Karnataka High Court
Bali Ha I Resorts(P)Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.20725-20726 OF 2011 AND
35778-35779 OF 2011 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. Bali Ha'i Resorts (P) Limited,
(formerly known as Shangrila Resorts
(Private) Limited ),
No.325/1, 14th Main,
5th Cross, Rajmahal Vilas Extension,
Bangalore - 560 080,
duly represented by its Director,
Mrs. Ratan Chawla.
2. Mrs. Ratan Chawla,
Wife of Late Vijay Chawla,
Aged about 73 years,
Presently residing at Casalavelle 6
85, Lavelle Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Mr. Nick Chawla,
Son of Late Vijay Chawla,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at Bangalore.
2
4. Ms. Preeti Chawla,
Daughter of Late Vijay Chawla,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at New Jersy, USA. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. Ajesh Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by the Special
Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Rural District,
Devanahalli, Bangalore.
2. The District Registrar,
The Revenue Department,
Government of Karnataka,
Devanahalli, Bangalore.
3. The Karnataka Industrial
Area Development Board,
Constituted under the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board
Act, 1964, having office at
Gandhinagar, Bangalore.
4. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, International Airport
Authority, the Karnataka Industrial
Area Development Board, Bangalore.
Proposed Respondent:
5. Central Bureau of Investigation,
3
36, Bellary Road,
Gangana Halli,
Bangalore - 560 032. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos.
3 and 4
Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Additional Government Advocate
for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Shri. C.H. Jadhav, Senior Advocate for Proposed Respondent
No.5)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to order the investigation by
the Central Bureau of Investigation of the Acquisition of the
Schedule Property by the respondent no.3 and take such action
accordingly.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. The facts are as follows:
Petitioner no.1 is said to be the absolute owner of land in Survey No.28 of Doddasanne village and Survey No.87 of Arishinakunte village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli taluk, Bangalore Rural District, totally measuring about 119 acres. It 4 is stated that the said lands were converted for non-agricultural purpose by the competent authorities in terms of Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KLR Act', for brevity). The lands were purchased under various sale deeds of the year 1992-93 and 1993-94. It transpires that the lands in question were notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act', for brevity) for the purpose of Bangalore International Airport and a preliminary notification was issued dated 7.7.1994 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act notifying the acquisition of the said property. The petitioner being a registered owner as on the date of the said notification, had brought to the attention of the jurisdictional authorities as regards its ownership and the manner in which the petitioner's name was excluded from the notification and that the predecessor-in-title of the lands being shown as the khatedar or the person interested. The representation of the petitioner 5 however went unnoticed and a final notification under section 28(4) followed on 8.8.1996. It was again brought to the attention of the authorities that the total extent of the land was not clearly mentioned and that the petitioner's name was not forthcoming in the notification, though it was the petitioner, who was the registered owner as on the said date.
Subsequently, an award was also passed with the infirmities not being corrected as on 8.11.2001. The compensation was fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre, for agricultural land and Rs.8,00,000/- per acre, for non-agricultural land. The amount was deposited before the civil court and several cases were filed before the civil court claiming compensation amount in respect of the lands in question. The petitioner therefore was faced with the prospect of having to contest the claims of the erstwhile owners, who had mischievously filed claims to the compensation notwithstanding the sale transactions in favour of the petitioner. Those matters pertaining to an extent of 48 acres are pending consideration in several cases, before the 6 Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. Added to this situation, though the petitioner had purchased a total extent of 119 acres of land, the petitioner did however secure the compensation in respect of the land measuring 20 acres and it is for the remaining extent of land, after accounting for 68 acres that is now shown as government land, in the revenue records, that the petitioners are yet to receive the compensation. This, according to the petitioner, is on account of an unholy collusion between the competent authorities and the respondents herein and therefore, the petitioner are before this court emphasizing and elaborating on the manner in which the mischief has occasioned in order to deprive the petitioner of the valuable land taking advantage of the fact that the petitioners were not residing within the country and it is therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to direct an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and to pass such other orders as may be warranted.7
3. Given the above circumstances, since the petitioner has received the compensation in respect of 20 acres of land and insofar as the claim for compensation in respect of 48 acres of land is pending adjudication, it is for the petitioner to establish his case insofar as the said extent of land is concerned in the manner known to law. Insofar as the land which is now said to be described as government land though the petitioners have placed before this court, the title deeds in respect of lands to demonstrate that the same had been purchased by them as on the date the land was notified for acquisition and if it is now described as government land, the petitioners' remedy would be to seek a declaration before a competent court as to the status of the ownership and to consequentially seek compensation if the said lands were the subject matter of acquisition. Therefore, the petitioner would be well advised to institute a civil suit forthwith and to seek appropriate remedies.
Therefore, with that observation, the petition stands disposed of.
8
4. Incidentally, it is stated that insofar as the pending proceedings before the reference court are concerned, the matters are being delayed inordinately by virtue of the KIADB not being in a position to furnish the relevant records before the court and proceedings are being interminably dragged on. Therefore, in the interest of justice, respondent no.3 is directed to submit the relevant records pertaining to cases in L.A.C.101/2006 , L.A.C.67/2006 and L.A.C.39/2006 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli and they shall be submitted forthwith, in any event, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv