Karnataka High Court
Sri R Narayanaswamy Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka Revenue ... on 16 September, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
Vflié 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3.675 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009
BEFORE
Tm HON'BLE MILJUSTICE as. P£«%.i' ~
Writ Petition No. 3570/2006 (.'LA'-BEA) "
Writ Petition No. 8618./g00fi0'(LA-UB4} ' ,j
Writ Petition No. V8851/2006 {LA-'RE§j '~
Writ Petition No_»09551/20g§__(LA;R;=:s:../
In W.P.No. 8570/2006 _:
BETWEEN: K
1. Sn'. R. Narayanaswarny :1" 't
S/0. Late Rameiiah @ Rania£ah"RedVd_y_§
Aged 764yCVarS}"____.. . ' .
2. Sri. R. Vaxlésha Redafi.' .. '
S / 0." Late: Raméiiah Ramaitéth' 'l9{eddy.
Aged 74. years,__ *
3. smt."L{eé1avathan§rn:§;~«.__
D/0. Late Ramaialav @uF{amaiah Raddy,
Aged 72 ye'a.;s;' ' '
. V" Venkatavétitéla Reddy.
" 8/ Late' Ra_Inaiah @ Ramaiah Reddy,
._-Agted yésars,
5. A '--.$mt..~SH;éi£rédamma,
0: Late Ramaiah @ Ramaiah Raddy.
Aged 59 years.
_ Sint. Narayanamma,
'D/ 0. Late Ramaiah @ Ramaiah Reddy,
Aged 57 years,
Sri. R. Appanna Reddy,
S/0. Late Ramaiah @ Ramaiah Reddy,
Aged 55 years,
All are residing at
Jaraganahajh Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. H ~« ..
(By Sn'. S. Subramanya Jois, Sr. Co1.inseI"
for sn. T.Seshagir1' Rao, Adv.) A. *
AND:
......_.....u......._
The State of Karnataka,
Revenue Department. _ ~_ ;
Represented by its Secre.tary;'v
M.S.Bui1dir1g, . "
Bangalore --«_560v0_O1
The Speciai
Dr. VishveVswiaraiah' Towers, ?
Dr. Ambeedkar V'cI:edhi~,_ "
Bangalore 1: v;3;5Q 0101 .« .
The Specie} Dep,uty:Conarriissioner,
Bangalore Urban Disttrictj
K.G,Road,
Bangalore -- 560099. A.
Berri}: Qifieers and Oflicials
I-Iou's.eV 'E5ui1cii:1_g'_:fJo--operative Society Ltd.,
A Deddaksliasandra,
Kariakapnrai. Road.
J JP;-Nagiar 931 Stage.
Bangalore,
h Represented by its Secretary. RESPCNDENTS
'(By S_ri;M;Keshava Reddy, AGA, for R1 to R-3;
_'S1'1'. 1~?.aviva1'ma Kumar, Sr. Counsel
_j'f0r..S--ri.M.Sreenivasa, Adv. for R-4)
*5???
M3,.
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 81 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to declare that the respondents
No.1 to 3 have no subsisting right in respect of the schedule lands covered under the Preliminary Notification in Case No.LAQ{I}CR.449/83-84» dated 181.1985 and the. Final Declaration dated 28.2.1986 in Case 1\?o.RD/QZAQB./8_3".which are found at Annexures B 8: C respectively and etoi. » -- o_ .. In W.P.No. 8618/2006 :
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Vidya Mohan Pai, W/0. Sri. Mohan Pai.
Aged 42 years, R/o. Flat No.5, Yaiachenahalli, V Bangalore -- 560 078., L
2. Sri.V.Sridha1_', Aged 35 years,
3. sm'; "R.V.;l?adrr1:i-xiii Aged 39 yea:.:s,___V "
4. Sri. :'>..._soc1hi 'Pfai§a5ii";--.. Aged 36»years, 2 5. KamaInI'na., .... .. v " _ ";A.s,:;e"d."38 years, A 6. smt' "Sa1'aswathi.
* A 'Aged A years, 'V 7. u'S'x'i.}Aa.l.{'.l.?.(esh'av Prasad, Age=::1__ years, R. Aravind, Aged 35 years, " "98! Sri. M. Srikant, Aged 36 years,
10. I1.
12.
13.
14.
15. Sn'. K. Naveen Chandra, Aged 36 years, Sri. A.G. Sathyanarayana, Aged 39 years, Sri. K. Ananth.
Aged 36 years, _ Sri. V.C. Kannukar, Aged 38 years, Sn. 8. Pamapathi, Aged 40 years, Petitioners 2 to 14 _are 5 a1} Majors, 3' ' Resident of Kanakanagarav& , Basappa Retidy Lay'ou'i:',- _ -
Barlgaloiic' 45550 O7_8. =: _ Sint. Ramaiflevil' ' _ ,_ Major, 'Rye-,,_,Jai%aganahal1i, -- Ut*:_araha11i"iiob1i; . ' ' Bangalore sgiit,Iji.Ta1igk;. PETITIONERS (By Sri, S. Stibranianyahfilois, Sr. Counsel V for ,{s,' Vagdevi Assts. Advs.)
1. "
state "ofkamataka.
Revenue' 'department, Represented by its Secretary, ' .. M.S.}3ui1ding, " _ Bangalore -- 560 001.
VfThe Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dr. Vishveswaraiah Towers, Dr. Arnbedkar Veedhi, Bangalore -- 560 001.
3. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, K.G.Road, Bangalore --» 560 009.
4. The Bank Officers and Officials . _ --. House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., . 2' Doddakallasandra, _. ~ .-- ._ Kanakapura Road, J.P.Nagar 99' Stage, Bangalore, ' '~ , «.
Represented by its Secretaxy. ._ RESPONDQENTSV a (By Sn.M.Keshava Reddy, AGA,l"fe.rl'R- 1 tolR.--3f"
Sn. Ravivarma Kumar, _Sr. Coun__se'l__ for Sri.M.Sreenivasa, Advsfor _ I :n~~-9.-V' This W1'it' Petition is filed under Articles 226 81 227 of the Constitution. «of"1InLiia;'-- prayi__ng._to-"is«s'ue_ a writ in the nature of prohibition, '' cornrnandi11g"eti1e_"respondents from in any way dismantling or..y.effee_ting».'de_mo1it--innv°or destroying the existing super--sftructure;son'"1the_lands bearing erstwhile Sy. Nos. 17/2 to 17/4., 1-9/1,,"2'2./_1i._td,_22,/4; 20/5, 34, 20/3 and 21 of Yalachenahalli Village, Nos. 30, 31, 51 and 52 of Jaraganahalli *village,le.b'oth;~ situated in Uttarahalli Hobli of Bangalore Soutl1,.,TaI"t1k," Bangalore -- 78, without the respondents resorting to due process of law in that regard and * «.rest1.'ain fghein from entering upon the said lands in any manner andyetcg. .
