Karnataka High Court
Venkatappa S/O Late Muninga, vs State Of Karnataka on 30 September, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 (1) AIR KAR R 142
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
MISC.W.No.1658/2010
LN A
Writ Petition Nos.22'79'7--22818_of 2009-
BETWEEN: A A A A A
1. Venkatappa,
IN THE IEKIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO
DATED THIS THE 30"': DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
Te
/ M 'V
//
Tm: HoN'BLr: MILJUSTICE D.V.SHYLENDRA _
S / 0 late Muninga,
Aged about 70 years,
Residing at: Chikkatheguru
Begur Hobli, Electroniefijity Post, ,
Bangalore--560 100.
Chinnamma, '
Aged about 48-years, V
W/0 late Chf_kka1}Ra;nappa_,'
Chikkathogui' U5 Village;-._V--A. __ '*~.
Electronic City Post," ' ._
Banga1Ure.+5€:.0
AsWath.Re--ddy; _ "
Aged abé)*11_t 49 years, = _ A _.
S/0' late Kad.irap.pa Raddy,
Re.$idiI1g at: Chjkkathvoguru Village,
E1eC*t1"g>nicet.City Po'st;"
'B.anga1o1fe;56O 100.
.. "I<:.»r3op.é11«tt.1§e£1ayt;.»
"Aged about years,
S'/p late Kadirappa Reddy,
Residing at: Chikkathogum Village.
Electrorlic City Post,
nBa_In1ga1ore--560 100.
4- _ Rajanna,
Aged about 46 years,
PS/o Bin Nanjappa,
Residing at: Door No.88.
Manjunatha Enclave,
Airport Main Road,
HAL, Konena Agrahara,
Bangalore-560 O 17.
6. J anardhana,
Aged about 44 years,
S / o Bin Nanjappa,
Residing at: Door No.88,
Manjunatha Enclave,
Airport Main Road,
HAL, Konena Agrahara, 7
}3anga1ore--560 017.
7. Shashidharan,
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Bin Nanjappa, .
Residing at: Door No.88,"'~..
Manjunatha Enclave, " '
Airport Main Road,
HAL, Konena Ag'r'a1_'1ara_','
Bafiga1ore--55,U<0?E~7;
8. Nagaraj, * = V
Aged about 36years,
V S/yo_§BinzNanja'ppa,
" '~ Residing at: Door 'N'o;8V8,
, , Manjunath_a'Enc1ave,
, Airpo,rt=Ma1'r1 Road,
Konena.Agrahara,
Banga1o_re'-«S60 017.
*9, Thimmegowda,
_ ' Aged about 65 years,
S/ o'=1a1:e Muniswarnyappa,
Residing at: Chikkathoguru Gate.
Begur Hobli, Electronic City Post,
I:3anga1ore--560 100.
it " 10.Ra1:hnappa,
Aged about 65 years,
S / 0 late Lakshmaiah,
3
Residing at: Chikkathoguru Village,
Electronic City Post,
Bangalore--56O 100.
l1.Srir1ivas Reddy,
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Konda Reddy,
Residing at: Chikkathogum,
Electronic City Post,
Banga1ore--560 100.
I2.Prakash Reddy,
Aged about 35 years, 1
S / o Konda Reddy,
Residing at: Chikkathoguru, .
Electronic City Post, A
Bar1galore--560 100.
13.Babu Reddy,
Aged about_25:years';' ~ '
S/o Kor.1da_
Residing at:i'C1VhikkatliOgur'u,
Electronic CityV'i?o'st,'i --. '
Bangalore-560' 1_O0__j~ V_ ~.. ,_
14.Bayy_a Raddy' A _
Aged about 65 years,
" V' _ S/'O 1ate.ANarasimhaiahV,
, S/,0 I{0ndaReddy,
_ Chikkathogur_u'-Village,
" B'egurV'E~lo'_b.1i,Electronic City Post,
Ba.rigalore¥eES_8O 100.
