Karnataka High Court
Smt N Revathi vs The Assistant Commissioner on 7 February, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.25877 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.24533 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.24535 OF 2017 (KLR-LG) C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.25896 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.26163 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.26244 OF 2017 (KLR-LG) C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.26756 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.27340 OF 2017 (KLR RR/SUR)
C/W WRIT PETITION NO.29059 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)
C/W WRIT PETITION NO.50426 OF 2019 (KLR-LG)
IN W.P. NO.25877 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1. SMT N REVATHI
W/O M V RAMASWAMY RAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 551,
KOTHANUR DINNE,
J P NAGAR 8TH STAGE,
UTTARAHALLIL HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560078
2. SMT N REKHA
D/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 25/1,
-2-
KOTHANUR DINNE,
J P NAGAR 8TH STAGE,
UTTARAHALLIL HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560078
3. SRI N DAMODHARA
S/O T NARASIMHULU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 14,
SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSS ROAD,
BENDRE NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560070
4. SRI M CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE N MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 140/2,
MANJUNATH ROAD, 2ND BLOCK,
T R NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560028
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B S RADHANANDAN , ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION
K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560009
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA)
-3-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.5.2017 PASSED
BY R-1 ON HIS FILE AT ANNEX-A; GRANT COST OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.24533 OF 2017
BETWEEN
S C GOKARNA
S/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA S N
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.006, RAHEJA CHAMBERS,
MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR;
SRI. B.R. SRIVATSA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
D.C.COMPOUND, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009.
-4-
5. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H.ROAD,
SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
6. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
7. SMT. LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
D/O LATE VENKATARAJU
R/AT NO.7, 1ST CROSS, 8TH MAIN
PUTTENAHALLI PALYA, 7TH PHASE,
J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI. G MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 108-K OF
THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT ON THE FILE OF THE R-3
VIDE ANENX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD.26.05.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-B
AND ETC.,
IN W.P. NO.24535 OF 2017
BETWEEN
C MUNIREDDY
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
NO.2, NEXT TO GOVT HOSPITAL,
-5-
ARAKERE, IIM POST
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 076
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.K.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR;
SRI. CHANDRAKANTH PATIL K, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
D.C.COMPOUND,
BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.
5. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H.ROAD,
SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
6. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING
-6-
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
7. SMT. LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
D/O LATE VENKATARAJU
R/AT NO.7, 1ST CROSS, 8TH MAIN
PUTTENAHALLI PALYA, 7TH PHASE,
J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
R6 SERVED; SRI. H.L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. G. MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
ANNEX-A, PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 108-K OF
THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT BY THE R-3 AND QUASH
THE ORDER DTD.26.5.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-B
AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO.25896 OF 2017
BETWEEN
SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
"SOBHA", NO.51/5,
SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD (ORR)
DEVERABESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST
BANGALORE 560 103.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
MRS. V. PADMAVATHI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAITHRA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR;
SRI. KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
-7-
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER
BANGLAORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
2ND FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVANA,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 009
3. TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH T ALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVANA,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 009
4. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H.ROAD,
SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
6. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED SUO-MOTU PROCEEDING INITIATING BY R-2 ON
8.2.2017 IN CASE / PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 136(2) OF THE
-8-
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (ANNEX-A) AND ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS THEREON AND ETC.
IN W. P. NO.26163 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1. SRI DR SATISH GOVINDAIAH
S/O.G.GOVINDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.657, 3RD BLOCK,
5TH CROSS, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560034.
2. SMT.DR.CHITHRA RAMU
W/O.DR.SATISH GOVINDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.657, 3RD BLOCK,
5TH CROSS, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560034.
3. SRI SHRIDHAR HEGDE
S/O.ANANTH G HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.S-1, 2ND FLOOR,
NO.114, HAVYAKA APARTMENTS,
1ST MAIN ROAD, ANUGRAHA LAYOUT,
2ND STAGE, BILEKALLI, BANGALORE-560076.
