Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8324
WP No. 8774 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 8774 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT JAYAMMA
D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
W/O N.M. PUTTARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
NO,.14/A, AIRPORT MAIN ROAD,
KODIHALLI, BANGALORE-560 008.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHEKARAPPA B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
Digitally
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Location:
HIGH
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
COURT OF BANGALORE-560 009.
KARNATAKA
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
3RD FLOOR, VISHWESWARAIAH TOWER,
PODIUM BLOCK, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE
TOURISM DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NO.49, 2ND FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8324
WP No. 8774 of 2014
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
6. MR. P.DAYANANDA PAI
CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,
NO.74, 4TH FLOOR, PRESTIGE FEROZE,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
7. MR. H YESHWANT SHENOY,
R/O NO.43, BASAVEWARA NILAYA,
2ND CROSS, SHESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE-560 020.
8. M/S CENTURY GALAXY DEVELOPERS LTD.,
NO. L-02, DIAMOND DISTRICT,
AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR. ZIA UI SHERIFF.
9. M/S INDIA BUILDERS CORPORATION
SHERIFF CENTRE
73/1, SAINTS MARKS ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY MR.ZIA UI SHERIFF.
10. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK EAST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
11. THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
(B.B.M.P) CORPORATION OFFICE,
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8324
WP No. 8774 of 2014
12. THE DIAMOND DISTRICT APARTMENT
OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
AIRPORT MAIN ROAD,
KODIHALLI, BANGALORE-560 008.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3 & R-5;
SRI.M.ADINARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI. M.V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-10;
SRI.CHANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-7;
SMT.SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-11;
R-6, R-8, R-9 AND R-12 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 5 TO RE-DELIVER THE
PETITIONER'S 30 GUNTAS OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.153
SITUATED AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, PRESENTLY BANGALROE EAST
TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, ACQUIRED FOR PUBLIC
PURPOSE AS PER PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED
28.12.1981 VIDE ANNEXURE-C & FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED
16.4.1983 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, PUBLISHED BY RESPONDENT
NO.2, IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER DATED:18.9.1991, PASSED
IN W.P. NOS.19812 TO 19816 OF 1990 BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT & ORDER DATED:29.9.2011 PASSED IN CIVIL APPEALS
NO.7588/05, WITH NO.7589/05, VIDE ANNEXURE-K BY THE
HON'BLE SUPREMRE COURT OF INDIA, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:8324
WP No. 8774 of 2014
ORDER
1. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 5 to re-deliver 0- 30 guntas of land bearing Sy.No.153 of Kodihalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land, amongst other lands, was notified for acquisition by issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 28.12.1981 and thereafter, a declaration was issued under Section 6(1) of the Act on 16.04.1983..
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the notifications issued for acquiring the said lands were quashed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1094-97 of 1987 by an order dated 28.08.1991. On the basis of this order, W.P. Nos.19812-816 of 1990 was also allowed by an order dated 18.09.1991.
4. It is submitted that thereafter, another land-owner had preferred W.P No.34891 of 1995, but the same was -5- NC: 2024:KHC:8324 WP No. 8774 of 2014 dismissed on 17.09.1999, but the Division Bench in W.A. No.7772 of 1999 (LA-RES) set aside the said order and allowed the writ petition. The Division Bench then went on to direct the State to re-deliver the possession to the owners therein. It is therefore contended that since the lands covered under the notifications, including that of the petitioner's mother, were quashed, the State Government is under an obligation to re-deliver the possession of the land bearing Sy.No.153 measuring 0-30 guntas.
5. On the other hand, it is the case of respondent No.7 that the mother of the petitioner had executed a Power of Attorney apart from an agreement of sale in favour of respondent No.6 herein and on the acquisition being quashed on 28.08.1991, respondent No.6, on the strength of the Power of Attorney, executed a sale deed on behalf of the petitioner's mother on 24.10.1991 and conveyed her title in favour of respondent No.7 herein.
6. It is also contended that respondent No.7 has thereafter got the property developed through respondent -6- NC: 2024:KHC:8324 WP No. 8774 of 2014 Nos.8 and 9 and the residential units (apartments) put up in the said land has also been conveyed to various persons.
7. It is contended that since the mother of the petitioner had lost her title on 24.10.1991, the petitioner, being the daughter, cannot seek re-delivery of possession. It is contended that the re-delivery of possession can only be to the incumbent owner and not to the owner who had lost the title.
8. From the above set of arguments, it is clear that by virtue of the acquisition notifications being quashed, the property would have to be re-delivered to the incumbent owner.
9. However, the question as to who was the owner and to whom the possession has to be delivered would be all questions to be considered having regard to the events which have transpired in the interregnum. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:8324 WP No. 8774 of 2014
10. The learned counsel for respondent No.7 contends that the property has been sold by the mother of the petitioner, while the petitioner contends that her mother had not executed any agreement or General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.6 and that respondent No.6 is an absolute stranger.
11. It is also contended that the mother passed away in the year 1989 and the sale deed was executed in the year 1991 after her death and the same is therefore a nullity.
12. It is, however, an undisputed fact that a sale deed has been executed by the mother of the petitioner through an alleged General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by her in favour of respondent No.6.
13. Unless a competent Civil Court records a finding that there was no General Power of Attorney executed in favour of respondent No.6 and the sale deed was a nullity, the petitioner cannot claim to have acquired title over the property in order to claim delivery of the possession. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:8324 WP No. 8774 of 2014
14. In that view of the matter, the prayer sought in the writ petition seeking for re-delivery of possession to the petitioner on the premise that she was the owner, cannot be entertained.
15. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for initiation of proper proceedings.
16. It is needless to state that if the petitioner has any grievances against the alleged alienation made by her mother through an alleged General Power of Attorney, it would be open for the petitioner to initiate proceedings, if the law so permits.
17. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK CT: SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7