"l.5.Bayya Reddy,
Aged about 68 years,
A "C" S/o"~«1ate Munireddy,
S '/''o Konda Reddy,
Chikkathoguru Village,
" Begur Hobli, Electronic City Post,
Bangal0re--560 I00. PETITIONERS
(By Sri Aswin Prabhu S. Adv. for
M/s.Just Law. Advs.)
AND:
1.
State of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha,
Banga1ore~56O O01,
Represented by its Chief Secretary 81
Chairman, Empowered Committee (BMICPJ. H
2. Department of Commerce & industries,' ' .
Government of Karnataka,
Vikas Soudha, Banga10re--56O O01, ' _
Represented by its Principal 'S_ec.retary;v. ,
3. Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Board. " *
BMICP, 3 / 2 Kheny BuI1«di.ng,l1St;CrosS',« _
Gandhinagar, Banga1ore--5_60 G09,' _, C _
Represented by its Chief Executive Officer.[.'' 'C
4. Departm_enfof 'Ptzbiic
GoVernmentn_ Kafnataka, _
Vikas7Soudh,a,"i:3ango1ore~'E:6O O01.
Represented by its :Pr_inc__ipa,I Secretary.
5. Departments of Hoiising and
_ Development,
' V' Governme;1tofKar'i'1ataka,
~. , Vikas _SQn.r,1Aha, BangaIore~56O 001,
'Represented .,by--its Principal Secretary.
Depbartment Revenue,
Gdvemment of Karnataka,
Vikas Soudha, Bangaiore~56O 001,
..Represented by its Principal Secretary.
";_V1\/iiiiistry of Environment and Forests,
Government of India,
* -~Pa1'yaVaran Bhavan.
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New De1hi~11O 003.
Represented by its Secretary.
8. Karnataka State Pollution Controi Board,
Parisara Bhavan,
Church Street.
Banga1ore--56G 001,
Represented by Chairman.
9. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor
Enterprises Ltd.,
1, Midord Gardens,
0ff.:M.G.Roacl, Bangalore,
Represented by its Managing Director. ' '
10.Nandi Economic Corridor
Enterprises Ltd.,
1, Midord Garciens.
Off.:M.G.Roacl, Bangalore, _
Represented by its Managing" Direct-gor." " - ._
11.Station House Ofiicer, V
Police Station, .
Electronic _ RV
Banga1ore--56.G . I j. V RESPONDENTS
(By M/s.Ashok.VHam,aha1ii. mar. '
for 2-1. 2.4 the & i-xerox;-.
Sri P.V.¢.3handra$1fneka¥x.', Adv.. for R»-3.
Sri M.Ma';dhva'ohar'.l for R-7'. '
Sri D.Nagaraj; Adv, fa-r'R8'.-,_ "
M/s.King 8t=Partridge, "Aci's!s'.' for R--9.
Sri Narayanaswatoy. Admfor "R--10,
Sri C.§i.ria.ndakumar,V Adinfor proposed R~12,
< ._Srl. Sondhi,fidsat.for proposed R-13.
A . Srig Dhyan Chinnappa. Adv.for
M[s;c:est'1aw_ Farmers, Aevs. for proposed R-14.
]Sri.1i.S;Y.é:ikatara_j;1ana. Adv.for R-15.
