Karnataka High Court
Y U Krishnaprasad vs State Of Karnataka on 31 May, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar
~
EN THE: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAEQL B.AAs'@ALQ'R§:;~ _ _
' V. _ .
I; , .,
DATED THIS THE: § W DAY (:31? A?RfL,{§§{1§L
PRESE1\fi"~- " A'
THE HONBLE MR, %%JUsT:c1«ifiAG,_sAB'HAH_1'§7
THE HON'BL'E__1VIR;'VJU\f§fFECE'V*BfMAEAEHAR
1" i,{2:~;>Q87_(I§;A--BDA)
Y.U.KRI~sHNApRA;sAD _ F? "
S/O LATE__Y.K.U19ENDRANATH
AGED ABOUT 47 y1«:z2:,R:3,~~'
R/AT; NQ75, DEE ENCLAVE,
g " .....
SAHAKARANAGAR POST,
BA1\§_GALQ'RE 5.60 092
USHA K P ' 'EAD
_ W/G"'KRlS}'-£NAPRASAD,Y.U
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
--R,2'AT N075, DEE ENCLAVE,
" 'KQDI (Z}EHALLI, SAHAKARANAGAR POST,
-BANGALORE A 560 092
" HEMANTH KL-'MAR KUMBLE
~ V S/'O S.T.KUMBLE
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
10.
11.
12.
V)
KODIGEHALLL
SAHAKARANAGAR POST.
BANGALORE) - 580 092
VENKOBA RAO
S /O NAGOJI RAO _
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, A
R/AT No.79, DEE ENGLAVE, é
KODIGEHALLI, SAHAKARANYAGAR
BANGALORE A 560 092 '
SSHANKAR
S/O SESHANN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS;
R/AT No.80, DEE ENCLAYE,
KODIGEHALLI_,.f
BANGALORE9566-«Ag_9:A___G.Y,V V A
G P BADARIA1\1Z3%;TH'1 A 1
8/0 G."%J.PPAKASH _
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS;
R/AT No.82, DEE
KODIGEHAILLI; "
SAHAKARANAGAR POST,
" BANGALORE -A 560692
'PAD SHIVANARAYAN
W',/AC--.SH'IVANARAYAN
AGED 39 YEARS,
; R/AT' NGY141; DEE ENCLAVE,
'RODIGERALLI,
' }s.ARA.KARANAGAR ROST,
_ DANGALORE -- 560 092
/ii/"J
El}
ORDER THIS DAY, B.MANOHAR J., MADEf"--,'I'HE3
FQLLCEWING:
T he learned Single Judge of thietooittrt hae"_i'refei-:redl"tlie--..L
matter to the Division Bench for oo;n"siideration'Von_: lit'
the writ petition is posted before us for. hearing;
2. In this writ petition sought for the
following reliefs: l
(a) _' dt 24.7.2008 in
W.P.No--,10.054/2098'vandiérecall the order and pass
appropriate order afteifiiearing the petitioners
2 t follotxtiizg the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
:i';:;l_ House Building Co-operative
Slo-oieties lease, declare that acquisition
proceedings initiated in favour of NTI Society Vide
l\§oti.fioation dt 3.151985 hgiNo.LAQ{l} oeoaa at
"A:\il\:'EXURE M R and the Notification dt 22.8.1986
mm
«rm
bg.N0.LAQ(l] 68683 at ANNEXUREZ --- S and all
further proceedings pursuant to these': a
Notifications as intructuous and direct the
Governrnent not to initiate any action'
pursuance of the acquisition _.procee§;lir:gsl'_':V.in'V _
respect of land bearing Sy.N0. 'of t
Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli; Banga.lore
North Taluk.
(C) declare that the at
ANNEXUREZ betweenigthveflili'__relsp'ond'é§r1t-l*'and the
BDA as is of law
as not V pxetitiogners land in
Sy.No. _1_ Cl'.:[KQ:digehalli Village,
Yelahahka North T aluk.
