Smt P Sarojamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Smt P Sarojamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2010

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT 

Dated this the I41" day of Sep1e'n}'0::.--;'.;   "
£3EFOR i33 

THE :5-:toN'BLE MR.JUsi'z§E_;1.1§;"NAG¢givzo'I:ANwVDAs

Writ Petition N0. 2008 {I;A--*B.DA}§

BETWEEN:

1 Smt. I3.§Sa%roj.an1n1a g 
Aged.7.2--..yeégf_s_--.'_ ' é _   . V
W/0late.Ra'1'1gappét--f.". * A,  "
Resid1"1é.g'at :NVo.64»7, _4'" "C'.r_Qss.5'
3*?-1V'}31oCi¥:;, K<3'ffei1*:1;;i'13g'ala. _ 

Bangalore' ,  _» N

2 Smt,LaksIiméamm2i'*~ '
Aged "60 y€&1'E'; A ._ V "
g ' W/.0 1ate'»!:1_afium2Liah
 Residing [email protected];' W Main Road
V Ah_ia1_1€5ya T<--3rI1p1e Road
 ' 2 Sanjivalji Nagar
 «K1-E-e;g§ga11:ih..:i1l1'
" ~ Baxagéilofe 560 09:

' . 3 5113.1, N'arasamI11a

n j Aged 60 years
'  W/0 late P. Narayanappzz.
_5C/0 REi1T1€$.h

Rfﬁidillg ai No.22, 2"" Cmas
Pappretidy Pa.1.ya
S'rigaI.1dhacia Kavaiu
1\Eag2u'abh2'-xvi 2*" Stage
Bangalore - 560 O9}

7,_;"*«~s'

\ My



§
§
§
§

 

Sri A K1"ishr1a Murihy
Aged =44 years
S/0 late Poojari Aga.dL1rappa

Residing at No.27, Peenya New Iilxtzn  

15*' Main Road
Bangalore w 560 091

Sri K V Channavee1'a(thw:E

Aged 62 years V  
-S/0 Residing 21: No.52], P!-_}'\;I}':1i1'1
Dodda Bommasandra V " »
Chamundeswari L'3.vy0'utfA
Bangalore ~-- 560 097 -. '

Sn' B R Prakash Girl" * 
Aged 32~vy€4a:1' s _ '

S/0 Ra,r'ggaéjﬁ_7;1n13r:'_  _  
RCSiCiirlg.-$11,' NO:-44,"'w1:'é€ A E_\/I3..i,I1
15' Cr0~ss:'J§rQ1,hmagar = 
Chdr1dr$£,Lay"E)i11e   _
33an_ga1ore,~~._5'60 072-__ -

Sri B R Raf1--§z.:{s.WaIi1'3r_ '
Aged "82 y't=:ar's "

g ' S,/Leo late  _G VRarr;.u
 Resid_ir1g at"Ne1.--4s=1, 15' Main

19-' jCrO'sr_s, J yo thinagar

    Layout
 ' L3=:1r;ga1o.ia:%-vi» 560 072

 __ 831%. .  I5§~:1rvai.haII1rI1a
Aged 60 years

W._./E3 Sri Pu£.iaehari

AA  Residing at E\Io.224/25, 28" Cross
 2"'? Block, R2,1jaji:_1aga1"

Barlgalore w 560 0.10

Smt. B R Padrna
Aged 60 years
W/0 1z~1E.e Gnpa1kri.s11r121

:7

,s_;-"W 'L



mm

10

AND:

Resic11'11g.; at No. E081/A. 3"-1 Block
3"? Stage, I%3as22.weswara Nzagar
Bangaiore

Smi. Fathima Begum 
Aged 48 years

W/o Mohammad Lﬂussain
Residing a1 No.279 V.  ._
6'-*1 Cross, Rag11avendra.CoEony "
New Extn., Vidhyaranya I3u1*2i . & 3
Bangalore --~ 580 097' h ' ..'.P@I;.Aitio'i1ers

{By Sri E V  _Advocate)

The   _ _ . "" H
By Sec1'(~:fa.;37 to Go*»%§:vrnm.eont"oI"'Kar11ata_ka
I{_o}1sia;<:  * ijgban an ;;1'D"w._e,V1Vopz3r1e at Department

M SVB.L1i1din§'§ _ 
'XV/idh2:r1.a "¥.fce_di1i '