Sari K--.§2°:asar;'ma'Shetty,'Adv.for proposed R-- 16,
Srishreyas Jayasimlxa, Adv. for
V _ M/s..EZB=f& Partners, Advs. for proposed R-17,
#9315
" M1sc.W. 1858 of 2010 is filed under Order E Rule 10
I' read with Article 226 of the Constitution of india, praying
to permit the petitioners to implead the proposed respondents
in W.P.No.22797»818/2009.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
1. Writ petitioners are 15 in number and the owners of different parcels of agricultural lands Chikkathoguru village, Begur Hoblij 0 and have come up before this Cour't.__ir0_pleadiri_--glthe respondent Nos.1 to 11, seeking'the'tfo11o*0lrin.g'1*e1ijt:fs0fvTin "Issue a writ of mandamus'0'r=anyl0ther writer" order:
i} Directing the respondents'herei«n"to'_~d_elete the schedule lands of thealpetitiidnersfsfroni./,0't.'f1_e "process of acquisition and iss_1.1e'--ap;5iro-priate notification thereof, and
a) filtematixreliflt "notification N0.C1 196 SPQ 98 and 01,106 "s_§Q.'.19S:_".dated 02.06.1989 and 29.01.2003 issued Ely'-»tr_ie '12mi' Respondent under S.28(1), KIAD Act ' atllfitnnefiiure C and C1 and notification No.CI i.;,p9'6.l"S1*'Q" --98 (9.11) and 01 196 spg 98 (P) dated and 08.04.2003 issued by the 2"" Respondent "=..unde'1',nS.A28[4} of the KIAD Act, Annexure D 81 D1, respectively, in so as it applies to the petitioners.
ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents herein not to take possession of the lands of the petitioners.
iii] Declare that the lands required for the are that indicated in the letter of the Se.ei=eta:ry','.:"'PV§)'i), Government of Karnataka dated 03.06.1919» Iiiniiexure at iv} Direct the respondents to pay of't1'ie::hti:ga.tioni1vito the petitioner and grantsuch oth.e_r"'and further reiief this Hon'bIe Court deems fi't«..to*grant."' " V
2. Notice had been and status quo with regard to possession of the date of the order dated was o1*der'e'd,:Vir'hich.: reads as under:
"Issue 'emerg»entA'fn.otice' \zvi€:h"regard to Ruie. Botifithev:*parties_are' directed to maintain status quowith regardA,_1tQ»Gbtheihproperty in question."
3. Later, respondents' have appeared through their Counsel and --~ Nandi Infrastructure Corridor beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings 2 initiated Gtate Government, have filed counter. Whereas. ' 'githe otherrespondents are keeping their options open, inciuding it ifitate Government.
4. It is at this stage. application for impleading additional respondents, as many as six in number as respondent Nos.12 to 17 was filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in of the application dated 10.02.2010. The writ petition"rheroééeives had been filed on 03.08.2009. Notice had been':.ifssued::to die proposed respondents. Proposed r;esponder.1'ts' served and all of them are representedV'th.eir..V pp Counsel. C p A p A
5. I have heard the ;_1earr1ed..._Cloi1nseA1 Prabhu, appearing for the petitioners, Counsel Mr. C.K.§\Tandakumar 'fort propostedii Mr. Aditya Sondhi for No.13, Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa for proposed'. Mr. K.S.V<-rnkatararnana for proposed prespondent .'VNo.;15, Mr. K.Prasanna Shetty for .pr-pp0'sedi.'fgspondentdmfiio.16, and Mr. Shreyas Jayasimha for "pn$poé.§d. No. 17.
6- A ""'The__v'petitioners case and the relief is in the background C."-..Vti'1atpa piubiic interest iitigation in W.P.No.2922/1997 had been A rresen.ted before this Court by one Sri Sornashekhara Reddy, an Engineer, mainly for seeking an inquiry into the manner and method of the State Government having entered into 8. Frame Work Agreement with Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterpnses Ltd, and that having been preceded by some negotiatijcnpsllheld at the international level, particularly dun'.ng_ of Governor of Massachusetts in the Ulnited Statesi the capital city of Karnataka arid in therbackgroi,i.nd"of th.e°u.tro'~V up States having certain understanding and sister States in the counterpa;-'pgountriesliljg.'appears"the:{'e was a proposal for taking up joint for the purpose of helping the devsilljopment and initially two American V Company M/s-.
a project report. This had resulted yin' joeing entered into between the Government' of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor
-"'.E2nterp5r.ise-is L._in1itedsnrespondent No.9, who had. it appears 'Vsuc.ceeder1__to theinterest of consortium of companies and it was for legality of the agreement and the manner of (entering. into.Vthe same, that it calls for thorough examination "..byarx...pagency like Central Bureau of Investigation, 21 Public M Interest Litigation had been presented by the said Sri Sornshekhara Reddy.