(d) issuel*a 'writ, in the nature of mandamus
g_ direc~l;ing'the $t'a--teV__Qo?Jern1nent to restore the land
13/28 of Kodigehalli Village,
Bangalore North Taluk, to the
petitlonersl event of the land being subject to
l V _acquisitio._n proceedings.
5 x
14
Sy.No.13/2A iineaeuring 1 acre 37 guntas and
measuring 1 acre 4 guntas on i8~3~1988 from if
and Narayanappa and formed the sites.' ""Ti'ie n;'a.d'--,
purchased the said sites under registere_d"--s_a1e in
year 2002. Thereafter, they obtain'ed:"}:atha 'in the
said sites from Byatarayanpapiira hey had
paid property tax, betterment' ._obtained the
building plan and conS;t1*iicted' They
have also obtained connections
from the respe~etiv,<~:§'departments 'an'd-were residing therein.
5. In the writ,_petitio.n,"petitioners have contended that
on 22-8--20;G8,cpthe.4€V1frespondent published a notification in
newspaper Stating that the State Government acqui1red.c_e.u1 of land situated at Kodigehafli, v._?Kotihosati.a11i éffiflratarayanapura Village in favour of the 4"' "--respoiodent~So_c'iety. Notification under Section 16(2) was djpnbiiewifiedffiii the year 19913 1992 and 13-6~20{)2 for 178,38 . offiiand. The EDA had approved the modified layout plan known as "RAJIV GANDHI NAGARA" and the sites formed in'"the layout had been allotted to the members, Katha had heen.ieoi:ied'.. favour of many of the members. However, sorne'1.l.anti--s:oeial l elements are trying to encroach upon t--lhe--saidl' land;-[Ind the notification, the publies are warned not to fknrehaee for the 4"' respondent. The petitionereL:Co_ntended to know that the land bearing'. anldl'*i.3/?li3 were acquired by the State Governnieht' notification has been issued on gazetted on 44-1985 for acqtiiriiig situated at all the three to after holding necessary of the Land Acquisition Act, the final notitficatiloln.Vwasr: 229-1986 to an extent of 'awai"d has been passed in respect of varioiia ite'n':s:,l"lthe«.land including the land bearing lvSf«;T.;NO. and 2B on 3 1- 1- 1989. The landlords have .-- n;ot,.«..ob§'eeted "foi: acquisition of the said land. Thereafter, l',eolmpen_sa.tio'n has been paid and possession of the major _of5the land including the lands in dispute were taken its by the State Government and 16(2) notification 12-4~199i and 4~1i~1992. However, an .extent of'AeIV?I''aeree_V ' of the land was handed over to the 43?' VresponeieAnt§eoeiet:,f';t.,..o :;_' <3. The petitioners further contenA"dteC:.._ thet" 16(2) notification was issued in re'S.rV§eeAt'iof in question, the actual possession has notiibeen. are the bonafide purehae_eifs4'Ai:.if:h 2002 and they had constructed: They have further contv;Ventied~titvthatfitirongrfih thheimlend has been acquired about 25 years 'ba.C1:;f-_r"1eflayout' has been formed and the scheme itself ieultipsed; V further allege that the 4th responden;jt'i1os not'»s_1j'b'rnittec.1 any scheme under Section 3(i)
(vi) of it Act for approval, whereas the apprevizfig offthe VV"ee}l~1eme is the condition precedent for jflxéequisition of-land. Further, G.V.K. Rao Committee was " "e;op_ointed btjsthe State Government to enquire into the affairs '{3.o5;operative Society and the Committee has given a. :7 , /i\\z""'J {,3 é' E8 aequisitien preeeedings initiated ink f2i_i?eurll'*--ef.. pthe.l_l"'-sfifi-ip respondent is liable to be quashed."
