Karnataka High Court
Thimmarayappa vs State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2008
Bench: Manjula Chellur, L.Narayana Swamy
"\
ma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALQRE
nammn rats was 02nd BAX or APRIL, zdfiéf 7,
PRESENT
was HON'BLE MS. JUSTIE -mAuJfiLgT¢éE$ifi3,'v
ANfi%v:""'
THE HON'BLE MR. Jflfijicfi :; fiA3A2Afi3~swnfi$
warm A2?ngL ya 149§f2q97(ix4Hsi
BETWEEN
', aaneanagzfsovmfiawazux
THIMMARAKAPEA ,j; '.V\' I
asasfeiagfisii IT .'a'"'*w*
sxo Lara HOTTEEEA * ='
¢fififififiEKATTi,'" *4
~wKONfiNKUM$E 2os¢"
UTTARAHA$LI_HQBLT
APPELLANT
(By six. an$Akflfi%R's; PATEL -- 53. counsmz FOR
sax.
pnUm$v:TWbnm2Ah)
'TfiETsrArn or KARNATAKA
Ifififll BI'
"=ffiEP{vEY ITS 3ECnn1nn1
niyahmnmnm or HOUSING AND URBAN
,"BE?E:o§MEfiT
',M.s.BUILn:Ne
'7v"aANGALoaz-560 001
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP; 31 ITS COMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST,
SANKEY RGAD
BANGALORE-560 020
'afaata.,inv G?
3 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
EAEQALQRE DEVELQEMEHT AUTHORITY
KUMARA BARK WEST
SEHKEY RGAD
BANGALORE--560 020 ..;f§3sB§RfiEfi1s',u
(By Sri:R.Sfiifififi§ fiTEEMfiTfi - annr.G,n, E R:R§i1I}
(32 52:. K. KRISHNA FOR R-2 Ann R-3)<u
wars WRIT APPEAL fzs rILznv_U1s*j4~woF THE'
KARNATAKA HIGH counr ACT PRAIING TO saw ASIDE was
@3352 aassmn IN _THE WRIT_ P;TITION__NQ:3347/2000
DAEED 08/08/2oo2&'u_ * '«' '. ""
This wnzr APPEAL gaming An; for Preliminary
hearing, this ugg,»E%H3¥hA CBEi$¥R J, delivered
the £o11ow1ng;_ ; .25 -_'Igu *
IK Thé~ épfieilafit "herein has appraached this
Ceurt -¢ith.'a_ deiay 9: ;ao2 days in filing the
*§Féa1 ** Is just and preps: to narrate few
*ques£ignafih a better way.
u.IW;; Apparently 3 lands bearing sy. nos. 171/3
AAImeaau:;ng 2.20 acres; 172/5 measuring 2.01 acres
"Masuring 1.29 acre; a;tuate at Kothnur
villag*, Ban~a1cre scuth taluk, cam. to be
acquired under preliminary and ; final
notifications in pursuance of Land
Act for the benefit of a house
called Amarjyothi I-louse *Bur1.1d.1'j:g'_,i"ibis:-§ip=é::a£1xie;
Society. The said
questioned before thin"-...vCourtV A iearned
Single Judge quaahedV__...Vxt'hg~p%u:quiaition on the
ground _t?_;at;5'ther'e 'was no approval of the
Govern::re_nt_";v'«_for' ._Su'c:h"'"iac§:;uiaition. The said
soehietgifi and the same came to be
dialniseed.' in a matter pertaining to
flou'se_:'b11ildino"'. co-op. society, the Apex Court
2_'i5.:'tH. A. orderweiated 21.2. 1995 directed that all
V "which came to be acquired for private
"I1ouae'.v'"frvuiV1ding societies with the help of a
have to be returned back to the
it '*~respect:I.ve land owners subject to re-deposit or
re-urn o: the compensation amount received by the
the other
.4.
that irrespective of the affected V-owners
approaching the Court, such benefit '"-be
extended to all such land owners.
the above lands were note i 'ta
Petition came to be filed
which came to be aiiaweab Apparently at conténdear
by both the garties on_1ja,199a,"a£terVieceiving
oongengetion the 'L'«tate'._ Gaovernnnent seems to have
return-.. heal; the Lane: as per
-- : -.5..i" Q
EB 3-".2 '¢l..lJg_\-I. B-3 ;_
the acquisition for
AmarvjyothivVi'!-ieuae':'*.§u:I.1ding Society under land
acquiaition V"cr.rals:: questioned, EDA notified
it t-'.-ryu iancia along with other lands for
'....II ste
the Enarfilct, a final notification came to be rrede
x on z1.Q:.10.1994. Though these appellant: or their
'V.an-cestors did not approach the Court, owners of
lands went up before Court in
W. P. 48 10/ 1 995 including Amarj yothi society
to be=..filer:'1 by t
wherein this Court by its order dated 22}9.199e
held that the final notification &w§Si note in
accordance with the procedure
preliminary notification :wn"s"*«not_f thej
BDA authority was also
the stage of final notifioation, _ngain they made
sanctioned by -
quashed, for the second
time on 3i}3,1é9a nnntfinniiy the non issued once
agnin_£ine1onot1£iention on 5.4.1999.
