Karnataka High Court
Sri Kadappa vs State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2020
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.52491/2019(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI KADAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/OF MAHADEVAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562129. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BASAVARAJU P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIAL, 1ST FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560001
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK(SUB-DIVISION),
BENGALURU-560001.
2
5. THE TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK (ADDL),
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU-560064
6. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
KIADB, NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560002
7. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KIADB OFFICE-2,
NO.49, KANIJA BHAVANA,
EAST WING, V-FLOOR,
RACECOURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
DIRECTION AGAINST RESPONDENTS-1,3,4 AND 5 TO ENTER
THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS
PURSUANT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-3
VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 03.04.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 25.2.2020 to dismiss prayer-(c) as not pressed.
2. Memo is allowed and accordingly, prayer-(c) is dismissed as not pressed.
3. The petitioner in the above writ petition has sought for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5 to enter his name in the revenue records pursuant to the order passed by respondent No.3 Annexure-B by considering the representation dated 3.4.2019, Annexure-A; and respondent Nos.2, 6 and 7 to pass consent award as provided under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 and disburse him the amount of compensation towards the acquired land/schedule property as per the decision of the Price Fixation Committee, Annexure-F4. 4
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing Sy.No.198 measuring 4 acres situated at Mahadevakodigehalli, Jala Hobli and Bengaluru North Additional Taluk. The petitioner amongst 22 persons who were in unauthorized cultivation of Government land filed an application to regularize their unauthorized cultivation as occupants. Thereafter, the 5th respondent made recommendation to the 3rd respondent for grant of 92 acres of land at an upset price of Rs.50/- per acre vide report No.LRA1104 dated 14.6.1962 and LNDSR(1) 667/61-62 dated 18.4.1962. Thereafter, respondent No.4 forwarded the said applications of the petitioner and 22 others to the 3rd respondent, who on consideration of the entire material on record, by the order dated 28.6.1962 granted the property in question (Sy.No.198) in favour of the petitioner and 22 others measuring 4 acres each. Subsequently, saguvali chit came to be issued on 5 4.8.1964 and thereafter, the revenue authorities in exercise of the powers under the provisions of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, mutated as per MRF No.5/1972-73 and also the RTCs for the year 1972-73 the name of the petitioner and accordingly, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question as lawful owner without any interruption.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short, 'KIADB') issued preliminary notification under the provisions of Section 28(1) on 7.8.2006 and final notification on 29.9.2008 under the provisions of Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIADB Act respectively. Subsequently, by the Order dated 14/15.7.2009, the KIADB took possession of the land from him. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed R.A.79/2009-10 before the Assistant Commissioner for entering his name in the Khatha, Mutation and revenue records. The 6 Assistant Commissioner by the order dated 3.12.2009 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable since the land had already been acquired by the KIADB.
6. Being aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision 161/2010-11, who on consideration of the entire material on record including the grant by the order dated 1.10.2015 allowed the revision. Subsequently, on the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner made representation on 29.12.2017 to the KIADB seeking possession and the KIADB by the intimation letter, dated 5.1.2018, Annexure-F2 intimated him to produce 20 documents for payment of compensation. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation dated 3.4.2019 to the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk to implement the order of the Deputy Commissioner. It is further case that on 27.6.2018, the Special Deputy Commissioner, KIADB, 7 Bangalore District, initiated proceedings in respect of adjacent lands for payment of compensation. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief as sought for.
7. The State Government has not filed any objections, but has produced the records. On instructions from the concerned Tahsildar, Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the order of the Deputy Commissioner will be implemented within a period of four weeks. The said submission is placed on record.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
9. Sri Basavaraju P., learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that inaction on the part of respondent No.5 to implement the order passed by the 8 Deputy Commissioner is erroneous and contrary to the material on record since the petitioner has been unnecessarily driven before this Court for the relief sought for. Absolutely there is no justification in view of the grant made by the Deputy Commissioner on 28.6.1962 in favour of 23 persons including petitioner measuring 4 acres each in Sy.No.198 of Mahadevakodigehalli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Additional Taluk. The said grant made by the Deputy Commissioner has reached finality. Though the saguvali chit was issued on 4.8.1964, mutation was effected in the year 1972-73 and when the lands were acquired by the KIADB by issuing preliminary and final notifications for acquisition of the lands, at that time, the petitioner came to know that his name has been left out in the revenue records and RTC and therefore, the KIADB has not notified his name. He further contended that the fact that the KIADB has taken possession of the schedule property from the petitioner on 14/15-07- 9 2009 is not in dispute and the Deputy Commissioner, who is the highest authority under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act considering the entire material on record has recorded a finding that the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation and accordingly, directed the Tahsildar to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records because of inaction on the part of the Tahsildar, who is present before this Court. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition for the relief sought for.
10. Sri P.V. Chandreshekar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7/KIADB submits that the KIADB has issued an intimation letter to the petitioner to produce the records regarding the property in question and after satisfying the ownership of the property in dispute, necessary steps would be initiated to disburse compensation in accordance with law.
10
11. Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5, who produced the original records before the Court, submits that as per the records, the grant made in favour of the petitioner is to an extent of 4 acres in Sy.No. 198 along with others in the Official Memorandum dated 28.6.1962; the saguvali chit was issued on 4.8.1964; the name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue records as per MR No.5/1972-73 and the fact that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner holding that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question and hence, he is entitled to receive compensation. The said submission is placed on record.
12. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is claiming to be owner of the property bearing Sy.No.198 of Mahadevakodigehalli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North 11 Additional Taluk measuring 4 acres. Based on the said grant as evidenced by the material documents produced before this Court, Official Memorandum, Annexure-D dated 28.6.1962, the petitioner's name was found at Sy.No.17 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.198 measuring 4 acres and the same is fortified in the original records produced by the learned Government Advocate. It is also not in dispute that the saguvali chit came to be issued on 4.8.1964, mutation was effected in the year 1972-73 as per MR No.5/1972-73 and also his name was entered in the RTC extracts. It is also not in dispute that the KIADB initiated proceedings to acquire the lands of 23 persons including petitioner's in the year 2006 by preliminary notification dated 7.8.2006 and final notification dated 29.9.2008. The other land owners, whose lands have been acquired, have already received the compensation. Because of non implementation of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, the 12 petitioner is unnecessarily driven before this Court. It is also not in dispute that the Special Deputy Commissioner, KIADB in the proceedings dated 27.6.2018 has taken a decision to pay compensation to the adjacent land owners including the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.198 measuring 4 acres.
13. In the proceeding dated 27.6.2018 the Deputy Commissioner considering the entire material on record has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner, who is the owner of the property in question is also entitled for compensation and accordingly, directed the Tahsildar to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the property in question and the Price Advisory Committee has recommended for award of compensation in respect of one of the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.198 measuring 4 acres The said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has reached finality and the Tahsildar in all fairness ought 13 to have implemented the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. As the said proceedings has also reached finality as long back as on 1.10.2015, unnecessarily, the petitioner is driven before this Court in the present writ petition.
14. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.5 to implement the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner by entering the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.198 measuring 4 acres as per the grant dated 28.6.1962 within a period of four weeks as submitted by the learned Government Advocate on instructions from the jurisdictional Tahsildar and it is for respondent Nos.2, 6 and 7 to take necessary steps after production of documents by the petitioner to pass award in terms of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and the KIADB 14 shall pay the compensation in respect of acquisition of the land of the petitioner in accordance with law.
Sd/-
Judge Nsu/-