7. Further, the petitioners have lfilafvi the filth respondent filed W.P.No. this Court seeking for direction Authority ('BDAJ for shorf} 'and to sanction the modified :08 acres as per the resolution dilated 4"? respondent further contended: 'that have dlieady executed relinquishment ciiziellllvamenity sites, park and roads. lnspite_ %exeetiting.irelinquishment deed, the BDA has not V "released V600/c-.ds1tes.
ppleérned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition directing the BDA to release 60% of total sites in--«:il2firour of the filth respondent and also observed that the shall adopt extra judicial method to evict the éw f l9 enereaehers of civic amenity sites. Being aggrieved-hy.'__l§lr'e_:V"
order passed by the learned Single Judge, landowners filed W.A.No. 1332/2008 and 0tl1.erfve{2ni'l.e<;iied'Karrie i appeals. T he Division Bench of th.»i's-._§30ur't._b§* its 22-9»«2009 dismissed the said iveertain observations. In View of V 'A did not press the first prayer, the preliminary tlllfiepjlfinallllnotifieation and also to declare initiated in favour of 4th become infructuous and become void for allowing the Writ petiptien. 'V l V
9. ";_VSri.:VR.7/.Jvayiap.rak_ash, learned Counsel appearing for 431 :::"'responde--_rit'--«.i'filed".j. detailed statement of objections and ee_nte'nded ihaflrhellpetitioners have no locus standi to file the p.etifViO:1i' 'l'he petitioners have purchased the sites in the 'A 'yeair"2*OO;2. whereas the preliminary netifieaiion was issued on s is?
2i} 3~l~«l985 and final notification was issued on 22-8-1986. 'l'he consent award has been passed during 1989. The _ the lands bearing Sy.No. 13 / 2A and l3/2B have not ' objections to the preliminary or finaliiii consent award was passed. The award ainoiint has sheen - to the owners and possession tal<._en._in_:
i989. l6(2) notification was-'also l2;4¥'l9*Ei§l and 4~1l~ 1992. In View of the lawllaid as well as the Hon'ble purchaser cannot file writ and final notification Further, there is delay of rnorel approaching this Court Challenging the} lelelnce, the writ petition is liahllelh"-A disniisseldmllsolely on ground of delay and laches: lilaborating f~h,i~s contentions, learned counsel lleiontended 'that__v'the.3' it possession of the disputed lands l bythe State Government and thereafter, handed to"-eth*e-7?-lfih respondent and layout has already been /lire"
xv' formed. Some of the land owners, filed writ_"-...petitio:; challenging the preliminary and final nisltifipeatiol1ps':
the State Government in XF;'_l?".Nol.S'_?'G?36/ 1 V W.P,No,5775/1996 before this Coui*'ti:"HoweVe_r;At.E1isi_éo'drt dismissed the writ petitions, .fl'hereafte.rfi l996 and W.A.Nos.'7633-34/1996 xirerelpiylilerein specific contentions were talgenl:th.at "registered large number bogus middleman and exorbitant 3f:5beenL the middleman to influence the State acquisition of the lands. This Court exarnirled raised by the appellants andv4..negativre{dllthe dismissed the writ appeals on the Association of the land owners filed alwrit~l'_petitieri of public interest litigation before Court';«. Court by its order dated ll~l--l999 the 'said writ petition. Thereafter, one more writ iV.P.No.i3e22/2005 was filed alleging that 10 _fi§1€ land acquired for the benefit of the film respondent xv gs ,5 Z3 proceedings on Very Same Contentions. Hence -thSf"--«xfif:it petition filed by the petitioners suffers from V' judicata and the petitioners cannot maintain tho _.wffit'4pétiti»on., Further, against the order made in 2008' of the land Owners filed W.A,No;-.i.3w32/;'hZGOS filed W.A.NO.1485/2008. Th_S this Court dismissed both the Writ apnsals. it not open to the petitioners to re-agitai:_<§ for dismissal Of the petition. Vaignments, the learned Counsel . (2008).. 4 (SWAIKA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER y;/s STATE QF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS) if e.i1oi(i9SiS; SSOO 445 (PARA 10) V _ (STATE RAJASTRAN AND OTHERS v/s E , * AND OTHERS)
- '""(isT§ S)A:/it SCC 38'? (PARA 21} (LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. V/S STATE OF " * GUJARAT AND OTHERS) 4' ATR 1986 SC 391 * {FORWARD CONSTRUCTION co. AND OTHERS
10.
