Karnataka High Court
Sri. P. Thimmaiah @ Thimmabovi vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2018
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION Nos.24084-092/2013 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. P. THIMMAIAH @ THIMMABOVI
S/O PUTTA BOVI
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT. GIRIYA BOVI PALYAA
NAZARBAD MOHALLA
MYSORE-570010.
2. THULASAMMA
W/O G. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
3. ANJANI
S/O G. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
4. BHAGYA
S/O G. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
5. GANESH
S/O G. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
6. MAHADEVA
S/O G. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
7. DINESHA
S/O G. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
Date of Order 10-04-2018 W.P.Nos.24084-092/2013
Sri. P. Thimmaiah @ Thimmabovi & others
Vs. The State of Karnataka & others
2/7
8. PADMA
S/O G. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
9. SURESHA
S/O G. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
PETITIONER No.2 TO 9 ARE
R/AT NO. 1/7
SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE ROAD
NACHANAHALLI PALYA
MYSORE-570008.
... PETITIONERS
(By Mr. V. SRINIVAS, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE MYSORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA)
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-570001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MYSORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-570001.
4. KUVEMPU VIDYAVARHDAKA TRUST
KALIDASA ROAD,
JAYALAKSHMI PURAM,
MYSURU-570 012.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI.SHIVASUNDARA SATHYENDRA.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Mr. E.S. INDIRESH, AGA FOR R1
Mr. I.G. GACHCHINAMATH, ADV., FOR R2 & R3
Mr.ARAVIND V.CHAVAN, ADV. FOR R4
Date of Order 10-04-2018 W.P.Nos.24084-092/2013
Sri. P. Thimmaiah @ Thimmabovi & others
Vs. The State of Karnataka & others
3/7
THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT.1.4.1981 INITIATED BY R-3
VIDE ANNX-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS
PROPERTY IN QUESTION HEREIN ARE CONCERNED & ETC.
THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Mr. V. Srinivas, Adv. for Petitioners Mr. E.S. Indiresh, AGA for R1 Mr. I.G. Gachchinamath, Adv. for R2 & R3 Mr.Aravind V.Chavan, Adv. for R4
1. These writ petitions have been filed in this Court on 06.06.2013 by the petitioner - Mr.P.Thimmaiah @ Thimmabovi s/o Putta Bovi and Eight others (Ms.Thulasamma, Mr. Anjani, Ms.Bhagya, Mr.Ganesh, Mr.Mahadeva, Mr.Dinesha, Ms.Padma & Mr.Suresha), challenging the acquisition of land by the Respondent-MUDA initiated under the Preliminary Notification dated 01.04.1981 and Final Notification issued on 29.03.1984 acquired by MUDA to develop "Vijayanagar Layout", Mysore.
Date of Order 10-04-2018 W.P.Nos.24084-092/2013 Sri. P. Thimmaiah @ Thimmabovi & others Vs. The State of Karnataka & others 4/7
2. The petitioners claimed to be the owners of land in Sy.No.155 measuring 20 Acres of Hinkal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, which is a part of the said acquisition proceedings. The said acquisition proceedings are challenged on the ground that despite the Final Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Respondents had not taken the possession of the land in question from the petitioners and the petitioners continues to be in possession of the land in question and therefore, the Land Acquisition proceedings deemed to have lapsed.
3. The said petition was contested by the Respondent-State as well as one Kuvempu Vidyavardhaka Trust, Kalidasa Road, Mysore, who has also claimed its title over the part of the land in question in Sy.No.336 measuring 4 Acres 10 Guntas, Sy.No.158 measuring 4 Acres 10 Guntas and Sy.No.154 measuring 2 Acres 7 Guntas, all situated in Date of Order 10-04-2018 W.P.Nos.24084-092/2013 Sri. P. Thimmaiah @ Thimmabovi & others Vs. The State of Karnataka & others 5/7 the aforesaid Hinkal village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The said Trust is said to have purchased the aforesaid land under the Registered Sale Deeds dated 23.06.1963, 01.08.1963 and 01.08.1963 respectively.
4. The learned counsels for the parties have also brought to the notice of the Court that a civil suit namely, O.S.No.287/1998 filed by the present petitioner Mr.P.Thimmaiah & Others against the said Kuvempu Vidyavardhaka Trust is pending trial in the Court of III Addl.Civil Judge, Mysore, vide remand order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in R.S.A.No.770/2007 (Kuvempu Vidyavardhaka Trust vs. Sri.P.Thimmaiah). The said suit has been filed by the petitioners seeking declaration of their ownership rights over the land in question, which is the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings by the Respondent-MUDA in the present case.
Date of Order 10-04-2018 W.P.Nos.24084-092/2013 Sri. P. Thimmaiah @ Thimmabovi & others Vs. The State of Karnataka & others 6/7
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that until the title of the petitioners as well as the fact of the possession are proved in the civil Court on the basis of the relevant evidence and a decree is obtained, they do not have any locus-standi to challenge the Land Acquisition proceedings which were initiated long ago in 1981 and concluded in 1984 by filing a writ petition after a huge delay in 2013.
6. The writ jurisdiction based on factual averments supported by the Affidavits only is not meant to hold fishing enquiry into the Land Acquisition proceedings undertaken by a public body under the relevant Statutes. If the petitioners prove their ownership over the land in question, they are at best entitled to receive the compensation either from the beneficiary of the Land Acquisition or from the person Date of Order 10-04-2018 W.P.Nos.24084-092/2013 Sri. P. Thimmaiah @ Thimmabovi & others Vs. The State of Karnataka & others 7/7 concerned, who might have received such compensation for the land in question.
7. Since all these questions of facts are yet to be determined by the competent civil Court in a already instituted civil suit, unless the petitioners hold a decree in their favour in this regard, the present writ petition cannot be entertained at their instance.
8. The writ petitions are therefore found to be devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.