<3
<3
At thiAs"e§_tace, Writ Petition no.334'!,'
ea; :6
has
filr
[-.9
|..a
9»
::II
or
E
E»
pa
CI.
into consideration all the facts and
available as on the date 8.8.2002
'neiaf tnnt questioning of final notification of
vL'ac:zq'uiaition cannot be granted and only a
V'*».d§1.rection was given to EDA to allot such number
of sites as may be permissible to the petitioner,
in terms of scheme of EDA, which was in existence
at that time. Time limit was also givezfwithin
which the said application by the owne; he
made. Meanwhile, BDA questioned}
direction of allotment of :~-n'1'nrbe:IA: j
the scheme in w A.3iop/ésfi "wit v::§ettain I
modifications the Viapiseal \igt_ae.Vl,di.epoee;d
i8.7,2005-without touching the sine; notification
to file gggiieeeiefi fei"ai;e£meet of sites as per
the .- this was over by the
yea:.?flV2'0O3' Petition was already
disposed er en §.éfboo2.
I is also pertinent to rrentioi: that
*peeifiee_ee& sister of this very appellant filed
A"enethee?Ai Writ Petition in No.21742/2oo5
AA Vppque'e.tioning the acquisition of land by BEA for
I Nagar VIII phase on 'several grounds.
However, in the year 2005, the said Writ Petition
5
/
.7.
came to be withdrawn which is not disputec'1"'--by the
appellant .
6 . "J."hé fifefifiut
nearly 5 years after the d.is}_5cj;s§'a1': of 4'-t'h,eM,writ
Petition on 8.8.2002 Vconteniciing se\r1era§,i." isvsneeiiirn
favour of the appelleiat.» iiplacetl
reliance on the the Diviviivfiion Bench of
this Court in w.i.2.1§ig'di::'de§ee;v.Vé;..3.2oo5 between
K.3.aURUr§UR§§:§ir vs. arms or
the subj ect matter was
Sy,--No,'I'?.é/lfifief which was also
notified I fort' -V4 VIII phase .
Iqearnecfxcoiinsel for the appellant brought
i_eur=~ xnotice""'pVaragraph 11 of the said judgment
I .t1ie situation when the land came to be
yiifestechwith the Government,' earlier notification
e.r;dt*eeccnd acquisition notification during such
it 'ii'2.testing period came to be discussed. Paragraph
" Having carefully perused {the
orders made by this Court and the fifieig
In In Win
f"n'I-n-'I- I491-Iara the ai-tegrn-u+ 4-M-' 1-1=jé§""s:'+s-1-.+-a:..
1-uwur an 1-: 1- an 1- 'rt. -95 3,!-.
n lul"_|-vii-.|u_I
Government to acquire the schedule lend §_
for the benefit of "fimarjyothiv Housegv
Building Co-operative society by issuing f
preliminary notification =unde:Iss¢otipn"V
4(1) sf t e L.A. he: on n3;32g13se and
fiinai deoieretion under Seotieu sil) or
the L.A. Amt on as 61,3938 failed, we
are of the considered oQinion,that there
was a oaiouieted meve on the part of the
A;_t¢k'frustrnte_ the "fienefit of the
u x,_ __ 3 . . O
or _, _ fl.. 1 .
'wmade_1fins-r,p. ("c}'Hbs.13114 to 13339
of i§Qi following the decision made by
"«;t%1n,¢1§11*3hpea1 Nos.30011 to 3019 of
1995 (arising out of s.L.P.nos.114a2--9o
=of 1991} filed by the EMT House Building
. Vicoaogeratiue Society to the a@pellants--
.V petitioners. The operative portion of
i'the";order made by the Apex Court in
,'c.n.Nos.3o11-19 of 1995 reads as
"We direct that as a. result of
quashing of the land acquisition
proceedings including the notification:
as aforesaid, the possession of the land
.9.
shall be restored to the respective lend.
owners irrespective of the fact w'
they had challenge the acquisi§ti'en'_'
their lands or not. on restoration ilof'
the possession to the'""1a.nd. .'
shall refund the arnounlte. 3 :1;
than as coutpensation = otherwise
'er 'ct 'f their 'me... .,
11 man nts :"che'V..,state"GVove:i'nnIent
--_ .._v._.£_ __v__,
including ccncern,et1.M_ authorities
/persons shall.-1 1 aforesaid.
direlc!t::l:;ons.ffAVV' V V
the appellant also
brought name' '~(»»,«s.9ai) 1 sec 44 -- mm crmnn
.A_n1:.5~~n_ c';i1:m1i:_3"i'j'_-=4f§_s;:s§'i:§\:mqxofl or INDIA AND osmsns
wsnit -, ---- .13-- ,-
re'ci~ as 1.i'i.i.';'ufi.' '
" Grains on Statute flair, Seventh
V ';~..:'.i.p.2s2, hes e_1.so engphasised that
. 'these: proceeding for conpulsory
ecc_ui'sition must he concluded without
a ' --- " unreasonable delay:
"Powers conferred by act of
Pa-.rJ.ia....s..t :.n.u.s.t,. -is e genc._e.1.
rule, be exercised within a
reasonable time after notice has
been given to the persons whese
property will be affected by
exercise, ether-4.-ise the
will be liable to be tree.teci1"~as1'
being no longer effeetivfe.