W5 PRABHAT MANDAL (REGD) OTHERS} 2008(9) sec rs"?
(MEERA SAHNI V/s LIEUTEI'JM§T ~ DELHI AND OTHERS) 2o1oA1R sew 1e _ (R.KOLANDAIVELLI-- 'z'~;NDi_:'-- OTHERS' V/s GOVERNMENT OF -TAMIL 1\§ADt3AN1) ANOTHER.) AIR 2010 S0433 _ (SHANTHI:.SPQ'RTS;_CL,UB A.N'Dj_ANCi:THER V/s UNION 4IN;D1A~.A:N_D. _QT]§{P§--RS) The levérhded Advocate argued in support of learned Single Judge.
11. We h'-give cdrefu1iy"edr1sidered the arguments addressed hy etj*a,1r_:_:1se1 the parties.
c '~34 1.51
12. d.'?Che.Vr'redeeérds'fijrodueed by the parties clearly disclose Vgthat the Gdxrernnnent issued preliminary notification on 8E3._f}:)rNaequiring 322 acres of land for the benefit of the re:§1§dr1dent--Soeiety. After holding an enquiry under 25 . I Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, final notifiC.ation:VV§fiv:a's 1"
issued on 22--E3~l988 acquiring 210 acres' 'ofAt1t{:e consent award has been passed on 31~:":l;l:Q8{¥3 land bearing Sy,Nos. 13/2A measui"ing....V'1 u 13/2B measuring 1 acre 4 gnntasfV__.4.l:;lA'1vi_eveomnensatioh has also been paid to the land ¢V§§ler§*i Government had taken possession of-the over to the 4:11 respondent-Society. issued on 12-4-1991 and the land for the benefit of the been questioned in W.P.No.37O86/111191961 1996 before this Court, whichwereldisinis-seld_ this Court. Being aggrieved by the same§--C.W;A.No.8"1.8l__[_l996 and W.A=Nos.7633~84/ 1996 were'~f_iled;.ln writ appeals, the contention has been 'gliaken regarding'lV"tvhe'V~l;;"payment of the huge amount to the Vnjiiddiemandand 1 also GVK Rao report alleging that large ofrliogiis persons have been enrolled though they 1' .I,1f1_ot' vtlhernernbers of the 4": respondentééoeiety. The said gs ;> 36 writ appeals were dismissed on 24»3~i9Q8. T Land Owners' Association filed writ petition ehaiiengiiig acquisition preeeedings. The said :;izrit'"pet'itio:i'i.fi>vas_'aiso".
dismissed on 1191- 1999. Thereafter, onelrnore was filed by way of Public-fit"iiritervestp V in' W.P.No.24386/ 1999 by one*"SrinivVasa*i5{aiVtii;.._e1aii*ning"to be the Social Worker in order to of the poor farmers. Even in was taken regarding the Rao Committee report regard-trig."appoiii:tmerit--::Vof' f1}.id.£JJ1€Inan was also taken and the Division' dismissed the said writ petition on of Rs.1,500/~. Thereafter, W.._i'.No.1.3.522'/2dt)E3..V_V'§1nd it W.p.No.15736/2006 were filed proceedings and also sale of 10 of M / s. SBG Housing Private Limited 'v.__°'C'empany.,__ Thehiisaid Writ petitions have been dismissed on 31-52007. Being aggrieved by the said 1480/2006 ar1dW.A.No.22O4/2007 were filed. :'§rr""
in the said writ appeals, some of the land owners3l__urh'o.'vxee1*e_. . not petitioners filed W.A,Nos.'? 55~w756/ 2910. writu "~ appeals, the specific contention lloffitlieel middleman and also the deficien'cy«-..poinlted' Rao Committee was highlighted. of this Court by its order dated Q; the 'said writ appeals. Being aggrieved Leave Petition (Civil) l\Ios.22l.'51;Co7:i¥'if«S':/*_t;3/€';v":<:'i':1 which came to be dismissed as' Supreme Court.