::mi;I1~; N¢.'e'sss:i/2006 :
-vaarvifeaifig " it ' igalcshrninarayana Reddy, S1 o..,I,a--'te Ramaiah @ Ramaiah Reddy, ._j_Aged about 66 years, V R/at Jaraganahalli Village, J .P.Nagar Post, Bangalore -- 560 0'78. PETITIONER (By Srl. R. Vgayakurnar and S11. K.S.Ramesh. Advs.] AND:
............_.__.......
1. The State of Karnataka.
Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary.
M.S.Bu1ld1ng, .
Bangalore -- 560 001.
Dr. Vishveswaraiahv Towers, Dr. Arnbedkar Veedhi. * ' Bangalore ~-- 560 001. " _
2. The Special Land Acquisition.----fl5fi?§cer..LA
3. The Special.vDepi_1ty CornmVi'ss'i'on'er}' = Bangalore Urban ._Di-strict. -- V K.G.Roa-:1. s ..
Bangalore..e"5€i.Q 009.» ~
4. The l'_Banl<': Officers and ~Qfi"1'cia1s House. Building 'C_o:aopverativ"e Society Ltd, Doddaka1lasandra,AA = V Kanakapiirafeoad, J Nagar 9"' -Stage, . . . . . ..
«slfiepresentedvby its Secretary. RESPONDENTS lBjV$:'§ii'1l.l\/Iv.-lKesha.$ka.--:Reddy, AGA, for R-1 to R«~3; Sr'r.ARaV1varrnja Kumar, Sr. Counsel for S::i_.M.sS1'e_er1ivasa, Adv. for R4) 1116*
- Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the .l,s1{3oi'3stitution of India praying to declare that the Preliminary 'lid----.VNotiiication dated 18.1.1985 in Case No.LAQ[I)CR.-449/83~84 ~._vide An:r1exure--A and the Final Declaration dated 28.2.1986 in 'Case No.RD/92AQB/83 vide Annexure B is null in so far as it
--4«."?.-....
relates to the land of the petitioner is concerned, viz., Sy. No.52 to an extent of 20 Guntas of Jaraganahalli Village having been abandoned and having become frustrated and that the respondents have no subsisting right in or over the landsunder acquisition and proceedings vide Annexures B respectively and etc.. "
In W.P.1\'o. 9551/2006 :
BETWEEN :
1. Smt. Choodamani, , _ W/o. Sri. Thamrnanna Reddy, Aged about 38 years, a R/at No.29, Basappa Reddyw arden, Kanaka Nagar, J .P.Nagar Post; jg Baflgalore ~--'56O 078;, _ 7 ' V d
2. Sn1t.Jayalalitha, g ' W/0. Sri. G_.V,aLaksh§rnanaiah,_ no } Aged about 36g;1;years,'--¢ A ' R/ at No,.E36';' Mi-1nisanj,ee__{rappa liayout, J aragan;1_hat11'._,V J . P';Nagar' P_o'st; ' Banga_1_ore'V:_ E561Q:Q78._' ' A
3. SrntV;'Narasamn1a}-r.' _ _.
W/o. ':':'=r1'.' K. Veni:atesh_,_ "
Aged about 40 yea1*s,"
R/ at No.6} Basappa"-Reddy Garden, Kanaka Nagah. J.P.Nagar Post, V' - i3.anga1ore_-- 560 CW8.
" ._ 'S./_o.La'te_'Sri;"GovindasWamy. 'Aged abo1;.t'55 years, R'; at v'No.'3'1, Basappa Reddy Garden, Kanaka Nagar, J .P.Nagar Post, .. Bangalore -- 560 078.
Sri.: N.Venkatesh, S/o. Late Sri. Narayanaswarny, Aged about 34 years, R/at No.40/A, Basappa Reddy Garden.
12.
13.
14.
15. Smt. V. Menaka, W/0. Sri. V. Gopi, Aged about 40 years, R/at No.222, 73"' Cross, Kumaraswamy Layout, J.P.Nagar Post, Bangalore -- 560 078.
Sri. I3.H.Ashwin, V S/ 0. Sri. Hanumantha Reddy, V Aged about 35 years, R/at No.42, 2nd Cross, , 25m Main, Iarm/1. 11 stage.
Bangalore -- 560 076.
Smt. HA. Geetha, ' f ~ W/0. Sn. L. Babu Re'dé1y,, } Aged about 24 years, V ' R/at No.5, Oba1appa"Cr*o.S's. "
Susheeia Road, '1'-flhikkaincl ayalldfvdd u «V J.P.NagarPvos:;'o'd __ V . _ _ Bangalore -560' '{)Q4;'-.,jTf--.. _ A _ ' Smjt. S. Sohaznala, ' . --
D/0, Sm; N. 'ac.'-?h'a,yni«;ara;)pa,' ' Agedtabout 50 years; ' R/at No.68, 59* Ci'oss,"= III Main, "'Chamairajp_et;'~' "
Bgafigalore 4560 018.
Sn. }§asaV*e Gowda, ' So/o..Tha.mmanna Reddy, V __£\gedo.VVa!).oU.t~SE5 years, = A R./'at No';[29;oI= Basappa Reddy Garden, J .P.Nagar Post, Bang'a§ore -- 560 078.
2 Sri. Chandrappa, . _ Sfo. Sn. Thammanna Reddy, 'Aged about 38 years, R/ at No.29, Basappa Roddy Garden, -10- Kanaka Nagar, J .P.Nagar Post, Bangalore -- 560 078. PETITIONERS (By Sri. R. Vijayakumar and S11. K.S.Ramesh, Advs} AND:
1. The State of Karnataka.
Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary.
M.S.Bu1Id1ng, Bangalore -- 560 001.
Dr. Vishveswaraiah _'I'0Wer:3, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhiy - ' Bangalore - 560 001. _
2. The Special Land Ac;quisition*=C)i'ficle1=,.
3. The Specia}. Deputy §-:)or;1m:issioneie',V. Bangalore 'IJrb'an;_DistI_'ic-t._, "
K.G.Roa'd, , ;
£3angalore_--"5f3_Q 009: *
4. 'The'2.Bank Ofiiefeijsllandflfficials House B'uilding'CVo.--operative Society Ltd., Doddakallasandra, "
Kanakapiira Road, J_.iP.Nagar 9"' Stage, V _Béngal0re' .
