Karnataka High Court
Mr. A. Albert Victor vs State Of Karnataka on 11 June, 2019
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NO.26147 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
MR. A. ALBERT VICTOR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O S. AUGUSTINE
R/AT SY. NO.6, SINGAHALLI
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BUDIGERE POST, BANGALORE-562 129.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. NATARAJ R, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE KIADB
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KIADB, KHANIJA BHAVAN 3RD FLOOR
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR.V. SHIVAREDDY HCGP FOR R1
MR. UDAY HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL
MR. B.B. PATIL, ADV., FOR R2 & R3)
---
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
ACQUISITION OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER BY THE R1 IN
TERMS OF THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DTD 25.09.2008 WHICH IS
ENCLOSED AS ANNX-Q AND NOTIFICATION DTD 16.02.2012 AS
HAIVNG LAPSED IN VIEW OF SECTION 24(2) OF THE RFCTLARR
ACT 2013 VIDE ANNX-2 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Mr. Nataraj R, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. MR.V. Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Mr.Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.B.B. Patil, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 in terms of final notification 3 dated 25.09.2008 and notification dated 16.02.2012 as having been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner also seeks quashment of the final notification issued by respondent No.1 dated 25.09.2008 under Section 25(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) as well as corrigendum issued by respondent No.1 dated 16.02.2012 as arbitrary, discriminatory insofar as it pertains to the land of the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from interfering or disturbing the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question.
3. Facts leading to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that by sale deeds dated 22.12.1993, 04.01.1994 and 13.01.1994, the petitioner purchased 12 acres of land in Sy.No.6 of Singahalli. On 4 07.08.2006, the respondent issued a Notification under Sections 3(1) and 1(3) of the Act in respect of 1209 acres and 19.5 guntas of land situate in four villages including Singahalli. The respondent No.1 published a Notification on 07.08.2006 under Section 28(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the aforesaid lands. It is the case of the petitioner that his land was not included in the preliminary notification. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 published a notification under Section 28(1) in Kannada Prabha Daily dated 28.09.2006. It is averred in the writ petition that in the aforesaid publication also the particulars of the lands of the petitioner have not been mentioned.
4. It is also averred in the writ petition that later on when the respondents realized their mistake, in a desperate bid to cover their mistake, respondent Nos.1 and 3 concocted and inserted page 27(a) into the Notification without actually publishing the same. It is also asserted in the petition that the respondent No.3 5 ante dated, a notice on 14.08.2006 and fixed the date of enquiry on 28.10.2006 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner thereupon filed an objection on 27.10.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 25.05.2007. It is pleaded that respondent No.3 without hearing the petitioner and the aggrieved land owners, passed an order on 26.11.2007 under Section 28(3) of the Act in respect of 355 acres and 32 guntas of land situate at village Singahalli.
5. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued a final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act on 25.09.2008 excluding mere 2 guntas of land of the petitioner, on which the house of the petitioner was constructed. The petitioner received the compensation under protest. It is also pleaded that the respondent No.3 did not pass any general award but obtained signatures of the petitioner on various documents, copies of which were never furnished to the petitioner. It is also stated that the respondents have not paid 6 balance amount of Rs.10,64,584/- and have not valued the construction on the land of the petitioner. It is also submitted that a joint measurement was conducted on 15.07.2009. Thereafter, the proceeding under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was initiated against the petitioner and an order forfeiting the land of the petitioner was passed on 07.04.2011. This court stayed the order of forfeiture in W.P.Nos.18488/2014 and 18489/2014. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued a corrigendum on 16.12.2012 to the Notification dated 25.09.2008 issued under Section 28(4) of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the proceeding of acquisition have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notification issued under Section 28(1) of the 7 Act did not disclose either the details of the land held by the petitioner or the name of the petitioner. It is also submitted that later on page No.27(a) was inserted without getting the same notified in the official gazette. It is also submitted that in the absence of any notification including the land of the petitioner, the entire acquisition is vitiated. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination and has been deprived of his property under Section 136(3) of the Act. It is also submitted that the entire process of process of acquisition of land is vitiated by fraud. It is also pointed out that a sum of Rs.10,54,381/- has still not been paid to the petitioner and possession of the land has not been taken from the petitioner. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in 'ALLAHABAD VS. RAJA RAM JAISWAL', AIR 1985 SC 1622, 'DELHI ADMINISTRATION & OTHERS VS. MADAN LAL NANGIA & OTHERS', (2003) 10 SCC 321 and 8 'ANGIRA DEVI GUPTA VS. THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR', AIR 1986 DELHI 40.