Hence, it filed by the land owners chall'engi_ng proceedings ended in dismissal before"-«this well as before the Hon'ble Snpreme Society has also filed some Writ
--. illegal demand made by the BDA regarding.---.Viflaiiiferyif'Water Supply, Fdng Road and other xe'h'3irges. In ovrdelfto pay the huge amount due to the EDA, 10 "-l«ajeres~».of landwwas permitted to be sold. The permission the State Government was also upheld by this WM» 12 "K Court. Thereafter, the Society filed W.P.No.lOG545l¢f2:.tlQ8 seeking for sanction of the layout plan and to issue . plan to an extent of l61.08 acres and»~to_'issued'Wstl<V"'efd.erv;V_V K"
Furtherl the 4?" respondent eontetlded_'l"
furnishing the relinquishment deed.._%sL1rfenderit:.g"'tlie~ot)e1'1 " V space, park and roads, the 80% of the total sites. This Court; -the matter in detail by its order§..dated of the BDA to issue 60% of the total sites and also to l "llltefeaifter, public notice was issued by -- K
13. The All'-St/.ldV\Ios.l3/2A and 13/2B were not filed any objections to the same" and éxevsfl-sve:1.t~.a'ward was also passed, possession has V",;-dloeen take-n by BDA and 16(2) notification was also issued. Fednaiappa and Narayanappa, sons of Dasappa owner of the said land sold the said land in favour 2 32/ ,3"
gay 30 petitioners are fully covered by the judgment of {die * Supreme Court. Further; the issue hasiiialreazfiliflltjeeii it by this Court as well as the petitioners cannot file one more "petition al1elgin"g:Vt'i1e Very "
same contention which was .already' by-.the earlier judgments. The contention is hit by constructive res~ju§dieata is liable to be dismissed. The? in the judgements reported in scw 889 AND AIR 2010 SC held that subsequent purchaser_eannot" ehall.enét:s acquisition proceedings. filed by the petitioners is liable to on the ground of delay and laches. 'Admittedly', the» «ereliminaiy notification was issued in the final notification was issued in 1986; consent been passed in 1989 and possession has been it ltai§ei'1"and handed over to the Society itself. 16(2) notification 1/sol» fix"
was iesued in the years 1991 and 1992. T he petitioners filed the present writ petition in the year 2008 pretendinVge»._'ih.3t they were not aware of the acquisition proeeedinée.'"l5_'1----§i2}____"'_ notification regarding taking possessionmof_the_-- 'oeerr "
published in the years 1991 and 1992.:":.&T1::_ei Court in the judgments reported SCC sec 445; 1998(4) soc 3875,1996(1.--1--l:SCC...5Ol'held tifat:
"It is thus _ioell~5et_1;le_<i.Vlau) there is inordinate gilelaii in:=_filiiiij': and when all the acquisition proceedinQelV'.hao:_e.._beeo_rne" the Court should be loath-- __ rrioiificaiions. The High Co urti ' _ no " aiscretionary powers under Article of ffonstitution to quash the unde_r_..SeCtion 4(1) and declaration r 6. But it should be exercised taking _ ai_lV.lrele'oari.i'Vfaeiors into pragmatic consideration. AW_l'ien.~ 'award was passed and possession was iaken, the Court should not have exercised 2 ~ power to quash the award which is a material to be iaken into consideration before /if"/x ,;>/ 5 44>" 5:515 -
x V' 'N6 find that {hare i8 no merit in any of the contenfiions raised in the writ petition» Accordingly, the writ p6:':i?fi:i:'<3::1T'~~.x;V<3, dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/--. rnpk/=*