' V. Represented by its Secretary. RESPONDENTS (By'S1fi.lM;.l{eshajra..Reddy,AGA, for R1 to R3; Sri. VRaviv_ar'1naiKumar, Sr. Counsel 2 it _ for S"ri.M.;SreeniVasa, Adv. for R4} =Il*5!= 2' " -This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the 0' l Notification dated 18.1.1985 in Case l\?0.LAQ(I)CR.449/83-84 "gvide Annexure~A and the Final Declaration dated 28.2.1986 in " Case No.RD/92AQB/83 Vide Annexure B is null and void having igistitution of India praying to declare that the Preliminary __}_1w become frustrated and that the respondents have no subsisting right in or over the Schedule Lands having abandoned the acquisition proceedings and etc..
These Writ Petitions having heard and reservedior order on 11.08.2009, coming on for pronouncement this the Court made the following:~ S v ' A'
1. Facts leading to these writ lpetitionts tl1e'o"L:e.s'tions . raised therein being con1rnon<and the 'a.rguments{avddressed by the learned counsel for the partitesubeing all these writ petitions are heard and disposed "ef'bjf't,his common order.
2. W.P.No.8547Of.20O;SVV'iVst 'filed: .et_1e--;eV' representatives of late Rama_ia.h"S,(_o 5Narayai1aswarny:«'who was the original owner of the propertieseand, upVon.__whose death, petitioners claim to have succeeded in question. The relief sought in this wiit ggpetition lis'1for' a 'declaration that respondents--1 to 3 l the State otwiiarnataka, the Special Land Acquisition and the Special Deputy Commissioner. Bangalore District, Bangalore, have no subsisting right in
- 'respect"ofAthe acquired lands covered under the Preliminary and "i¥'_1n,al'jlféotifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the ' Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). They ujfhave further sought for a declaration to the effect that the land % M 32 i, acquisition proceedings have stood abandoned. Consequently, respondents-1 to 3 are sought to be restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the acquiregtifiliands mentioned in the schedule to the writ petitions No.4 ~ The Bank Officers and Officials I*Jous'e:'$uiidVi_11.g _ operative Society Limited is the it said acquisition.
3. The main groundspetition that prior approval of the Governrrieiiti'Vfforg:initiating acquisition proceedings is required by law, has been hence the acquisition proceedif1gS'~alsocbntended that as the land owners have notices to deliver possession of the lands*--a_sticonternplatetlr under Section 45 of the Act and as V rnoreggéjihan. '750l"houses had come up on the schedule lands deinonstratiilgi'athat the Government has not taken over p'cssession:"c.f lands, the notified lands are not vested in the Governnient and therefore the Scheme, if at all any, stood ' "'--._l:a'psed di,1e« to nomexecution thereof. i3A'et:itioners--1 to 15 in W.P.No.86i8/2006 have joined "together to tile this writ petition for issue of a writ, restraining L?
W 14 _
5. The grounds urged by these petitioners in support of the relief sought is that the respondenbauthoiities are highhandedly and unauthorisedly trying to interfere possession and enjoyment of the properties by tl1esel_ at the instance of some land grabbers, real gesltateljtyclooins who' . l' have an evil eye on the lands in q'~i,1es:ti'or; and"which.."lare7not required for any bonafide purpose of the..43h resp:'ondevntr§ociety,l' They have contended that huge includlinggrnultistoried buildings, hospitals, school buildings, public utility buildings [the years on these lands in question are not entitled to dispossesjsgg a distance of time by resortingvltolv have urged that the impugnedaction of the rights of the petitioners under i_\rticles'i l4,' 2.1, and 300~A of the Constitution of from beingin Violation of the principles of Natural _ it urged that all the petitioners have invested hugeylsums.'o£.n¥1oney on the sites for putting up residential g 'units, particularly, the 531 petitioner, it is urged, has building in Sy.No.20/5 of Yalachenahalli Village up Nursing College called 'Shekhar Nursing College' is being in the said building apart from a Charitable Hospital fir rlllI-- 15 r, catering to the needs of the public. They have contended that the entire land is developed into a layout with all infrastructural facilities like water supply, electricity, sewerage, p.i1cca.._lrovads, etc. and there is no scope for any layout being respondent--Society as more than 70{_?/Erof the_-land' bnilt~ 1 up.
6. In W.P.No.88E31/2006, petitioner is'~--seel«:ir;=glllab'declaration that the Preliminary Notification and Final Notification dated -yoid, insofar as it relates to Sy.No,,5Q to extent of 20 guntas situated at proceedings have been...abandt:3./grifgxj frustrated. This petitioner claims right -properiy, having succeeded to the same throughtlhislllfather' 4Ramaiah Redcly. He asserts that the properties behind by Sri Rarnaiah Reddy were his children as per palupatti executed in the grounds in support of the prayer urged by this V dd _ petitioner_.'are"lthat he and his alienees are in settled possession of rthe aforesaid land and that respondent--authorities, at no time, were in actual possession of the land and had on . OWII abandoned the Scheme, thereby the lands were "lreverted back to the petitioner. It is his contention that the %' ILAIAI ...
lands were not used for the purpose for which they were acquired and hence the proceedings stood lapsed as the._Scheme was abandoned.