7. The writ petition, however, came to be dismissed in terms of the order dated 21.09.1998. But it is the versionlhlofg the present petitioners that certain observations had in the course of the order which is quite lengthy andlelabioratet that the State Government having ngottmaldliered to of the original Frame Work Agreement and having chosen'~ or deviations, such development had-r.given'---- cause for another' public interest litigation being iirleseiitelti.gpbeforelthisé Court in W.P.No.45334/2004. This vn'itl'peLtition:was heard by a division Bench of _cou.:rt beldisposed of in terms of the order and as per the version of the petitioners; it l1"~eads.as" 9 ' ':37. _o3.o5V.-2005 a order passed by this Court in PIL 4_5334;'2.oo.4:
' , "~.Ai1_ India Manufacturers' Association filed WP " it -.4"~..No.45V334/2004 before this Court seeking a 9 --u§rit.1=of mandamus for implementation of the 'BMIC project as "Originally conceived and as x " per the Government order dated 20.1 1.1995"
v and findings in Sornashekara Reddy's case.
The said writ petition came to be allowed by the Division Bench of this Court (Vol.III, Annexure SS, Page 1404 of the writ petition).
The Division Bench of this Court specifically 11 directed implementation of the project "as originally conceived and upheld in H/I'. Somashekara Reddy's case and to implement the FWA in letter and spirit" (Para 2, page 1497). This is in spite of NIGEL. placing the ODP and theme alignment in the Court records. ; ----
On 24.01.2005, NIGEL filed an ajfidavit in . writ petition making the following statement: _. ' .. " ~ "It is submitted that on accoi2n't.. 9 "cf modifications in the :'al"ig'nmer.:.t Peripheral. road and shifting of link: :, A township 1 .... .. some variaa_'on/ deletion/it alterati0n/ addition of-land became necessary after detailed study.' e:~:ped.ie"nt accordingly certain survey .*1umbe'rs_ incertain new villages .--were inciaded' the scope of acquisition'? ._ Despite the same, the passed.
There is {no'};Governrnent order." nor new FWA incorporating revised scope of acquisition."
8. Thetsiim and si;ibsta.nce. of the Version of the petitioners is that the State. G0VeI'Vnrnen't~-- the present beneficiary - the 'J'n_inth':_j'respondent lxllvevre-«"'oound to carry out the directions as .V'~cLontained..'in order dated 3.5.2005 passed by this court in writ petition'.vi§i"jo...il§334 of 2004, but they are not adhering to the _ same, 'but are deviating to the detriment of the petitioners, in as I 'as, if the State Government should have adhered to the ___"'l«."0rigina1 framework agreement, the petitioners' land would not % 12 have come in for acquisition Whereas the subsequent deviation as has now been done by the State Government has resulted in the petitioners' land being acquired for the project whereas some others' land had been excluded from the arribit of acquisition though originally their lands also scope of the framework agreement. it it it
9. It is averted that the writ such developments only after. the of Information Act, 2005; that theyl_¢--9u1dv. dts_¢otré:~ or V frauds having been committedt'llin*.njtlieV"e-courseV"of'"vthe ninth respondent implementing the State Government and its agencies also..Varejw-partners in such frauds; that at [any *ill'ega1. activities having affected the petitioners' .interest..llare this court seeking for relief by ensuring' that the A' State 'Government and the ninth respondent adhere toltlielvloriginal framework agreement and as noticed and tlfiisl.:~~court in terms of the order dated 3.5.2005 passed inp_writ.i'petition No.-45334 of 2004. ggT1'z1oul:gh the proposed respondents did not figure as gifegpondents in the original petitions, they are now sought to 1%/~< 13 impleaded as additional respondents with the plea that the development such as the proposed respondents being the beneficiaries of the deviation of the scheme as they could save their lands was an information or knowledge which the petitioners have become privy and have also a much later development and therefore subsequent for impleading etc.