E'3.t--3.nga]ore  

Banga.EoreVDevéi--o}j13ioz1t Au1.herit:y

' ' 'Rr3prese:*;teti by its Commissioner

'  TKChowdaiézh"-Road

K:§1:1_a1=:;park West

  _ B.aj7'xg211ore. -»~ 560 001

"  Add§i:ijo1;£'al Land Aocguisiiiion Offiitei'

1:331' xgaiore DeVe!opn1eni: Au1I.*1.o1'ii:y

M .TChowdaiah Road

A' '  rsangaiore M 550 00:

K1;iinarapa1'1s: West
...Respondenis

[By Sri K S EVIa11ika1rjuI1aia1h, GP for R1;
Sri Ashwin S. Halady. Advocaie for R2 and R3)

Tim's writ: pei.i1:1'o11 is filed uxfxder A£"i'j_c.1e 226 and 227 of1,he

Constiiu1,i(m of India. p1'ay1'11g 'io qL1ash the 11ot.ifica1:1'()n vide

x. 5 M"

m'. -.9/ 'J
,4
\ . .//



A1ii'1eXu'1'e~I§) dated 6--3~2000, for the acquisition of Eaiirgi, with
i"(:g,ards to the sites of the petitioners in Sy.N0.67/ 2, and
68, ciaiimzd To be acquired on 25-O2~1977, 15«O5g.1979a'.md-<18-
O4~19?'9, as envisaged in noiificaiion under Se(t't_ik31i"if}5E£Z)_"(i{" iihc

Land Acquisiftion Act 1984 Vide 11o'E.ii'icai.io1i d£1':r.oCi 9Ei;U3¥2C5_D0; 

as per Aniiexiire-D dated. ES--3~2000. _--  .-- __

This wrii: petition coming 0);: i'or.['1'1jeairir.i§,S''thi&a''vc1_ay,.oiiliie ''

Court. made U10 foliowingz

_--m0  X

The subject. Tlléliiteljx of ';.ii'i's"p_of:itioii"is €;y.N'os.67/ 1,
67/2, 68 and ?'O/ i  Bangalore North
Taiuk. Acco1~dviri:._g' to  in Sy.No.6-7'/2 and
68 came   V Ei'§'{"1V"VViC11l'L11I'Ei.1 purpose to
non--a(.€5;ific1i}£iivfi2il.Vpiijrposégqi'~Ti;r:-'origiriai owner formed a layout
of  converted and other lands. The

petii.;ioiit:rS are iihev purchasers of the sites so formed in the

V":~::i19\}s=.y "n.fL1if1_iio«r;frs iii quesiion. The katha of the sites purcliased

byithfis  are made in their name, {hey have paid taxes

anti, so_ri'1t:_o~i" {hem have constiruoigod residential houses and

 they xwtifé living W"iE.h their families.

7'2,  '.I.'i/ie respoiidems issiied a preliminary noi.iiicaE'ior1

iigiideii' Section. 4(1) of the Land Acq_L1i.sii.i.oIi AC1. on 21.1 1.1974

ﬁx" Vmw..\

f
3/



5

as per An1'1exureuR~1. Stibsequently. on 19.12.1975, a final
noi.il'icaiion came to be issued  per Annexure~R2. The
respondents contend that they have passed awarcls..ii*i,respeet

of lands in question as early as on 28.01. contended that the respondents have taken" of__ lands in question on 15.1 1.1976. :-..olLoli1g.' ..t.1'1e:19eafi;erV:.ﬂghe 0' respondents issued the ,'liFi"ipLig{'}1€VdV' '11ctii'iea.t:ion daleeeie. 06.03.2000 under Section the Lane? ¢_l5;.el:;uisitio11 Act as per Annexure-D. FL'1i't'h_ei'- with the help of the police demolished the strudurhes in question on 28.09.2005, petitioners and had taken over the possession.':_l13e_tii:io11e1*s came to know about the impugned noliilieatiloriiinly when the respondents demolished striiettliztes oiihllthe land in question. Therefore the

-.plet.itione'i*s arle*-beiore this Court. for a writ of eert.iorari. to quash i.he»..in1pL1gne;d notification Annexu.re--D and for other reliefs. H Heard argunieni,s on both the side and perused the cr':}t,ire writ papers.

rww"