7. On the other hand, Learned Senior Counsel for respondent submitted that a final notification was issued which shows that the land of the petitioner has been acquired. It is further submitted that the petitioner has entered into consent agreements with regard to acquisition proceedings and has received the entire amount of compensation of Rs.7,44,00,000/-. In this connection, attention of this court has been invited to the agreements dated 08.07.2009 executed between the petitioner and the respondent under Section 29(2) of the Act on 08.07.2009 as well as the indemnity bonds executed by the petitioner. It is also pointed out that under the agreements executed on 08.07.2009 the petitioner has voluntarily agreed to handover the possession of the land measuring 12 acres and has received the entire amount of compensation. Attention has also been invited to indemnity bonds executed by 9 the petitioner in favour of the board as well as the affidavit stating that he is the absolute owner of the property and no one else has any claim.
8. It has also been pointed out that the possession letters has been signed by the petitioner handing over the possession of the lands. It is urged that petitioner having received the compensation of Rs.7,44,00,000/- Crores in the year 2009 cannot challenge the acquisition after a period of eight years and delay in challenge to the acquisition is fatal and the petition is liable to be dismissed on account of suppression of facts. In support of his submissions, Learned Senior Counsel has relied on decisions 'RAMNIKLAL N.BHUTTA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OHTERS', (1997) 1 SCC 134, 'GIRIAS INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', (2008) 7 SCC 53, 'V.T.KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. STATE OF 10 KARNATAKA', 1991 SCC ONLINE KAR 147, 'RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD. VS. ZAVER CHAND POPATLAL SUMARIA AND OTHERS', (1996) 4 SCC 579, and 'STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER VS. SANGAPPA DYAVAPPA BIRADAR AND OTHERS', (2005) 4 SCC 264.
9. By way of rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has initiated the attention of this court to page Nos.251 and 253 and has submitted that the petitioner has not suppressed any material fact.
10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the lands of the petitioner including the other lands have been acquired for formation of industrial area. A final notification dated 25.09.2008 has been issued in which the lands of the petitioner have been included. Admittedly, the petitioner has entered into consent agreements with the respondent-Board on 08.07.2009, under which the petitioner has voluntarily agreed to 11 handover the possession of the property in favour of the Board and has acknowledged the receipt for an amount of Rs.2.48 Crores and Rs.4.96 Crores respectively. The petitioner has also executed the receipt of having received the compensation of Rs.2.48 Crores and Rs.4.9 Crores respectively. Thus, in all, the petitioner received a sum of Rs.7.44 Crores by way of compensation. The petitioner has executed an indemnity bond in favour of the board on 08.07.2009. The petitioner has also executed an affidavit stating that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property and no one has any claim thereunder and there are no tenancy claims or proceedings under 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. Thus, from above narration of facts, the following facts are clear:
1. The petitioner has received a sum of Rs.7.44 Crores as compensation way 12 back in the year 2009 and has voluntarily entered into agreements with the Board on 08.07.2009 and has agreed to hand over the possession.
2. The petitioner has executed two receipts on 08.07.2009 of having received the amount of compensation of RS.7.44 Crores.
3. The petitioner has executed the indemnity bond in favour of the Board.
4. The petitioner on 08.07.2009 has executed an affidavit stating that he is absolute owner of the property and there are no tenancy claims under Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
5. The petitioner has signed the possession letters on 08.07.2009 handing over the possession of the schedule property in favour of the Board.13
12. The Supreme Court in 'M.T.W TENZING NAMGYAL VS. MOTILAL LAKHOTIA', (2003) 5 SCC 1 has held that acceptance of compensation of land by the owner would operate as estoppel against the owner and he is estopped from denying the vesting of land in favour of the Government. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the petitioner is estopped from contending that the land has not vested in favour of the respondents.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that the Board in exercise of powers under Section 29(2) of the Act can determine the amount of compensation by way of an agreement and under Section 14(b) of the Act, the Board can purchase by agreement or to take on lease or under any form of tenancy, any land to erect such building and to execute such other works as may be necessary for the purposes of carrying out its duties and functions. Thus, it is evident that the Board can by mutual agreement acquire the land. In the instant case, 14 since, the land has been acquired by mutual agreement as is evident from the agreements as well as the receipts and affidavit executed by the petitioner, it is not necessary for this court to examine the validity of the proceeding of the land acquisition at the instance of the petitioner that too after a period of eight years from the date of receipt of compensation and handing over of the possession. It is settled in law that delay and laches without any satisfactory explanation is one of the important factors for exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and if there is negligence or omission on the part of the petitioner to assert his right, which is taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances causes prejudice to the party, the court should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, reference may be made to decision of the Supreme Court in 'T.N.HOUSING BOARD, CHENNAI VS. M.MEIYAPPAN AND OTHERS', (2010) 14 SCC 15 309'. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case since no explanation has been offered by the petitioner for approaching the court after a long period of eight years and he has slept over his rights after accepting the amount of compensation, no case for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
14. In view of preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in this petition needless to state that if the petitioner is entitled to any compensation under the Act the competent authority shall examine the claim of petitioner and amount due, if any shall be paid to him by the respondent.
With the aforesaid direction the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SS