Karnataka High Court
The Beml Employees Co-Operative ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
IN Tam PHGH comm' 014' KARNATAKA AT ,
DATED THIS THE 12:11 my 01? MARCH 2Li§9 * A'
BEFORE '
THE I.-IOINFBLE MR. JUS'I".{CE Afirri = A
WRIT PETITION No.22o4Ji/2oo4(LA«Résj k
The BEML Employees'
Co--operativc Socifliqy Limzlted, _
Baz1galore_ _ V
New 2 '
Bangalore --- 5611.) (H5. '
R6i3I'esen£0$d'T?3}§Vi§?S 7'."
% 7 ...PEm':oNER
V _ _ M] S;1..awy(:1'S i_t1C;-- "Advs.)
: .;~.':é_. 4. A
1'. ._"1'Vi;e V Stgitg of
BY its
Retzcnufi ~D"€;;Ja1'lment,
M.S}B1ii1diI1gs, -
' Bangaipre.
.'q'~TI'h£::uUnder Secretary. ,
Ifiycpartment of Revenue (LA-2),
V% .,._f3éovernxnent of Kamataka,
Bangalore.
Act when by resolution, they themselves have eonoecied
the fact that the subject matter of this writ
not requixed by them. It appeals round "
issuance of the de--not:ifieation,
understanding is entered withz
respondent No.5 for eonstrnetlofi of
Incidentally, it is to be 'Stha§"e'Spondent
was not a party to however,
thereafter on an impleaded.
The 5*': of objections
inter not open for the
petitioners' to 'the"«.nofificafion under Section
48(1) of the as they had conceded that
d by them for the purpose
ea-layout. Hence, they had sunrendered it
t in fe.vour,.__of landlords. During the pendency of the
W respondent No.4 died and his legal
repfeeentatives are brought on record.
3. Mr.T.S.A;tne:r Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner would vehemently contend that once M
1'
4422/
fiis ti1at"onoem§:;ossession is taken, the question
under Section 48(1) of the Act
further submits, in reply to the
ivcontentionsiit the conduct, waiver and consent
V --xqalitiate or invalidate the order.
it Mr.Yega Narasimha, learned Senior connsei
" -appearirig for the iegal representatives of respondent
V. No.4 submits that having regard to the resolution and
-7-
the possession is taken, the question of issuing"
notification under Section 48(1) of he Act
arise. He further submits that notwithstandixléi it i
that a resolution has been passed
incumbent upon the Government
the possession of the land has He
also submits that onc~ej'* taken, the
Government has no the said
notification Indeed he
also made resolution and
does not say that the land
is requ1'redlto4_"be J The main thrust of the
-3-
the communication issued by the petitioner--Society,v
433 respondent has altered his stand. He "
on the coznmnnication issuw by the Secietj»'~,-he x<:t.>._f'% 3
which is pmduced at ADI16X11I'B:=:L'R
contention is that having regard Vic} "the T,
pursuant to the resoltttien 22500 a
notification has been is-sijeed ~A He
further submits 'treselution,
the 4th He further
submits .:}}€_>V'::?estoppe1 against a
statute, Society made the 4"!
respondent land is not required and
-- hes of the 4th respondent. He
the petitionetnsoeiety is further
from the resolution inasmuch as
the 4*; respaendent has acted upen the said resolution
entereé into a memorandum of understanding
ttne 5&1 respondent and 4511 respondent has parted
with an extent ef 1 acre 18 guntas of land, wherein the
structures have some up. He further submits and
justifies the notification issued by the State under
Section 48(1) of the Act inasmuch as in no
terms, the Society had states that it does _
the Iands in question.
5. Mr.Jayakumar S.Patii,
appearing for the impleadh1g_'app1iea1it e Vi
No.5 submits that on tlie basis the
issued by the Society, [ denotified
the lands. indeeci he fesolution is
passed in and at
this question the
denotificstioza'. .' that this Court is not
examining '.i2hei:.'f3ef' at 'no*:iiEcation can be issued under
. 1) ofxithe and whether the possession is
"taI{ei1».{}r--.1f10t'«té..i:en. His main thrust is that it is not
opei:si'c:)1" to questian the notification and
' alter his. Hence, he justifies the denotification
i taiiiieiesection 48(1) of the Act.
-32-
9. The stress is that if the possession is taken by
the State, the question of denotifying oertainly WouTi'd_
not arise. There are eatena of decisions, ,,
indicate that if possession is taken, the T
denotifying the lands would not
the possession is not taken, for
State to exercise its powers
Act and denotify the
10. The iisesehetlaer the
possession of oenot. Indeed if
the by the State as
contendec£"'~_b§* appearing for the
petitioner? could not have issued a
.
48(1) of the Act inasmuch as taken and the statute specifically g V' lands of which possession is taken. ~ howevei~, in the case on hand it is to be nofioed that V' aoqinisifion proceedings wexe questioned, an interim '"--or_r;ieri* was yanted, matter was dismissed for non---
-~.?,g31'*osec11tio11 and later restored. During this AQL . under Section of 1335. presumption order .Hence',. the notification under Section of no assistance. Indeed before 3 was ifieueftbetithupon the State to ascertain whether the W of the land has been taken or not. Indeed ":tn;ete1:'iz-11 placed before this Court does not T edrielushzely prove either way inasmuch as the [petitioners would rely on a Mahazar of the year 1994 -13- iI1terreg1:.1m, petitioner ckaims that possession has taken. Indeed the respondents have ~ documents in the nature of Spot Inspection' Deputy Commissioner and other J shew that even as on, in the. h' the land was not taken. the 'is required to be taken of the State. It is no dottht true is issued that possessiep Obviously, when $11011 1993, the matter was pendifig before. and there was an interim under Section 48(1) of the Act, it We Vobeefiredt' witixdxawal from acquisition, 2 _not:iee~_ is necessary when the landowner is not W however, when the land is acquired for A or the beneflciary, he is required to be It is no doubt true that a contention is taken by the respondent indicating that notice was not at all .. 14 ..
and the respondents would rely on a Sm': Inspeetien done by the Deputy Commissioner en 18.04. fact this factual aspect ought to have been "
and the State ought to have bestowed} its on this aspect of the matter before under Section 48(1) of the A T A V t
31. Indeed rthe nefifioner is that before issuing the 48(1) of the Act, the I notified the beneficiary the law is clear in this in the ease of L1/S.Larsve:g:: etc. (US. State of eayargeh etizer*eA'i*eV;5orted in AIR 1993 so 1603 affected party is necessary. indeed a r -15- required inasmuch as the denetifieation is issued on the basis of the cemnmnicafion and the resolution by the Society. But however, it is to be noticgi§€i"*tIiet: A4 before issuing a denotificatien, the State ou_9?1t..uteVV i ascertained whether the possession is with it 4'()I'11'A1.{)T';-.
12. Due to paucity of a position to record any eeiriietifiay Wiietfrieij the possession was taken in fiiiitended by the petitioners by the respondents. documents.
Indeed toieeonsider whether a notificatioziijiidei' of the Act is required to be issued or riot V_:wi3:}i1 fiefefence to the Mahazar, Spot as we}! as fifhetizer possession is taken by it or":o.ot,t_e- V' ' V tench Water has flown under the bridge _. the dteiiotification inasmuch as resmndents 4 and 5 iiavewentered into memorandum of understanding the 431 respondent has parted with 3. acre 18
14. Since the main petition itself is disp0s¢:d_:
flue Inter-1ocuta1y applications do not ~ considexafion. All the appiimtions stazad kM%_% * 3u&gé