7. W.P.N0.955l/2006 is filed by 17 petitioizers[l_13eei§i.ngl declaration that the acquisition." proceedings -- _ the T. Preliminary and Final Notifications, dated 26.02.2006 respectively are 'void. the respondents - had no s.ul;1sist1n'g' the'"'la'nds having abandoned the acquisitionllthese petitioners claim that they sites from its previous :'Reddy:c:ar}reldV out of Sy.No. 17 / 2 of Yalachenaha1_li*..Kiiliage,Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. the writ petition, petitioners have furnished dletailzgfiregarding the nature of their right _v over propertitesfi about the particulars of sale deeds eifcecute-d in their favour, which is as ur1der:-
Peti'ti0ne_r's Site No. Date of Date of Sale Deed Enev Putin': of GPA " '1' .§h0<3dali'nani 29 05.02.1990 27.12.2002 _Jfiy=a1a1itha 19 27. 12.2002 Nafasamma 21 11.08.1997 23.12.2003 ._ 'D-G-Devarai 32 14.09.1994. 26.03.2004 " 919 N-Venkatesh 40/A 13.03.1993 27.03.2004 2:
21711
6. K.N.Doddaiah 10 19_0g_1g9.;;
7- P-Manivannan 39 21.11.1991 & 05.02.2005 07.12.1995 8- V-Rama 39/ A 21.11.1991 2e;0'3--._2004-
9- Shanawa-Z 4 10.04.1996 _;'_""30;IO;9:.20,.Q3 10- D-M-Natesh 28 15.10.1997 16i.'09.200?-L ' 1 1- Vanitha 39 1.5»;e02...19s4 _ "I1'4a.07.i20'e.2 W 12- Menaka 40 1=-8.091.996--._' :"26'."oi3...2'e:0:4
13. B.H.AShWin 16 & 32. 22132';-1989 up 14- H-A~G€6tha 37 1-.f~~21.111997.1 "20'§02.200e"
15. Shyamala 17 1992._
16. Basave Gowda 26.7 _2"2--;.o1_,"1996 26.03.2004 17- Chandrappa 27.} '1,-.-i"91.0g:;~j.1'99s_. 21.01.2002
8. All the tr-ijiereiniiabove are executed by the Generaliy and the said General Power V1xze:1"e pe;ee'Ct1te--d.'on different dates ranging from 1984 oniivazrds. urged in support of the relief sought' ~b_y the-set "petit'.='_oners are that they are in settled flpopssuessien oE__their respective properties as the authorities- have not, at any point of time, taken the actueed phytsiealtipossession of the lands in question. They have also urged: that the respondents on their own have abandoned 1' Seheme and the lands have reverted back to the petitioners. is their case that no11--utilisation of the lands acquired for uifmore than two decades for the purpose for which it is ailegedly 1% _ 13 _ acquired presupposes that the respondents failed to exercise their rights over the lands resulting in the acquisition proceedings being lapsed. Some of the petitioners have produced Certificate issued by the Assistant'll:'E..$;cec'utiVe Engineer, BESCOM, Bangalore certifiring installation bearing particular RR.
9. The electrical installations which were seri?ice'd'lor;;g"t;acl:p have been running in their the llfiorllexample, Petitioner No.1 Choodarnan_i'l'"llhas;. Annexure-C3 Certificate dated 17-7-2995' 6-2-1999 an installation bearif£g.. is running in her name at No.1 ixiagargvffalachenahalli, Bangalore. She has a~lsox.lplrnn.uced'v._%:vv-«pholtograph of the house having ground andiirst iloor.lat.:ll--fmnexure C-4. Similarly, Petitioner _ No.2p,_§Srnt. Jayalalitha has produced a certificate to show that serviced on 21-4-1993 is running in her Anam-e__ Kariakanagar, Yalachenahalli at Annexure _ D1. also produced photograph of her house having giound and first floor at Annexure--D2. Petitioner No.3 has also _prod»ueed a certificate showing that her house has electrical it ':W.i.nstallation bearing RR. No.BS5LG45745 serviced on 21-8- *ll2003. Similarly D.G.DeVaraju, Petitioner No.4 has produced la"
l, 19 ., certificate showing that RR. No.BS 5L G.31706 was serviced to his House on 28-94998. Similarly, other petitionersin this batch of writ petitions have produced such docurnent_'sfi
10. The respondent No.2 -- Spl.L.A._pQphas filed'lii:s_jstateinpent of _ objections, in all these cases', I:'I"j':'?.£'"l'.l-('Z;"I;l.].'E:ll"'1:j"/I' No.955l /2006, contending interalia that at theilrelevant point ' time when the Notification the Act was issued, the lands of the respective landowners who were nogti.fie_d.. award under Section 12 of absolutely with the State that once the award is passepdflitlisi' acquisition and ultimately a Notification. /9, been issued in accordance with law acquisition have not lapsed, as alleged. _fI"i1e 4-Flt.respondent--Society has filed detailed statement of haslbrought to the notice of the Court, how the V land iiave resorted to filing several writ petitions before .«Court and how in all those proceedings acquisition is It has further stated that the land owners have set up sisters to challenge the acquisition proceedings at a ., 'VVIV subsequent stage, which writ petitions were also dismissed way back in the year 1996 itself [30/ 09/ 1996). It is their specific case that possession of lands was taken over Government on 19.05.1999 after following the law, by drawing a Panchanama/Mahazar _-an'd"_ under Section l6[2} of the Act was~._iss_iied; oh.f2Ae;jo5t.'i[999*and the same was published in'«.__Vthe it'Karnataltat'GazetteA 03.06.1999. Copies of the Mahazaifiand.tiie_:Notification are annexed to the statementfef o'ojec_tioiis"at'Annexure R12 to R» 14 respectively. AV '0
12. It is State Government did not hand overi"possjessiof.i1'*ofthe the Society, the Society approached' this .No.39589/2000 praying for a direction tolllthe State Government to hand over possession of the aérgiiiredv lands... _____ Some of the originai owners entered Al"._gappe*ara;o,ce~v 'by""vi.mpleading themselves and put forth their that they have sold the lands in question, etc..
-This latter hearing the land owners, aiiowed the writ on 10.08.2001 and directed the State Government to .l_&1~de'liver"the possession of the acquired lands. against which, Writ
-jldfxppeals were filed which were dismissed by the Division Bench _ 21 _ of this Court. Challenging the order of dismissal, the land owners approached the Apex Court by a Special Leave Petition in S.L.P. (C). No.5787--89/2004 and the Apex Court, order dated 15.03.2004 dismissed the same, observing thatv.tlfl-eorders of the High Court must be complied with. Physical' of the land must be taken and handedhover to"ti1e.,respondentsI* .
13. Contempt proceeding were initiated the Authorities of the Government in." for violating the directions issued Court and~theV1:1\pex Court. The said contempt prolcCeding_s es.'j¢§tsed because of the interim order passed in these 'petitions, reserving liberty to the...r'esp5o_n:ient_4Society' revive the contempt. It is also to noted the pendency of the contempt proceedings,,_State' filed an affidavit stating that _ theyqivere. readj;A.rgV(l,:Vha1ga:,d over possession of an extent of 13 Ciuntas of land comprised in these Sy. Nos. However, remaining lands, it came forward with an _ assert.1on,.gg"tt1-at several buildings had been constructed and it ginvoglved human problems. At any rate, time was sought by _.tl1e"m for taking over the physical possession of the remaining portion of the land. It is also urged that even in the contempt idproceedings the Purchasers wanted to comeon record, but they k VVllli 22 _.
ultimately withdrew the applications and filed these writ petitions and obtained an interim order.
14. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel, _ Jois, who canvassed his arguments on behaff..of'=all=.the .. petitioners and Sri. Ravi Vanna Kumar, Senior"'Counsel*who has addressed his arguments for: _the é'.1%1"*~respVondent--So;ciety.", Sri.M.Keshava Reddy has addressédyihis argumelritvs representing the Government and itsAuthorities}*:ti3othy.the learned Senior Counsels have referred to of in support of their case.
15. So ;pe3ti.tionsv._tile'dS-bywtitie land owners, the main contention urgedby':'Sri; that as the Housing Scheme of the 4"! respor1tde1it--Society" not have the prior approval of the __State ._Cyovemment~,..'yV:tVhe entire acquisition proceedings were _vlt.Ay.1s44Ai°urtl'1er contended that as the Society has not utilised :'l'ands:"acquired for the last more than two decades, V by the acq~uisi_tion'proceedings stood lapsed as abandoned. He has it 'further contended that the respondent--Society does not require éltlliegllazid in question, as nearly 269 acres of land has been i acquired for the benefit of the Society and allotments have been it made to different members.
it ._23__.
16. In so far as the Purchasers are concerned, referring to several documents produced such as General Power of Attorney, Sale Deeds, documents showing electricity connectio'ns"eto the houses and the photographs, it is submittedfthat.__'__:'s§é:yeral buildings are constructed by the innocent Purcha--s.ers,:"investing their life savings and if they are due process of law, then it will pyserlouslylaffect them of their shelter. It is als(:.fpleaded'tha'teihlieaflprincliples er equity have to be considered" they bonafide Purchasers, Without noticeof and have improved the land by putting V" buildings and are residing there; .01" the Court to the stand of the Petition and also in the Writ Appeals filed _ee.'1-.1_ier.: WA. No. 5893/2001 & W.A. No.5y9;0d3/2001 he._,contends that even according to the State Go2rer'nrnent,.'i'nVa major portion of the area constructions had c"o;r_rie__'Lp1lp" third party Purchasers were residing in the _ pucca houses'; constructed by them and that it is a human problem "Which required solution and therefore evicting all of thee; demolishing the houses constructed and taking over possession was an impossible task. He draws the attention of "the Court to the two Mahazars drawn by the Special Land k/
- 24 VWVVV Acquisition Officer on 5.5.1999 and 9.6.2000, wherein it is mentioned that there were existing houses and sheds even when the possession was sought to be taken. Counsel ;ti'2.erefore contends that actual possession was not taken at when the rnahazars were drawn and it was more a paperjjpossession that is shown to have been taken. [With «regard tifiev Vrziodle'. of is taking possession, he has pV1aceciA:"r_eiia_nee sonhthe decisions in support of his conte.ntiopns,~V. V a} BALWANT NARAYAN 3HAs'13,E"_Vs. tM';n.3H'AGWAT 3; OTHERS (A.I.R.'1__.9'75 sgc. :,17a7_;;. b] HUTCHISON ESSAR BANK 012' INDIA 3; ANR. (A.LR.V 2oos"imR'A 14).}. ._
c) H. sTA.é"s Vofé*K'ARNATAIrA .32, OTHERS (I.L.R. ;1'9f+f9 251:3; '- _ ~ He has also 'contended 'rthat.::tit_ie.vests with the State only when the possession is taken: and so long as the possession is not _ taken5i.the' 'ean__de»a1 with the land in any manner he iikes
-»has.VvAp1aoe:oi'*reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay 8: Others V _ Vs. &;";Boyce [A.I.R. I98'? S.C. 2421]. As regards the .contentioI"1 that acquisition proceedings were abandoned, he has p'iaeeci" reiianee on I.L.R 2005 KARN. 295 in the case of s 1).-Iifarayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Housing fir i, 25 IAAL44 & Urban Development Department, Bangalore 8: Others. To contend that the purchasers who are in settled possession cannot be disturbed without due process of law. he_'ha.s--«_placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment in the":ease"*5f B.James and Others Vs. Bangalore Deyelop:r1ent" -anti it Another [2001 (1) K.L.J. 364). He hasgalsio refe'rred . other decisions on the same point,
17. Learned Senior. Counsel,_ "u_.Ravi\vfarnia Kumar, appearing for the 43* elaborately highlighting the, land have made all possible effortsflto the respondent--Society. He submitsthattithe'fmattepr"har'ing'reached the Apex Court, the acquisition been upheld, the present Writ Petitions ubby are barred by the principles of ...v.resjudi§:avta as th'e'~entire issue has been concluded. In this Atregarriplie laasvyplaced reliance on the judgment in the case of c;:r.:ajena§a;ii N.M.Muhammed Kunhi {2oo2(7) s.c.c. 4.47 C it '(paras"~6 He has further contended that as this Court H H C' isgsued a Mandamus directing the State Government and its r.oifici"aIs' to hand over the possession of the acquired lands and the said direction has been upheld by the Apex: Court with an R6 ... M observation and a further direction that the possession should be handed over within 3 months, the State Government and its officials cannot be heard to say that constructions:ha$?*ey"been put up on the land in question and therefore_.it difficult for them to deliver vacant....posse_ssion;:'.1» reliance on the ratio iaid down in the ease df.t:sn§m"
Land Acquisition Collector 8:': [C005 E90] to contend that once a Mandamuslis'-ivssiied, shotildlibe obeyed. He has aiso contended Notification notifying the taking over vests with the State Govemmentfiarid in possession by the not llldiifest the State. In this regard he" decisions in A.S.Clittres I)/5 I/5 ll(3.'ai-on:l1e* Commissioner of Income Tax.
Kerala-I_I {199?(93 .Vs-.c.o_. "$441, State of T.N. & Ant. Vs. .__Amri1af'v-8.:-«'Others [1996{7} S.C.C. 269}. He also l'Vconte'nds* up of Mahazar and Panchanarna is the usua1"'1node'l--V'of taking possession and once the rnahazar is 'drawr1,lit the conciusive proof of taking over possession. He ijeliesli*on the judgment on Mahavir & Anr. Vs. Rural Institute, 8: Am-. [1995(5} S.C.C. 335] in this regard. He also 'wireiies on the judgment in The Commissioner, B.D.A. Vs. Addi R:
'VVVV 3 7 _ Housing Industries Limited 8: Others I.L.R. 2008 Kern. 2506 to contend that any person who enters the land after possession is taken over will he a trespasser. With regard to the petitions filed by the Purchasers of the land, he has contended""these writ petitions suffer from delay and latches 7in has placed reliance on the judgm__ent__in '.Vof4_'_$w'e_iite'.. Properties (P) Ltd. 8: Another Vs. §state_"t;fREajas11ii'a11:" 0' [2008{4) S.C.C. 695}. He has pointed' out fthat.'th.e"repeatet'1' iitigations resorted to by the peltitivoriers, particulatly the land owners has resulted in abuse __of court.