,,/ (3

4. It is not in dispute thaé: Sy.No.6'7/2 anEé'*-£38 are converted from agricultural purpose to 1'1o1)_+ag'i"i{é;ilttiral purpose prior to the p1'e1i1m'nary .r'1otifie21'£.i(')n Further it is seen from the reeo1*d"t'hat'sor::ie o."_the petitior1'.e1's7. have purchased the sites in q'uestAioii::'pri'o1* notification dated iinai notification dated .19v.}2V.I97'5';'" faﬂee"'-oi?"it. the final notification is issued aiiieijet from the date of preliminary notii't.eatio;n'.":' the impugned preliminary" '~Anne2:_ure~Rw1 and the final notiﬁ<r._ation_' ativiA1111ex;11'e:$Ri2_ stiands lapsed.

5. ' ._'I'.he VIea"r'ned_.°C'~.onnsel for the respondents contend that as early as on the respondents have taken possression of t4hevv--.1.a..:=:ds in qtiesiion. But the awards are 'passeci=.__one-.2809.19'?'8. Again this material on record e:3ta.'r3'1ishe:~§j:IiA}f: fact that the aileged mahazar taking possession had <:orn.e into existence much earlier to the passing of the awmfd. Even the mahazar drawn for having taken possession do not inspire eonfidenee in the Court' with regard to the mariner in which it was tzikeii. Even if the posses_s_i_.on w:a.s taken under the II1'c:'Lh£-12211' as early as 011 15.1.1. 1975§'tifi.ei§".i.hey should have prevented the petitioners ﬁ'o'rh7 CQi1€._tI'l1_tTtiI1g buildings. Ii' really the -respor1cients_,har;I_ _ they should have protected the A. allowing" any unauthorised eot_is't'rzLictVi'o'I-ito ye_oit1:e ..on it on the other hand, the n1at:eri'_si:-oiiuifecofd that the petitioners on the o11:£1"1<;;§y'ssfgyeteedys in their favour got the katha transferred " taxes and some of them residing with their faniiiies have not taken any action againskix/the _ they have aiiowed them to peaeefuiiy ehjoy the sites yvhieh they have purchased. 6, It is 'set----t--1-ed position of iaw that on isstiiiig Section V 1=F5"1ioi.ifieati'oti the iands acquired vests with the Government, In 'ifiistant'*e2ise the Section 16 Notiﬁcation at Annexure~D was issued iun.._t.1'1e year 2000 was after iapse of 25 years. There is no » ex§:isi1at.iozi for the inordi.1iat:e deiay. 7'. in iderltical Ci1'CU111Sl.£-IIECGS, 'this Court in' the Case of 1). NARAYANAPPA Vs. THE STATE reported in ILR 2005 KAR 295, c011side1.j¢:d"ﬁhe:I.ia*ll3:fi'i.;:1;;t.e delay in issumg '11oE'1'ficatior1 m1de:[9 SelC§ilo.,I1l'<.1EEf2.}{"allawing Vlihe pur(:hase1"s to put up CoI1si1juc{.iof1'._21ﬁrl f_i.n.z-,11l1yAh'eld thlétt the acquisition proceedings are lapsedand (i€CVl'r','t~T_€_"Cl the de'r1101itidn of S'EI'L1Cl',U.l'€S as illegal. &

8. For the reasons s:,at-2:1} iﬁV«.lVrm2g,jar1appa's case, this writ petition is I.iable i.Q...be..:iI10w¢:;1_. l the following (1') Wriif petitignis, hereby allowed.

(ii) T}1ell"z'm}0L¢glfie_dll'erdefidaied 06.03.2000 at Annexure~D is . « llereby .

.(i:'1i«).. _V ;:24VziFe~£irj1in.an_; noi.;'ficar1'on dared 21.11.1974 and the _«fih€223.10E*§fieat.'ior1 dated 19.12. 1975 are declared as having 4' beerllapsed and it is confined in respect. Qf' petitioners .0 A~ ofily.

ﬁt _ 2' 'an .-/

(iv) ksp/~ The demoiiiion of structures on the sites b€i0fig.r'fzgV.'EQ the peaiizioners is iliegal, comfrary and Iziglg"

respondents are directed to ziestorea 1s.'_':e'jﬁOssessio:n.VQf_ii'ie . sites in question to the pefitio%'?.ers[._" Cirdered

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court