11. English t.'vfo4ur3':s..-3 haire 'bee;
consistently irrpz-essin'g_ that etheiv
i i ii preeeedifig "be
gheietgci ugi his ~.._1:e_,a,sohaf1::--le itime,
failing the 5-shc;Le,v1A"'proceeding is
vitiated. It case of
Tivar1!:oz:__' lily. Co. v.
rzoigé;-t ;1ie'e':w~fza,:m.ija' r.q2:g;:'n¢-1-a'5 (13343 9 ac
""" ,;;;x. "-91"! nothihg more was done,
send» have slept upon
their ri.g_'h!:.s, and certainly 11' the
*«~:leley1_ eejinot be explained, they
si.-..c-.-.11: be held to be eiaaiea
HI
V".FI'H
II: wan
going on with any congaulsorg
V purchase , . "
was reiterated in the case of
Grind 12'. Dudley Corporation (1958) 1 Ch
73 329: (1957) 2 All 'n'. 573
12. House of Lords in the ease of
Birmingham City Cozpn. V. West Midland
Baptist (Trust) Assn. (Ino.) (1969) 3
All FR 1'72: (1969) 3 WLR 389, pointed
\\\\\[c.k.l~_ K i/N ,w?
-]1.
out that the land.
proceedings shoul be conducted in
acquisitio'n.pT
a rnanner that the person affected .f_¥.:-y
the land -- .
substantially the value' --of
which he would have got or:..:'the._' is at
his d.ispossess:Lon.; __It \§v23.s"vsaid.;.~-".i..: Q' " .
acquisition, M H get;
'-"-me pt-.1. seiole 'a..d.__the'-,
cannot he reconuci::1..J.ed1u excegt_on3 the
basis the value to the
owner at the .Af;he'_'_.notice to
'treat ta attayt§gutstttt1a1;y the
asitheii he date of
V e;wuia'ion 9'3:
in order'i?i,j;9 .- that though under Land
Acquisition amendment to section 11-A
a._ -time was introduced between preliminary
¢ i..A'-final notification, such time frame being
V not entitle the respondent authority
'eta thee: their own time to make the final notifieation.
9. Therefore, according to the senior E counsel Mr.J'ayaJcumar S. Patil, final notification dated. 5.4.1999 11 years after the preliminary .12.
notification dated 23.3.1988 being not witiiin a reasonable time deserves to be quashedi. 'the land has to be given back to the ownere es the EDA could not have aoq¢1ired...the".Vlent(» stlzen .4 land vested with the eo#ere@eht1*byjlvittuefyor . earlier acquisition ":__'p:;ooeec1inc_xs Lane' Acquisition Act . _
10. We -opinion of the View exptehted :t§ "the netyttieht Bench of this Court tn the thtegetted gudghtht as stated above andyn.--also .latr:t by the Apex. court in 19%, inspite of knowledge of sfinhil éefter the judgment of the ,;e;thee "hlh§1e' Judge dated a.a.2oo2, the 'A t..oug.. tried. thr_ug__ n_.\_reral avenues to "a1lV__v'p-robebility, after the 'en-r'portee judgn-eat i~n T1h7wfA.2161/01 they thought they could em up in it =,_t11is appeal on the same lines. The fact rexnains having kept quiet for nearly 5 years from 8.3.2002, whether appellant could be allowed to come up before this court by virtue of a jhsignnent which has come to their notice mueh 1ate3{;v"-5"tj'--;tV..is nothing but opening up pandora litigation. 1:: they had riled tine' ; and the same was kept penr.:';'i.*ly.nc_§-{A for the matter would been efw'a'«:._:'"d.:!..fferent' gituation. Having 'athe .' of the learned. single _, tgeiet ang jurther, W h the .
they right to file appeal tlihtaosal of the matter by the After becoming aware of. u the KtznreportedV"'t1ec1sion of the Division Bench with this appeal.
in also noted from the 'oe'ume'"'*nts furrgishieo by the advocate for the authority that AA from the year 2001 onwards sites formed in V "these lands were allotted to different persons and the allotment letters and also possession .14.
certificates are furnished. Viewed from anyV-"angle the appeal cannot be entertained. Accordingly , the sAKm2o4osV 'K