18. Learned §.vC;':;yjg§1'I1rrtent M.Keshava Reddy, has asser'tcdpV.AV"tha£tfiposeesslion taken by the State on 19.5.1990 "and Despite Issuing notices to the Society calling take possession of the land. the Society has fa1led'~.tov___come forward to take possession. He has pointed the records that, on 18.8.2005 the Society Wrote_stating__pe'ss.ess1on will be taken only if the entire extent of 0 if _ land""Was._V.deii:v:"ered and even though the Spl.L.A.O directed the :F<evenueV"inspector on 30.01.2006 to hand over the land to the , «Society and made arrangement for the same, the Society refused _t0.Itake possession and therefore the notice was affixed on the ._ W office of the Society. He has further pointed out that even during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the Sp1.L.A.O. wrote to the Society on 16.6.2006 to talieijpossession of 13 acres 25 guntas of land, but the Society refnsed 4' and therefore the said letter was also..affi_xed_--on' 'thae; office:Vof"i't_he' . Society. He has also contended that'-all ipetitioners subsequent purchasers they cannot maintain spetitiona. ' He has placed reliance on «. case of Poornaprajna House pCo--operaéiyejSogciety Vs. Bailamma @ Dodda Baiiamma 8: Others' 1993 1441) in this regard. It is so Government is concerned, it over possession and affixing Society, calling upon the Society totalie the land.
_._19. "Siibrarnanya; Jois, by way of reply to these AV_conte--:r1_tionse,.has" urged that so far as the Purchasers of the land who have construction, no notice is issued to them and .possession of their dwelling houses was never taken. Such "r.u'po;sses_sion" of constructed premises cannot be taken by merely a Mahazar. Counsel further points out that even contempt proceedings were initiated after two years from the VrI§-- 29 M date of gudgment of the Apex Court. He has pointed out the Inconsistent stand taken by the State Government regard to its assertion that possession of the land was_.vt.a:l:en~V.vover earlier. In this regard, he draws the attent1on_.r{:fl..thel.' the affidavit filed by the Spl.L.A.O. inmthe Cor;'terap_t P'roceedin'g's. wherein it is admitted that there were niurribearp bf c-onst'rt;.cttions . put up and that several persons-including the petiltionersl herein» have been residing. He also the tfivovernment cannot be compelled to impossible at this stage, as the entire extentviotpvlandSis-"ftill'l~:of.constructions and the Society can'not'A;,s.ec1.1re "b1.1iflding houses for their members l shelter in which the principle of resjudicata he contendsthat "not applicable to the subsequent purcha sers. it E-ialvilngnheard the learned counsel for the parties and on ~l.pf..the materials on record, the points that arise V _ for clonsideration in this batch of writ petitions are :
A. , {i} ll Whether the owners of the lands acquired who have " filed W.P.No.8570/2006 a W.P.No.8851/2006 and a Misc.W.No.6676/ 2009 (seeking to come on record as petitioners} are matntainable in the light of the
(ii)
(iii) .._3{)_.
judgments already rendered upholding the acquisition proceedings?
Whether the subsequent purchasers fro1'n.9:the~1.1vand owners are entitled to maintain the challenging the acquisition proceedings vurging"
acquisition is illegal or has-stood lapsed becafus'e.. of 2 j is long delay and non~user._of r{:he:'larid_t for"the.:12urpose for which they were acquilred'?
Whether the subseq1.1:ejnt_ P,urchasers/ Petitioners in W.P.No.861V8._/2'0_O6iand:'W._P.1\Io._p9551/ 2006 can be dispossessed from without followi.rig_ in the light of the in IT.-'--'~"~'I1d*3lA§l11t_1_'.1S" _ i~'35UeFi if byw this Court *aq.9;N;o.39599r'2_ooo1*as; affirmed in s1.p{c) No. 9' 5_7;s7--89i;'20:G4V'.'?
21. fljnt No._1_f-' if-~ indisputable facts that emerge from the pleadingsin these._batICh of cases is that the Preliminary _ Notifieiation acquii=ing___th.Le land for the benefit of the members of the«.4_fh respondent--Society was issued on 18.01.1985 and the dated 28.02.1986 was published in the V . Gazette 03.03.1986. An award was passed on 18.01.1998. Vhloetification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is issi1'ed'" on 29.05.1999 (Gazetted on 03.06.1999). Initially the it owner of the land, one Sri. R.Narayanaswamy Reddy filed If __ 34 __ are put in possession of the property in complete defiance of the directions issued by this Court cannot be held as persons in settled possession of the property.
25. It has to be noticed that this Court has "a:directiony"u'*--. in WP. No.39589/2000 to the C' Deputy Commissioner and they Land_vCAcquisitioIi'_v deliver possession of 29 acres ofenumerated in the Notification dated Notification issued under Section 16(2) of and the said order Wasfto: three months from the date of The landowners who are aware of the directions issued. Crovernment and one of the landownersxchaliengediithe order before the Apex Court by {C} NoA.V578.'...7..~89/2004. While dismissing the Special [the Apex Court has ordered that the order of the 'coufi complied with. Physical possession of the 'land taken and handed over to the Society. This order his pas-sedvlllby the Apex Court on 15.03.2004. Therefore, it is ..j'.ve'1ydclear that it is not open for the Iandowners and the "-fisubsequent Purchasers who have been inducted after the TV?! __ direction came to be issued by this Court on 10.08.2001 have absolutely no right to claim any protection.
