have no locus standi, is to be upheld.
34. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered that the impugned actions are in terms of HMT Society's case. Insofar as Issue No.2 is concerned, in HMT Society's case matter has not been decided with reference to any particular notification, on the other hand, H.M.T. House Building Co-Operative Society, Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society, Amarjyothi House Building CO-
operative Society Ltd., The Bangalore City Chickpet House Building Co-operative Society, REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-op.
Society Ltd. and in State of Karnataka vs Narayan Reddy, Societies right to allotment of acquired lands has been decided, mainly for violation of Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act, certain fraud/bogus in the transactions relating to acquisition of lands read with GVK Rao's 57 Committee Report. Consequently, even in the absence of quashing of acquisition proceedings of both preliminary and final notifications dated 28.12.1981 and 12.10.1982, still restoration of acquired lands pursuant to HMT Society's case is in order and it is permissible.
35. At this juncture, it is necessary to take note of issue relating to binding precedent. Judicial pronouncement/s is/are based on the principle of stare decisis i.e., 'stand-by the decision already made'. Judicial precedent - there is a term called the 'doctrine of stare decisis' which states the Courts decision becomes a precedent to be followed in future cases of similar nature. The reason why a precedent is recognized is that the verdict of the judiciary is assumed to be correct. The use of precedents helps the litigant gain confidence in the judicial system. The administration of judicial decision becomes just and fair.
India is governed by the doctrine of binding precedents which is a cardinal feature of common law jurisdiction. To quote the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, "India is governed by a judicial system identified by a hierarchy of courts, where the doctrine of binding precedents is a cardinal feature of its jurisprudence The doctrine of binding precedents has the merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decision and enables an organic development of the law". This is the position in all common law countries.58
"History counts. The only significant question is how".
Judicial precedent is generally defined as an adjudged case or decision of a court, considered as furnishing an authority for an identical or similar case afterwards arising or a similar question of law. Salmond on Jurisprudence defines it as a judicial decision which contains in itself a principle which forms its legal authoritative element and which is described as ratio decidendi. Every judicial decision may be said to comprise three essential elements-findings on material facts, principles of law applicable to the legal issues arising from the facts, and the judgment or the final decision containing the conclusions and directions based on the findings of facts and the legal principles applied to those facts. The concluding part or the operative portion of a decision, which contains the conclusions and directions of the court, should be kept distinguished from the reasons for arriving at such decisions. The conclusions, i.e., the operative part of the judgment binds the parties to the lis, while the reasoning, i.e., the abstract ratio is binding for the future on all. A decision is binding not because of its final conclusions or directions but because of the ratio. The rule which is deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case constitutes the ratio decidendi. What is expressly decided or what must be considered to have been decided by necessary implication by reference to the facts stated constitutes precedents.
The concept of judicial precedents has its origin in English common law. This is not contained in any code but it is continually distilled from the stream of a large number of cases decided by courts. Common law, thus, developed as judge-made law with the principles of law devised and evolved by judicial decisions over centuries. In the common law jurisdiction, decisions of superior courts are binding as precedents and furnish a source of law. The doctrine of precedents is the foundation for common law system. It is a basic principle of the administration of justice that like cases should be 59 decided alike. On the other hand, the civil law system comprises a number of national or local laws, each of which has at its core a civil code based largely on Roman law. In civil law jurisdiction, decisions of courts are not binding precedents or a source of law; they are only optimal reference material. Courts may be guided by them but are not bound by them. This is largely because laws were codified and are continuously available and there was no need or occasion to develop law through judicial decisions. Therefore, the concept of binding precedents is alien to the civil law system. As Rupert Cross and J.W. Harris say in their admirable work precedent in English Law:
"Judicial precedent has some persuasive effect almost everywhere because stare decisis (keep to what has been decided previously) is a maxim of almost universal application. The peculiar feature of the English common law doctrine of precedent is its strongly coercive nature. English judges are sometimes obliged to follow a previous case although they have what otherwise would be good reasons for not doing so."
Apart from this principle of common law which we have inherited in India, the doctrine of binding precedent is also constitutionally recognized and mandated- expressly in the case of the Supreme Court and impliedly in the case of High Courts. The Supreme Court is a court of record according to Article 129. Article 141 specifically lays down that law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding throughout the territory of India. Thus, the requirement to follow decisions of the Supreme Court as binding precedents is not only based on common law principles, but is also a constitutional requirement and mandate. While Article 141 says that law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts in India, Article 144 enjoins such courts and all other civil authorities to aid in the enforcement of such law. Article 144 is, in a sense, wider in that it includes other authorities and is not limited to enforcement of law declared, but also all its 60 orders, decrees, and directions. Articles 141 and 144 are in a way complementary. High Courts are courts of record as well as per Article 215. Article 227 vests in every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territory in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdictions and, by implication, all such courts and tribunals are bound by the decisions of the High Court which exercises superintendence over them. Implicit in the power of supervision conferred on as superior court is that all courts and tribunals subject to its supervision should conform to the law laid down by it and the law declared by the High Court would be binding on authorities and tribunals under its superintendence.
Two concepts, res judicata and precedents, are basic to our system of administration of justice. Precedents enunciating rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under our system. However, rules of law laid down in a dispute affect parties to the dispute and strangers differently. A judgment decides questions of fact and lays down rules of law. The decision on facts binds parties and will operate as res judicata in any future litigation between them. As to strangers to the dispute the rules of law will operate as precedents.
In view of the aforesaid discussion relating to binding precedent, HMT Society's case read with Amarjyoti case are binding on this Court. Consequently, the petitioners have not made out case so as to interfere with the impugned actions of the 61 official respondents in relation to implementation of Apex Court decision.
Accordingly, the aforesaid Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE brn