G Nallareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

G Nallareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2008

Bench: Manjula Chellur, B.V.Nagarathna

 

OUR
1-«MGM COURT OF KARNMFAKA HEGRCOURT OF KARNAYAKA H§GH C
I WWHWMW,' mum MHUMA .s,,e»r- AAKNAIAKA H§GH COURT OF KARNATAKA

IN mas HIGH counr or Kaanaxaﬁa 4" "

CIRUIT BENCH AT GUL3ARg3*,.*'

DATED $315 was 25"'nAx«oF~Nbv3M32ﬁ 2ce857

BEFORE? iv

wax KON'BLE MRS Jtsixcz MAHJULg:cgE$iuR"

was ﬁON'BL§'ME$ a;§)a$q3RArxnA
wA.no.;26?/2éeé(iA¢ﬁ£s;"
BETWEEN: :%";7« =1 i;"x' = " am.

GgNallaréddy; : ._*,'t i
S,/0 Lai_:Mje;_ Gé;z;g'a;i;+:;g7az~»._2€a,gann:a,.. 
Age: 52 yéazs, Ggc: Agriculture,
R/o R3ichurV¢ity;*_"<_"~"
Taluk and,Diatri¢t Raichur.

*. = . , ~_ ~ .. Appazmamws
{By Sri,R.S.si§hapurker, Adv.)

 :

1i,"éta£e ¢£VKéﬁnataka,
By';ts Sectetary,

Department af Housing and

u_4'gyrban'De?elopment Autherity,
"xVMks,Bu1iding,
V. &L}E2;ng'LaJ.ore-569 001 .

,  K2f The Urban Development authority,
  Eaichur,

"aVRep. by its Camissioner,
\f0ffica cf the Urban Developmnt Authority,

Raiahur .



mandate under the statute i.e. not 

the substantial portion of the sche:~;§§.:"  V'

convincing an award. within :"£*$z¢*««ye';a.r$< 

date of final notification.

6. Acquisitiqn p}V.fC-€',%VVVe3'E2(3.i'I;vQ"S hi  to be
challenged by thé t T  :1::e;r:eunder . The
learned Sing;'L_e-- Qarrit petition
mainly   lashes and so
also   either by virtue
of  '.:V.V"'~:'..§a1g-'gminc: right, title or

intereist, 4' V25.§:'""'tfansferred to the present

petiti¢ne§.i iﬁaréféfé, in the absence of the

 «eicsjkwtiile. c>*»§:V*£;Vé"zi*"'V ahaiienging the acquisition

 Mae present appellant would not get

  5:to seek quashing of the proceedings.

In srﬁhgﬁ words, according to the learned Single

 AV  the appellant being subsequent purchaser

iwoiiild not get any right to ahailenge the

H aaquisition proceedings and a. detailed discussion



CQMRT 0? KARNATAKA HHGM Cmumi-'ck? mﬂmmmm mam Comm 0? KARNATAKA HZGH COURT OF KARNAIAKA Hie-H COURT OF KMNATAKA HSGH comm"

11

any way notified or was informed 
acquisitien proceedings either by  M
mmer or by the 2:144 responcienit 
of the fact that at col.No.12i':'.91:?i.A,A_i£iie

furnished. by the sacond» ._,{"e:;f.ponAde;_1tV  " V

indicate that as car; 2eeeAi~_-_-_g:3"'jg;.,V__ .._u;h§~ Q: the
erstwhile owner  " as the person
in posseasion and erijicfxxﬁzanﬁ. In
that View    ifrefxjvv';iir§,V.f$atisfie& that
the  'x::<:::>'V:':~':i;;r.if<$a:'as:;i.«<V$§z:VV' to come to know
about   He could get
a. righ£'~.t¥>.  only when he is

awaxe_ or  n€>t:iV.V<':e  <55 the said proceedings.

"'~..vThe.r:fe§iSo;:'_je1,.__«:ie3.ﬁj,i*:-.3:-;c3; laches cannot be a ground to

'V raj é-:31: the 

 ?a{ﬁ:*a-11 of the G.Jaya:::am Reddjws case

.;;fe«p¢;te§1",:.n 2oe5(3) xccx 1764 reads as under:

"It is true that the Court helps
the vigilant and not the indolent.

Iﬁelay in znoving an application is also

E

_/



I1 uvuna Jur l\.I'-\l\IVlMII-\!U\ I'II\.7l'1 LUUKI U!' KHKNRIAKA HIGH COURT OF       

E3

reasonable time fram the date cf 

erder challenged, and an undue f?:g'::-- *' 

his part will ciebar him £re:p__,v_'g--.?jr;'tV:i;r;g

which proceedings musf:""§be,bi:cugh t'v 

it depends upon the ;f.'a.i'.:ts;";:i;:1*; eé.ch~ 

'fhe measure of delay :i..n a.. 'speciefi-e.  <:é.seT;
depends upon the Vn--a.:fiz:;e 55 . t1*2.e:"_:
involved. It is nwf-wax'; séttzegt _.+§.ha.t
the prina:;.ple:_'é:>f ihclgeé --«._ap§$;1.:i.es even to
writ petitions' .AA\_.1f:i. e._'La1:ion of
fundamen?-'$1 5§'i7Q'}}t}§:. -.,.jt,1R:L:§5ﬁ%." 'thE facts
and  <>.3'::_'  .._ff£i¥a°"'ease clearly
  V":e£"'--:bAun:éue delay, an

Va;<;pV.1.i'c.:;éﬁa*E':1.:;::__unée3:.__ Att.ic;3..§ 226 would not

be _ei:;i::,..«:;:;,,=.=;a_ t;®".;_7elief. All that the

 Cczujr'-tlv':*hés,_ Vi::::'\see is him to relief

eialikzgseciv  However delay, by

;' ~.ii;se3.f;» _.i..'s  net 3 grouné to reject writ
 §;e_t3;.i;Aion.  ""§.'IiV an appropriate case, the

 _V £:of2:r't_"1a;-_r.y condone the delay because of

 ¢1reeéIs.enefihat the Court may not

enqgzsirev. .ix'1j»f;e belated ané stale clajmrss

j is zic;3t;7.avrule ef law, but a. rule cf
 Jjga3:a>e§:tiee.. based on sound. and preper
V"'exer:eise of ciiscretion to be exercised
 by the High Court under Article 226,
"  there is no any inviolable rule

VV that whenever there is delay, the Court



2-: Laura 01-' mnmnrmcn HIGH COUR-T..OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNAYAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH coum" or KARNATAKA HIGH com

M

just necessarily refuse to er1°te;;.'§: ¢:,,iV. t*;. ~T. 
the writ petit:i..c>n."' '  

12. Then coming to the} c,{g1;a=,:'5i;i;£?;1' AAft>'f 4'g33:'§¥:i€:;$ﬁ's

of acquisitian being  *:':<_:*g1*:§)Z'..é"i:Ae;s '-- a.nc1_.Y::.:r.:é " 

pertaining to the p::eseiti't:V'3.az1<i  c£¢?;S§ited,
it would mat comei'   1w'ff§;tV'VvﬁPetition
seeking quashing of #'n::1A1Ve" If at all
the present,  i-'er enhancazaent
of  5*' "ﬁrerson interested
in the    a   had approached the
Land " for claiming his items
fox    then it wauld be a

d;;£fe";m,nt siﬁﬁaitién but nothing of the soxt is

" foifthéaiémiﬁg before 12:5.

1.3;  }Ii'iien coming to the 3"' argument of the

 xesyénfiéent that change of khatha in the name of

 s_eé':"g~nd respondent authority and notificaticm

-'Ex ifmcler seation 16(2) of the Lani Acquisition Act weuld corne in the way c>f quashing the preceedings we do not Ezesitate to hold that neither: the

-I COURT OF KARNAYAKA HEGH COQET KARNATAKA H¥G§'f COURT OF KARNATAKA IMHGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGH COURT OF KARNAEAKA i-MGR COME 15 change of khatha nor the n¢tificatia§aEuﬁdé:& section 16(2) would came in the way ofkﬁampiiincé i- of nbnwcomliance of statutcr§ £equixem§ﬁ§_ﬁnitﬁe part of the authoritieﬁ ccncerﬁed to the eﬁtiiés, in the REC no doubt hVai:§._Vpre$Vii*rg3ti§{rie: but"? even if we take iinte ~d§nsid@ra£ion_ tie said entxies it woulé iﬁﬁicaﬁ§ﬁ§hi£i§§lyV£or the year 2335 as per :.~ms.:_.at.«;.;--,r,::a:"v:..::é>;'1.22;."»i,¢%£e§§"'.:S 3.2605 khatha aama to }b€:4$§%3§§§i€i% _§3§ii$§m§ of the seccnd respondezjgti *ii.f;1~;§; _:"i'nc;f.ificat:.o;: and 16 {2} noti£icaiiéﬁ;V9£L't$§I_£andW Acquisition Act were nmch ﬁghéaxiiériﬁﬁiﬁﬁﬂﬁ. In that Viaw 65 the mattax, éaiﬁawgrgﬁmﬁi alsc 'will mat assist the i"-.rééﬁaaéangmauﬁhétiﬁy.

14 the cther hand, as a.,}.read.y stated abcva{x.there was na occasion for the presant iziappeliint to knﬁw the acquisition proceedings ané u"g=zi7"éA:A'1 atherwise, with the orders in the writ VV"§etiti0n §o.6271!2@66 dated 29.5.98. As a matter of fact, entire acquisition yraceedings lapsed I COURT OF' KARNAJAKA HEUI-i LUUK1. 'qr IKAKNRIHRH mun uuum ur nnmunnnnn ruun I...umu ur Iunmunannn rnun LUUKI ur IKAKNI-ll!-\!\A l1ﬂ..7I"i LUUK 16 for want of campliance statute.

neither tha agpellant nor the erstw§;ie.¢%hér?¢f 'a the lané in question were ﬁé§é£eatheﬁC§u:t} thé Court did not give any reliéﬁliﬁ re$yg¢t*d£itﬁé éisputed. iand. measuring: i1_ ac%eg;._ ﬁﬁ§ﬁgh§ the authoxities tried tq chaixéﬁgé the juagme$t dated 29.5.1993 quashingx£ﬁ¢Aéqﬁﬁggifgegvgroceedings in respect of 3?'gun$é$;:@ﬁ§yWﬁéﬁe§ﬁ5£ successful. When saqﬁi;§%@§;a$igﬂﬂ§1§@g#' Qﬁers aould get relief ____ "%t ﬁ§ﬁ§ iH§n%% *$f: ﬁhg Court, when the appel§anﬁ x§bma%K'uﬁ§§xu.the similar category of perscﬁ w§ysh§ﬁ§& ﬁ%Jbé deprived of the similar tre;.nt"'a£'-£héV ﬁénds of the Court is the °_gdn§entidn«Qf'fhé appellant. The ﬁivision Bench 'T 3ﬁ§§m§a§ 63 this Court reported in 2605(3) KQCR i?$4 :$ %3§ CASE or G.JaxA3AM nanny vs. STATE aw Kgxﬁhféga AND 0EHER3 would some ta the rescue sf v»£he appellant regarding his argumnt of similarly Ayiaﬁed aggrieved yersan. ﬁaragraph 9 of the said £eads as under:

' '*"'V"' V' """"'-""l'|nH HIV" wvvn! .-vs w-um':-unav-u u-uses-1 uvwna vr nnmvnu-um; rllvn V.-\JlJI\l Ur Nuctvnlnnﬂ rlt _ " UH \..um-u VI" IKAKNAEAJKA ﬁlbﬂ LUUH 1'?

Paraw9: ﬁaving' heard the le§;ﬁé§ W Counsel far the jparties, the q&&sti§g »:' that arises for cur decisian is w§ethe£, thé opinion cf the 1earhé&"$ingla'ﬂﬁdgg"

with regard to the def} ;ay4--. Taizd"~1_éLqi;es, impugneé in this Fwrit éyﬁeal £¢a§,_he; faulted on any pex£:::V;}.'sib1e r_:_1:?:>t::1<i. . :5 the opinion Qf the l@3§aé& Sin§l€,Ju3ge with regard ha dg1$y§aﬁ& 1§£hes cannct he uphel¢, it ;§5thi$ ¢our£ in the case of Ba$h3 £su§kai:ﬁn§V£§¢1ju§gments of thi§_ £gﬁ§ﬁq'r§§é:;e¢ it§V é$ove. The appégiaﬁé c§nn§t&b§"tréa£ed differently §ééau$é, 'E39' 3§peiiéh€$/petitioners in :th&' ab@#e Vga3é£' and the appellant héxéin axe siﬁalafly circumstanced and __tha£¥the lan£s §é1onging to all of them »7 tétall§"=measﬁring 39 acres 24 guntas v;:;:§a a<;quired far the benefit ef the 3*"

u¥iﬁeﬁpﬁaﬁgntwbeneficiary under the sae 'bf seI<:;'.%:;:,¢§::' 4:1; nati§ic:at3'..on and Section §{l§'ﬁeclaxati§n."

iﬁ, It is also weli settled that on asceunt lapses partaining to the complianae of statutaxy pravisians of 231 enaatmnt results in /"

/7 lapsing of the acquisition pt0ceeding3* The RNQTAKA MGR QOURT QF KARNATAKA. !=*i§G§~§ CIQUR? 0%: KARNATAKA MGM COURT OF KARNATAKA HHGH COURT OF KAWNEATAKA MGR COUW CQUE? OF KR ' _; .

2.} tight and. interast. The preliminary §énd .f£3$l notification. of acquisition progeééingﬁ _ are, "

quashed in so far as land in Sukﬁey Noiﬁﬁé" ,T Kvs*

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

G Nallareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2008

Bench: Manjula Chellur, B.V.Nagarathna