11. On behalf of the prop'o:sg:e*d re.sp0ndeniA theft beneficiary of independent.' acqi1i's'itio'n'uproceedingsi-'who claim that they are neither parties and respondent No.l74.:who 'beneficiary of any acquisition~~p;roceed:iiigs whofjliailp-'i«...p[ji'Chased the lands which perhaps had of acquisition proceedings but which had lvater__gixter1« and having purchased the lands .---at of tii'rie..___w1vien it was not covered under any "-_acquisition 'proceedings and such factual position having been fortified lffnolpfslobjection certificate' issued by the Karnataka Areas Development Board ~-- the third respondent to ' ..th.ese*-.w"n_.p 't petitions which is also in no way concerned either writ petitioners or outcome of the present writ petitions K I4 and therefore have strongly objected to their impleadinent as party respondent to these writ petitions.
12. Mr. Shreyas Jayasirnha, learned counsel appearing for the proposed respondent No.17 has very vehemently urgedgthat the outcome of the present writ petitions does have any bearing on their transaction certain agricultural lands from its developments have taken placeVthereaf._ter.V_and time their interest cannot be laffectedhvh therefore insofar as theyfire 'application for impleadment should be rejected
13. Subniissiojn on:fibehalf"of theproposed respondent No. 12 - by Sri Nandalturnarifl-ea1*ned__ is also for rejection of the application xinshofarl as'._the,u7proposal for iinpleading it as a .«vv.resp<_3'ri'sr1eriit is concerried; that the subject lands which V.'-_accVoI'ding__t'o 'the"petitioners were forming part of the agreement have "not beeia either handed over or allowed in favour of the 'proposedrespondent as forming part of the acquisition for the iprojeetp under the framework agreement and therefore also the ~--.lf.--ou't:come cannot have any bearing; that this respondent also M 15 has after the allotment of the land in their favour during the year 2002-03 [two parcels of land] have developed the lands considerably and the present writ petitions cannot have any affectation or hearing irrespective of its outcome, on the existing situation, as prevails in their lands. r V _
14. Insofar as other proposed respondents are learned counsel appearing for them l_1ave_ they may not be unnecessarily troubled, the court to order the applicati-in' * rejection. it it 0 1
15. I have been taken pleadings in the writ petitions,-. _a1:§plications.lpandth'e~~objections. I have bestowed my anxious con:-:irder'ation_to--.tlie submissions made at the Bar.
16. The resistancexfor-ordering the impieading application is ~'"~only twolllresprnidents i.e., respondents 12 and 17 on they are neither necessary nor proper parties etc; 0' 0 'V17. aW..1'i'cV.litigsation invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court .. _ "'q.under..Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not necessarily 16 in the nature of an adversary litigation. The jurisdiction is essentialiy one conferred under the Constitution of India on the High Court, for exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action and legisiative actions. Exanriination by the court is primarily is about the functioning of the its functionaries and not one for determining liabilities of private individuals. i if f if t
18. It may be incidentally that the approaches the court for rights which the Petitioners have,' hasbeeniinsomeflrnanner affected by an adverse action State or its functionaries. exarninatiotn priiii-ariiy";is'V to find out as to whether3acti0ns}"ordVei=s of,ppp'u_bii.c authorities are in consonance with the iegal _or 'statutory._gprovisions and the constitutional provisions, Riéxghtsloflthie petitioners may be statutory or under they Vc'ons'ti'tution. In such circumstances, the concept of adversaiyi'"litigation per Se cannot be invoked, particularly, it within the ~concept of necessary parties to a civil litigation, a ' '««.__Vlitigation»before a civil court where one party comes to the court if for relief against another private iI'idiVid1.13.iM 17 complaining that the right of the inciiv1'dual-- plaintiff is in some way affected by the action on the part of the defendant.