26. insofar as the so called bonafide purchasersluehoilllhave allegedly come in possession of the propenzy"
Mahazars drawn taking over the posseissioun of "and j during the course of pendency of is necessary to observe that of vestcgi right as they can only step intoy_thiev:shoes tlie._ori;_i§ina1 owners for the purpose of claiiriing or seeking other protection in accordance" any right to be evicted by The Mahazars by the Special 'Land which are produced as Annexures;R12 with the objections filed by the respondentsféociety'tin'~.VW;~E5lLNo.8570/2006 make it clear that y_vinsofar as in Sy.N'o'.2.0.,/':5 is concerned there were pucca houses constructed RCC roof and also two houses having sheets. as Sy.No.17/4 is concerned the Mahazar recites [that ti2er"eW.9ere 11 houses constructed on sites measuring 30 X each; insofar as Sy.No.32/2 is concerned it is recorded
-- there was an interim order of stay for a period of six weeks.
" Having observed this, the Inahazar states that the land is taken Er _ 36 ..
over by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Likewise even in AnneXure--R13 another mahazar pertaining to Yalachenahalli village it is shown that in Sy.No.17/1 there were 1,5-.._houses constructed in sites measuring 30' X 40' in Sy.No.13/3 there were 11 houses constr-*,1:c'ted.,:Ve' measuring 30' X 40' each. Havingiioted j states that possession of the land Land Acquisition Officer. 'I'hus.,_'"1t..e1's c1e'aI?_ that time the two mahazars were drawn.._purporting.._to,:§ take over possession, it was clearly iflnentioijedtéthere existed houses, both pucca and =1<utcha"'1'n- lands acquired and nothing is noitediffas To \'N'I_e1etlf1*'f;.t1'1Q'S'.eV houses were taken possess-ioniVoi"' inmates. No details are given about the oc'cupantsA..ioi"ithose.houses. But the fact remains that as onethe the.h1ahaear was drawn and subsequently when gectiion :1-£3{2v}xNotitieation was issued on 26.05.1999 which was Gazette on 03.06.1999, there were some persons been inducted into the lands and they had "constructed houses therein and were residing there. It is not A '~:i:fcrthcoming as to when these persons were inducted and when they have put up construction. No doubt some of the 0' petitioners in the joint petitions filed in W.P.No.9551/2006 have tr M 37 W produced certificates issued by the Asst. Executive Engineer of Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (BESCOZVU to show that electrical installations were provided and electrical meters were fixed to their houses way back in the year 1993 and":l9l§'Qyy:i'tse1f. This also probabalises the contents of the by 4_ the Special Land Acquisition Officer who there' T were in existence certain houses even'_"at" tl:ie_ time dwhenivlthe possession of the land was to be l'takeI°iLlby._drawing the mahazar. However, in exerciseT'of_t.."1\e «jurisdiction. this Court cannot go into tli.e.V:y"quest1.;;nl. asf}to'lhow many of these apetitioners had put up c0.n.s.t1'11c'tio1;1 drawing up of the Mahazar. observe e'x?e'n"1'f such constructions had been _haye any better right than what the owners of the iindlerracquisition would have had if they had notvbeen'di_spos.sessed"'.i"rom the lands in question. If they '~ ihpavelienots/,bcenA. dispossessed from their occupation, they are only that they can only be dispossessed by the process known to law.
" .-__"fhe"'seI'i0U.S problem for these petitioners, however, is the posed to them by the order passed by this Court in the Petition which is ultimately affirmed by the Apex Court by fir to 353 'ALLA dismissing the SLP with an observation that possession be handed over to the Society within three months. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to some of the observations madeby this Court While disposing of Writ Petition No.39589/2G?lO«._l""The land owners who had got themselves impleadediri petition contended that they had formed priyate'.':vlayou_ts _ sites had been sold to others and lfiousfesi. area and that possession of the'-land was not"Vat=.:al1...taE~:en, asserted by the Land Acquisitioni'Oi_fieer. Tiriistlouirt has held that the said landowners} res§po;§_idleii.t'sQ{i"to 6 therein did not disclose the extentsold bythem ~rhefi;qp7ir:-ea lands and since the challenge the 'proceedings had already been re;}ected,t'entertainirigtheirobjections in the petition filed by the Society 'rrra11damus against the Government to hand over theipossession did not arise for consideration. It can " noticed' thatin paragraph--'? of the said order a clear l'~.obserVaAtio.r._iihasbeen made stating that if respondentswa to 6 naniely thegledadbwners or any other alleged transferee had any _ 'lawful povssession in any of the acquired iand, it was open to approach the appropriate Forum for relief. This was ___"'l«.reiterated further in the said paragraph stating that if really the ""v./iuthorities had not actually taken possession on account of the it _ 39 A4+ structures existing in the land, whether authorised or unauthorised, that is a matter to be sorted out between respondentsd to 3 (State & its authorities} on the one hand and the petitioner--Society, [i.e. the 4"' respondent -- Soejiety"--.herein) on the other. Therefore, the question whether_.st.ruct'uife--s in existence on some of the lands an.d_whe--ther"s'orneV bonafide _ purchasers had been inducted who h:a'd..'put._u'p_'"constreic1;ion and were residing in their respective houses was njot--.considered' by this Court while issuing the rnandarnusr thefiiother hand, this Court made it clear that;_eit" for the authorities concerned and for the respon.dent;;Society'--.to".sort out the said matter. the the SLP filed by the landovmviversv a11d'v_the::'§.Stat:e ~Crov_e1fl1n1ent, a Contempt proceeding in CCCx"No.'5$I/2.00500'wasfinitiated by the 4"? respondent- Society a againstthe.'~Authorities of the State, i.e., against the V' Deputy Cornfiiissioner and the Land Acquisition Officer. proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed his 19.02.2008 stating that the land in question 0 V had A Ci} Agzisbestos sheet houses -- 186 in number 2ifl%ECC houses -~ 261 in number _, 40 _ 3} Multistoried buildings -- 5 in number, comprising 115 apartments /flats,
4) kutcha houses -«~ 29,
5) sheds constructed out of thin/ galvanized sheets
6) huts - 75
28. The Land Acquisition officer,'has"fvrther'stated._Vthat'°he'T. V had already initiated steps to take physical possess'ion lanldsp as directed by the Apex Court..,:lp:lp5yp issuing occupants and that tl1e3r...have..t{iern_:c;lisl1ed sorne' l1"uts/ garages and other structures «an the land and cleared 13 acres'.25.. vvas taken physical possessi,oi'1*'an:c1"he; inl.la--:positi'or1"Vto deliver the possession of the land to the complainant i.e. the 4th respond'e«nt»Society_he.rein. He has further stated that a notic»e.ivvas issued'=cn____l6,.02.2006, in this regard, to the Society caliing 'u§lOf1 take possession of the said portion of the land, butllunfortulriatelylthe Society refused to receive the notice. It is V . further stated: that the Government convened a meeting of the .various occupants of the buildings, the office bearers of the l_l_&=__Compl'ainant~S0ciety and the officials to resolve the issues that l had been created because of the buildings in existence on the ;p _ 41 _ land and in which about 741 families were residing. The affidavit further discloses that a minimum of 3,500 people would be affected. He also stated in the last para of the...affidaV1't that when he went to demolish the buildings and the "s--tr'i1e'tures existing on the land, several attempts of self consuming poison, etc., was resorted to;'"by"»s;ornev'_'of 0' residents. He has also stated on oath the naatteriiiavoliied human problems of colossal"~..__magnituC¥e State' Government was taking every__4_l:eonceivable ~ vvfgoossible to comply with the orders Court. The said affidavit filed by the Sp1.L..A..:Ofis l§nnexure--L to the writ petition filed by'ti1gg.v.p¢tj:ionér5' in j'inr1§;'b35;s57o/2006.
29. came to be dropped in View of the interimxoztder this Court in these Writ Petitions v. and V_i'ii'3'=i.s alsoV_'noticedv.in..the order passed by the Contempt Court the.resporident--Soeiety refused to take possession of the eittentiif of lfacres 25 guntas of land which the State 'VGover'nr..nent.Vhad cleared and offered to deliver. It is in this if l"V.b,at-Rground that this Court by order dated 11.06.2009 passed .jin"W.l5.No.8570/2006 directed the Government Advocate to file 'ilflaffidavit along with a sketch to be prepared by the Competent kg JAAAA 42 _ Authority showing the entire extent of land acquired, the land measuring 13 acres which is said to have been taken possession by the State Government from out of the acquired lands' and the remaining portion of the land specifying whether ariy is existing, and if so, the nature of such structures. is l " "-- is '
30. On 13.07.2009, learned Advoicategiiledi' a memo enclosing a letter of the Spl.'=lQand Aclr{.uiAs1tion°':
dated 2.7.2009 addressed Goxteinihent Advocate enclosing a sketch. A' perusalll ofiljjthuei'-.saInelVdoes not at all comply with the requirementllofull'th¢..:_Order'_'..dated 11.6.2009. However, it can beisleen ifrorn the letter produced that only" ari'Ae§{::ent::&*3f' 2'.7'u_'guntas spread over in different places isiyacant 'ith:e'i'entire land. This clearly shows that the Authorities ha\lre_e1.zen maintained the Vacant land in 13 p_Acre~s;,Z5'_lAgu.ntas"ix;rhi.ch.«'they claimed to have taken possession byplciearing~the'unauthorised occupants during the course of the contempt 'pr'oce.eVdings. It was expected of the Authorities that 'V after ddtalfinghover possession steps are taken to ensure that no '_'en"croachrnents were made to atleast this portion when the
- matter is pending. The Authorities ought to have taken care in this regard. No doubt. the 4%" respondent~Society has also lie W W refused, for reasons best known. to it, to take possession of this extent of land. Hence, insofar as 13 Acres 25 guntas of land is concerned, none of these petitioners can claim to haVe:.fan3fisay that their possession has to be protected. Which is a mystery because the State Government"despiteissuingRa» _ direction on 11.06.2009 has not iniéslpicagteedithislaspectliandiihas 0 infact come out in their statement thattonlly V1 2.7% guntas land is vacant, that too, in different. ppcrutions' spifead 0§V€I".
31. In so far as the other it is necessary to observe thatthosel be said to be in settled possession to the knowledge of the its "kuethonties before the land was taken po's_sessioni hrnandamus was issued by this Court in I\lo_i3Q:5:89u=}'2000, their possession can be &distui'bed_l'"cy resortingyto due process of law. As held by the AV"._VApA3:X _COT.i'I"i'.'aI71_a7?i1S reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court Jjahn i§.Jlamés.Vcase [2001 (I) K.L.J. 364} any person who has
-- acquired interest after the Notification u/ s 4(1) is issued, cannot clplaliengevllthe acquisition proceedings, but only can plead that in occupation. They can be dispossessed only by
-ldresorting to due process of law. As I have already stated, who 1% _ 44 _ ajriong these petitioners deserve such protection cannot be decided by this Court in this writ petition. It is___ for the Authorities to issue notice to them, examine the-ir.i"'ea'se by verifying the documents and satisfy themselves:about:'p:'the'~..day on which the construction is put up, the date vvhieh they were inducted into the property and ordersV"in"'respe<.:t of each of the petitioners and thereafteratalte aci:iongto..Vevi_ct in accordance with law. This tofiresolve this . problem. As the authorities' liavge effectively complied with the directions an affidavit along with a sketch 25 guntas of land in their to order that the Principal ensure compliance of the directions that arepby this Court in this judgment.
32. 5 In thellrespuiitfanfd the foregoing, I pass the following ...... ..
"e{:.jj1if_i$j;wv._:jNo.s570/2006, 8851/2006 and the application filed for impleading by Applicant- "---VA&Sn"1t.Jayarn1na to come on record as additional petitioner. are dismissed.
"A'[ii)W.P. No.86l8/2006 and W.F. NQ9551/2006 are disposed of in the following terms,- fa}
(b) M45"
The Petitioners have no right for any kind of t protection if they have put up any construction or shed In the area of 13 Acres 25 Guntas of land, which was cleared by Government and its authorities, = ~ matter was pending in proceedings in C.C.C.j'N'o'." '55i--./ said portion was offered 'iaeing the possession of=the_ 4m res_p'ondenVt¥SoC,i§:ty_.3 In so far __ as construction put.__up_:§ by the petitioners' .'_rer{n.aini_r1g"p0_rtion of the land is concemedr the'respondten.tf.Z5;uthorities shall issue' notic'eWto':t::eaehf--,of V" petitioners to as--ce1'tain the on iwvhichttthey were inducted dateton which they put up construction put up is = pr*icor"tVo~.ithev on which the possession was it as Mahazars, Annexures R--12 . kc} 2 and steps to dispossess them can only be taken" iI'i~~-3'CC01"d8.nCe with law by resorting to
--pro\a'sions of law to evict them from the land.
-"in respect of other petitioners who have come in ' possession after the date of Mahazars, they are ii' not entitled to claim any protection from this id) Court.
In View of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 39589/2000 affirmed with further
-46"
directions in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 5787-89/2004 by the Apex Court, the respondent--A.uth0rities shall take necessary steps expeditiousiy. ' U3 1' <3;/'1 '1, 4 PKS