4. SRI SRINIVASAPPA
S/O.LATE. ESHWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.19, 6TH C CROSS,
GOURAVNAGAR, J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560078.
5. SRI NIRANJAN SHETTY
S/O.LATE M.B.SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
-9-
RESIDING AT NO.702, SEA-NYMPH,
GREEN FIELDS, A.B.NAIR ROAD,
JUHU, MUMBAI-400049.
6. DR K V KIRAN
S/O.K.N.VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ELITE PROMENADE,
FLAT NO.B6-803, PUTTENAHALLI,
J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560078.
7. DR SHILPA KIRAN
W/O.DR.K.V.KIRAN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ELITE PROMENADE,
FLAT NO.B6-803, PUTTENAHALLI,
J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560078.
8. SRI SUBBA REDDY
S/O.LATE. P.V.KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.303, MAHAVEER CLASSIC,
1ST MAIN, SHEYADRI EXTENSION,
PANDURANGA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560076.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANANTHA NAGARAJ K, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560009.
-10-
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560009.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
...RESPONDETNS
(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.5.2017 PASSED
BY R-1 ON HIS FILE IN LND/RA(S)18/2016-17 AT ANNEX-G AND
COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.,
IN W. P. NO.26244 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1. SRI. BALAJI K
S/O K KRUSHNAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.41, 5TH TEMPLE STREET,
13TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGLORE-560 003
2. SRI K SINIVASMURTHY
S/O KRUSHNAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.41, 5TH TEMPLE STREET,
13TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
2(a) SMT. RASHMI R S
W/O LATE K. SRINIVASMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
-11-
2(b) MASTER RAKSHITH
S/O LATE K. SRINIVASMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER SMT. RASHMI R.S
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.41, 5TH TEMPLE STREET
13TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560003.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PAPEGOWDA B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD.BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
2ND FLOOR,K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.5.2017 AT ANENX-A PASSED BY
R-3 AND DIRECT RESPONDENT TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONERS IN THE REVENUE DOCUMENTS AND ETC.
-12-
IN W. P. NO.26756 OF 2017
BETWEEN
SRI A M RAMARAJU
S/O LATE A S MUNISWAMY RAJU
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/A NO 143, 15TH MAIN ROAD,
JAYANAGAR, 4TH T BLOCK
BANGALORE - 560041
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R PATEL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD
BANGALORE - 09
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
KANDYA BHAVAN K G ROAD
BANGALORE - 09
4. THE TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
KANDYA BHAVAN K G ROAD
BANGALORE - 09
5. THE BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD
3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,
K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 27
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
-13-
6. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE - 01
7. SRI. ANTONY HENRY G
S/O R. GNANA PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O NO.F-2, PEARL NEST APARTMENT
NO.80, ANTHONY NICHOLAS STREET
ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU-560025
8. SRI. PUSHPAKARAN
S/O KUTTAPPAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O NO.9, 3RD FLOOR,
SANJEEVA SADAN, MUNIREDDY LAYOUT
PANATHUR ROAD, KADABEESANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560103
9. SMT. NAGARATHNA
W/O K.S. VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/O NO.175, 5TH CROSS
MARUTHINAGAR, AEROHALLI CROSS,
VISHWANIDAM POST
BENGALURU-560091.
10. SMT. REVATHI
W/O A RAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/O NO.3084, 9TH CROSS
GAYTHRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560021
11. MR. HUSEN
S/O BABA SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
-14-
R/O NO.16051, 7TH CROSS
1ST STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560078
12. SMT. T. SHARADA BAI
W/O LATE P. GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
R/O NO.50, 4TH CROSS,
VANNARPET LAYOUT
VIVEKNAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560047
13. SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA
S/O LATE S.C.NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O NO.56, P.F.LAYOUT
VIJAYNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560040
14. SMT. B. USHA BAI
W/O T.R.JAGANATHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O NO.20/1, SRI SAI KRUPA
1ST FLOOR, 10TH MAIN ROAD
4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560096
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. H.L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SEC. 108-K OF THE
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT IN CASE NO. LND RA (S)
18/16-17 ON THE FILE OF THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-P AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
26.5.2017 PASSED BY R-3 IN APPEAL NO. LND . RA(S) 18/16-17
AT ANNEX-Q AND ETC.
-15-
IN W. P. NO.27340 OF 2017
BETWEEN
SRI. N. SHASHANK KUMAR
S/O. C. NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SUSHEELA NARAYANA NILAYA,
ADJACENT TO MEENAKSHI TEMPLE,
13TH KM, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE, KANDAYA BHAVANA,
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
-16-
5. THE BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,
K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD 26.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND GRANT AN
INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER DTD
26-5-2017 ISSUED BY R-3.
IN W. P. NO.29059 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1. SMT CHIKKAMMA
W/O LATE MUNEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. SRI JUNJAPPA
DEAD BY HIS LRS
2(a) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE JUNJAPPA
AGED 40 YEARS
2(b) SMT. SAROJA
D/O LATE JUNJAPPA
AGED 27 YEARS
2(c) MADHU J
S/O LATE JUNJAPPA
AGED 23 YEARS
-17-
2(d) KUM. SANGEETHA
D/O LATE JUNJAPPA
AGED 22 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.86, SARJAPURA, THINDLU
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562107
3. SRI LAGUMESHA
S/O LATE MUNEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4. SRI MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE MUNEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
5. SRI MARAPPA
S/O LATE MUNEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
6. SMT THOPAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
7. SMT LAKSHMI
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
8. SRI LAGUMESHA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
9. SMT BHAGYA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
10. SMT SHOBHA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
-18-
11. SMT MANJULA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KOTHANURU VILLAGE,
KOTHANURU DINNE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 078
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GANESH T, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560 009
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDHAYA BHAVANA K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. B. VINAYAKA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD26.5.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY
THE R-3 AND DIRECT THE R-3 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONERS IN PLACE OF DECEASED MARA THE GRAND
-19-
FATHER OF PETITIONERS IN THE REVENUE DOCUMENTS AND
ETC.
IN W. P. NO.50426 OF 2019
BETWEEN
A RAVINDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O LATE RADHAMMA AMRUTHA RAO
NO.44, KOTTHANUOORU DINNE
J P NAGAR, 8TH PHASE
OPP D S MAX APARTMENT ROAD,
BANGALROE-560 076
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DAYANANDA PATIL S M, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MS BUILDING -560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
D.C. COMPOUND
BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN
K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009
-20-
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN
K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
5. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD
3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
6. THE LAND QCQUISITION OFFICER-2
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. H.L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-3 IN APPEAL DATED 26.05.2017
AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE ENTRIES IN
THE REVENUE RECORDS IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND
OTHERS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.87/3 AS IT
WAS PRIOR TO PASSING OF IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-21-
COMMON ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
All these writ petitions were clubbed together and disposed of by this common order since, the grievance of all these petitioners is directed against the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, invoking the powers conferred under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) or Rule 108K of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', for short).
2. Learned Senior Counsels Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, Sri.G.Krishnamurthy and learned Counsels Sri.B.S.Radhanandan, Sri.Chandrakanth Patil K, Sri.Kempegowda, Sri.Anantha Nagaraj K, Sri.Papegowda B, Sri.Ganesh T, Sri.Dayananda Patil S M and Smt.Akkamahadevi Hiremath, appearing for the petitioners have submitted that the respondent-Assistant Commissioner has either invoked the provisions of Section 136(2) of the Act initiating suo motu -22- proceedings to delete the names of the petitioners from the land revenue records or have invoked the powers conferred under Rule 108K of the Rules to cancel the orders of grant made decades ago. It is also submitted that in an earlier round of litigation where some of the lands were notified for acquisition by the State Government for the benefit of Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA, for short), similar proceedings were initiated by the then Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and some of these petitioners had approached this Court challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
3. On an earlier occasion when some of these lands were notified for acquisition, the name of the State Government was shown in the notification. Therefore, some of these petitioners approached this Court challenging the acquisition notification since they claimed to be the owners of the property and their names were not shown in the notification and on the other hand, the name of the State Government was reflected in the acquisition notification. -23- During the course of those proceedings, at the instance of the BDA, which was the acquiring body then, the Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner found favour with the petitioners by noticing that the petitioners were the owners of the lands in question and their names were reflected in the land revenue records. Therefore, it was held that the notification not reflecting the names of the owners of the land did not depict the correct position. Nevertheless, this Court noticed that some of the portions of the lands were alienated subsequent to the acquisition notifications and therefore, the challenge raised to the notifications were negative and the writ petitions were dismissed. The aggrieved petitioners approached the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble Division Bench ultimately decided the case in favour of the land owners, while holding that the notifications were issued by the State Government without showing the names of the owners of sub-divisions. The preliminary and final notifications were set aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 07.01.2005 in -24- W.P.Nos.4899-4902/1998. It is therefore the contention of the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners that the issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The learned Senior Counsels would also submit that it is clear from the previous proceedings that the subsequent proceedings initiated once again at the hands of the revenue authorities, consequent to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent-State Government for the benefit of the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, should also be held arbitrary, illegal and without any authority of law.
4. In another set of case, however, after the subsequent land acquisition notification being issued for the benefit of BMRCL, the Assistant Commissioner has invoked the powers conferred under Rule 108K of the Rules, for cancellation of the grant made in favour of the land owners. The impugned orders have been passed canceling the grant which were made decades ago. It is also the contention of the -25- learned Counsel Sri.B.S.Radhanandan that the name of his client i.e., the petitioner in W.P.No.25877/2017 is not even reflected in the impugned orders. It is therefore contended that even when no notice is served on the petitioner and no opportunity is given to the petitioner, no specific orders are passed in respect of the land in question, the authorities have highhandedly entered the property and demolished the compound walls of the layout. There are also individual sites owners in that case.
5. In many of these cases, impleading applications are filed at the hands of such individual site owners and other persons who lay claim to ownership over portions of the land and therefore, they have sought for impleadment in these proceedings. All the impleading applications pending consideration of these writ petitions are formally allowed. Learned Counsels for the petitioners are directed to carry out amendment in the cause title accordingly.
6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in some of these proceedings, original suits have been filed and -26- in some of the cases competent civil Courts have decided the rights of the parties regarding ownership.
7. Learned Senior Counsels and other learned Counsels for the petitioners have also brought to the notice of this Court that several other writ petitions or proceedings are initiated by some of the petitioners herein, challenging the Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
8. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels, other learned Counsels for the petitioners, learned Counsels for the impleading applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-authorities and having perused the petition papers this Court finds that although the proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities be it , the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, invoking suo motu powers conferred under Section 136(2), thereafter Section 136(3) of the Act or under Rule 108K of the Rules, have been questioned in these writ proceedings. By virtue of the impugned orders passed by the authorities, the names of the land owners are either sought to -27- be deleted from the land revenue records or the orders of grant made years ago have been set aside. The orders have been passed on the premise that these are government lands. It is necessary to notice that in the impugned orders what have been set aside is the entries made in the revenue records or cancellation of the original grant orders. Nevertheless, the foundation for initiation of proceedings, whether it is under Section 136(2) or under Rule 108K of the Rules, is that these lands belong to the State Government.
9. This Court has been noticing and has expressed its anguish in several of its judgments passed recently that if the claim is that these lands are government lands, then the request for initiation of action should have come from the State Government. The revenue authorities are not State Government. They are not even custodians of the government lands. On the other hand, the revenue authorities be it, the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioners have been passing orders invoking the suo motu power conferred under Section 136 of the Act or Rule 108K of the Rules and -28- thereafter, revisional orders are passed under Section 136(3) of the Act, without there being any request made by the Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department.
10. It is by now well settled that the revenue authorities have no power to decide the title of the properties. The same has been reiterated by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Jayamma and Others Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue and Others - 2020(1) KLR 213 (FB). If at all there is a dispute regarding title, it should be decided only by a competent civil court. Noticing these aspects, this Court in the case of Sri.Ramanjinappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, in W.P.No.2241/2022 decided on 03.02.2022, while setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners, directed the acquiring body through the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to refer the dispute of title to the Reference Court in terms of Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') -29-
11. This Court has also passed several orders setting aside such orders passed by the revenue authorities, who had cancelled the orders of grant made several years ago. This Court relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN /VS./ FATMABAI IBRAHIM - (1997) 6 SCC 71, and in JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT /VS./ D.NARSING RAO AND OTHERS - (2015) 3 SCC 695, where it was held that even where limitation is not prescribed and suo-motu powers are invoked for setting aside an order, the same should be done within reasonable time.
12. Having considered the cases before this Court and having observed the similarity of these cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that since there is a dispute raised regarding the title of the property, the matter requires to be referred to the Reference Court in terms of Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act. If the State Government is of the opinion that these are not Government lands, then the State -30- Government shall appear before the Reference Court and say so.
13. On the other hand, if the State Government has collected any material to contest the title, it shall be entitled to do so before the Reference Court. This Court also noticed that there are some impleading applications filed in some of the writ petitions in these matters. Those impleading applicants are either claiming as individual site owners or have laid separate claims in respect of portion of the property. Nevertheless, all the disputed questions of title are required to be decided by the competent civil court, in the reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act. Opportunity should be given to all the persons who lay claim to the title of the properties in question.
14. In some of the cases, another ground of attack is that the Award should have been passed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, where the land owners would have a better deal. Some of the petitioners may -31- have sought for enhancement of the compensation by initiating appropriate proceedings. Therefore, if such proceedings have already been initiated at the hands of the petitioners, the same shall continue with the rights of such parties not being affected by the order passed by this Court while referring the matter under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act for deciding the title of the properties for apportionment of the compensation amount.
15. In W.P.No.29059/2017, the petitioners and respondent No.4 have filed a compromise petition. The petitioners have agreed that compensation amount can be released in favour of respondent No.4. A copy of the compromise petition shall also be filed before the Reference Court and Reference Court shall take note of the same.
16. Needless to observe that if a competent civil court has decided the rights between the parties, the same may be placed before the Reference Court and the Reference Court will have to take note of such declaration already having been made by the competent civil court.
-32-
17. For the reasons stated above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petitions are allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned orders in these matters passed by the Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners which have gone against the petitioners herein are quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, is hereby directed to refer the dispute under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act, to Reference Court. During the course of these proceedings, in terms of the directions issued by this Court the compensation amount is said to have been decided before this Court. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is also permitted to withdraw the compensation amount -33- deposited before this Court and redeposit the same before the Reference Court.
(iv) The reference shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(v) The Registry is hereby directed to release
the said compensation amount so
deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer before this Court.
(vi) The question of limitation shall also be kept open along with all other contentions.
(vii) The revenue entries shall be restored as they were before the impugned orders were passed.
(viii) The Reference Court shall permit all the parties who are interested to lay claim to the compensation amount and for apportionment.
-34-
(ix) The parties herein, whether it is petitioners
or impleading applicants or the State
Government shall appear before the
Reference Court and Reference Court shall endeavor to dispose of the matters as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four months from the date when the reference is taken up after consequent to appearance of the parties.
(x) The action initiated against the revenue
authorities in terms of the interim
directions given by this Court shall be
taken to its logical ends and action taken report shall be submitted to this Court.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL