Karnataka High Court
Dayanand vs Hirkanbai & Ors on 7 June, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
W.P.No.200863/2017 (LB-RES)
Between:
Khaja Fareeduddin
S/o Abdul Khadar
Aged about 67 years
Occ: Retd. Health Inspector
R/o Haladkheri-K
Tq. & Dist: Bidar.
... Petitioner
(By Sri G.G. Chagashetti, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary
Revenue Department
M.S. Building, Bangalore - 1
2. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary
Home Department
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore - 1
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Bidar, Dist: Bidar - 584 101.
4. The Executive Engineer
PWD Bidar, Dist: Bidar - 584 101.
2
5. The Asst. Executive Engineer
PWD & IWT Department
No.1 Sub Division, Bidar - 584 101.
... Respondents
(By Sri K. M. Ghate, AGA)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the
respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings forthwith and
pay damage U/Sec. 19(1) R/w Sec. 19(2) of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013 as done in
similarly situated persons.
This petition is coming on for preliminary hearing, this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner herein is claiming himself to be the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.4/1p1, measuring 03 acres 08 guntas of village Haladkheri-K, Taluk Bidar. His grievance is that the Bungalow of S.P. of Bidar is constructed on the said land along with that two other houses have also come up in an extent of 01 acres 20 guntas out of 03 acres 08 guntas. According to him the said extent is not utilized by initiating proceedings for 3 acquisition and accordingly it is stated that a legal notice was issued seeking restoration of vacant possession of land bearing Sy.No.4/1p1 of Haladkheri village by removing the road and Bungalow of S.P. and he should be compensated for the same. The said legal notice dated 17.5.2016 is said to have been replied on 20.06.2016. It is stated in the reply that the said buildings were constructed in the year 1960 as per the Register of P.W.D. The reply would also indicate that the building was initially constructed for Assistant Executive Engineer, which is subsequently occupied by S.P., Bidar. However, the contents of that would clearly indicate that it is non-committal, which is with reference to the construction, which has taken place at least 50 to 60 years prior to the date of legal notice.
2. Admittedly, perusal of documents on record would indicate that the S.P. Bungalow is in existence prior to 1960 and when the said land was acquired is 4 not forthcoming. Whether due process of law is followed is also not forthcoming. The claim with reference to the said land is raised for the first time in the year 2016 by issuing a legal notice, indicating that the construction of S.P. Bungalow is illegal and without acquisition of land on which it is built. In the fact situation, this Court is of the opinion that since the claim is made after inordinate delay of 50 to 60 years from the date of construction of the building, the same is hopelessly barred by limitation.
3. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to rely upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Syed Maqbool Ali Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in AIR 2011 SC 2542 in support of his delayed claim, wherein the Apex Court while considering the prayer of the petitioner would observe as under;
"High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after 5 the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/ donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community. -as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the landholders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. When such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/ donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may."
4. In fact, the reading of a portion of the said judgment as culled out supra, it is clearly seen that in the fact situation the State in fact itself is in difficult situation to furnish the particulars, regarding whether the property was acquired or not where the building of 6 S.P. Bungalow is constructed on the said property prior to 1960 is after acquisition or not, cannot be ascertained at this length of time particularly after 50 to 60 years.
5. In the matter which was considered by the Apex Court, the parties have approached the High Court within 10-12 years from the date of utilization of the land, where the actual measurement of land utilized was not known by them. But, in the instant case, what is pleaded is total ignorance of owners as against the construction which is made prior to 1960.
6. Therefore, in the fact situation, this Court cannot issue any direction to the authorities to consider the prayer of the petitioner herein for the relief of initiating proceedings for acquisition of portion of land bearing Sy.No.4/1p1 which is said to be under his ownership and his alleged possession and ownership cannot be considered after lapse of more than 60 years. 7 Hence, this writ petition requires to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and latches.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL Ct: RRJ