19. In writ litigation, petitioners, more often than not, are persons who bring a cause before the court examination primarily is as to whether the locus in the context of the relief souhghgtpfor and' they are approaching the court with any merely busy bodies misusing vonabusingx the court. if if if if 1
20. While in a public' petitions such scrutiny is deeper,_but the,_co_nce.p_t! lociis~:V..'iVsl'en1arged to such an extent"evcn:a-Vperson *\FJlf10lhalS"'IiO' interest at all can also be petitioner; to the petition being a relator action petition, in lathe ease-__of._other Writ petitions where individuals eomp'1a,in: the"'i'ig_hts are affected, the mere assertion that 'haV€._vSfOIii€f2I'ight and it is affected by the action of the State provities locus to bring the cause before the court for jrelief.f eétamination is as to whether the relief sought for V' can 'be granted or not. %/ u created! I 18
21. In this background. the persons who are responsible for the affectation ie, the State and its officers are undoubtedly necessary parties to the Writ petition. It may so happen that incidentally some other private citizens, companies etcfrriight have been benefited or had acquired some rights the examination by the court and principles of requires that a fair opportunity sh:5uld"be persons who are likely to be affected u this court. It is to fulfil this seven' who are not necessary .parties"" iitifgation'V§ are also impleaded and as to whetherlfl v"rie'ce.ssary or proper parties is always--l'a--._ on the facts and circumsta"nce--s_t.§f eagoh C-arse and"~the demarcating line being always blurred, _t11e'ref'=r;ari.n'ot_ be any hard and fast rule governing the_yquestion._v can a water tight compartment ._Be» it may, if the impression of the petitioners is thatfhthe sought for is likely to affect the interest of some jotheruuprivate' individuals also and therefore it is only fair that .. _ fitheyf are also given an opportunity by the court and are required added as party respondents, it is more in the nature of a Mo proper party being added to the proceedings than a necessary party.
23. The examination of the correctness or legality of an order or action taken by public authority does not and cannot be dependent on the actions or the attitude or private persons, and is an independent quality of the order passed by a publi.c»AAan:ti1ori.ty improved by private persons nor in souglfit be upon. V l .3 V xv" ' l
24. An opportunity having tolvvthenvé proposed respondents to have their and with the proposed'"res--po'iident;s-- l'2.Vpand 'having filed statement of objections and counsel also having made submissionsfor rejeetionu ofrthe application for the proposal to iinplealzl as Vpartyvrespondents and in the wake of the di.sCussioI1_, if such respondents are not keen in paiiie'ipatingfjinjathe proceedings before this court. they are not junderu anlyaelement of compulsion by an order of this court to
- ..C0f11'e--.and present their Versions. %
25. However, it is made clear that an order, if any, to be passed in the context of the relief sought for by the petitioners in the present Writ petitions, if can have a bearing or affectation on other private persons, that cannot be a consideration for giving rise to a cause of action in favour of such have consciously and advisedly opted, to keep the present proceedings before the court, the outcome. ' t it t V
26. In the circumstances,llvtzhilell '-the. lforil' impleadrnent in Misc. " :isV._Hor_dered only insofar as it relates to 14, 15 and 16 are concerned, the application 'for,_irnp1eadment insofar as respondent 1? liS.,_,_C0n_cerned, it is rejected.
27. However,» petitionershlarel required to be put on terms as they invited additional persons Who are private individuals _":as._ party respondents and the minimum that is reqni'red is that they are compensated for the cost t" _ of thé~«..1itigatioii.f Therefore, application insofar as it relates to proposed r._respondent Nos.l3, 14, 15 and 16 are concerned, it is ordered %