Karnataka High Court
B S Pandith S/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KJXRNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2913 DAY OF' SEPTEMBER 2009
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE V.GOPALA G1o%Xf1jA.' E.
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'I'ICE K.N7;JEESTmTANARA%YANA7'
W.A.NO.331 1[/2005'{U'L.(_i1
BETWEEN:
1 B S PANDITI-I
S/O S S PANDITH ._ V
SINCE DEAD BY LES. _ V
1{A} SMT.vANAjE_E."PAIs§I3:'TH"
WTTIES--LAfI~E E;S,.12AN:;1T1--1 '
AGED 66'
1(5) ANJANA,%SURES'EEW-[:O«S.SURESH
D /0 LA_T13.B.S_.PA_NDITI'H
AGED 4o..yEARS '-
' .fl'1[C)V""ANUPAI~lA B. PANEITH W/O R.K.BARA'I'H
» _ VAGE<34_YEARS
ARERJTQ N"O';113?, MOKSHA MARGA
SIDDIIAREEHA; NAGARA, MYSORE DISTRICT.
T '(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER
' _--,DATED 19.12.2008)
2 " KV VANAJA
D /0 K VENKATARAMAIAH
50 YEARS
R/O NO 1137, MOKSHA MARG
SIDDARTH NAGAR
MYSORE
3 RATHNAMMA
W/O B K KENCHEGOWDA
48 YEARS
R/O NO 311/A, 2ND CROSS
D SUBBAIAH ROAD
MYSORE
4 SHEELA
D / O R K BHARATI-I
46 YEARS
R/ O NO '7, DAYAJVIARGA
SIDDARTHA LAYOUT
MYSORE
{By STLJAYAKUMAR S. PATEL, SENiOR:'¢O'IUNS_EL
SR1. M R RAJAGOPAL, ADV.) : _
AND:
1 THE STATE OF EAISIJATAIIA1. O' A'
BY ITS SECRETARY I
DEPARTMENT OF. HO1I:'3INCf9_AND'. I " '
'
IcISBUIL"m13;O.,% 'I -
BANOALO_RE'e A1. '
2 THE'DEFUTY,cO_M1yIISS1ONER
. ;..»xND PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY
'-'.,UR}3AN LANDQEILING REGULATION
MYSOPE DISTRICT MYSORE
CO--OP SOCIETY
Q 'I-.I'BY'I'fE3. SECRETARY,
WSOEE
4 M§?SORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
= BY ITS COMMISSIONER
_ MYSORE CITY
RAMEGOWDA S/ O RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
6 BASAVEGOWDA S/ O RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
7 LAKKAPPA S/ O RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
8. KRISHNA S / O RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R-5 TO 4-8 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO2777.
RAILWAY GATE ROAD,
K.G.KOPPALU (KANNE GOWDANA KOPPALU}
MYSORE.
(AMENDED VIDE COURTORDER
DATED 25.1.2007} RESRONDENTSV. is E I
(By SMTGEETHA MENON, G.A. _RoR R.--_1*& R-2.ARD
SR1. PSMANJUNATH, ADV. EQ'R._R4) " A 'V _ "
THIS. WRIT APPEAL IS i'aE1LED ms" 4 }OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACTT-PRAYING TO ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN TH'E4_V'JRIT--if PE;Ti';'§_IO_N«.NO.46942--45/2004
DATED OI/O8/2005. * =
RESERVED ON 4; ':r..§sb.-;3..2009 _ V_
PRONOUNCED;_oNf;.- 'V22;19.2009 "
T1518 = HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED, THIS,DAYv.VKE3H./':VANARAYANA.J, PRONOUNGED
THE FOLLOWING: ' _ '
_ -._J__.UDG M ENT
A is directed against the order dated
by the learned Single Judge of this Court
40942 to 45/2004, dismissing the Writ
"fiéeetitiopns med by the appellants.
2. Following are the facts leading to the presentation
@
of writ petitions and the present appeal:
(i)
(ii)
One Rangegowda @ Chikkahydegowda, S/0 Lakke
Gowda, father of respondents 5 to 8 to thvigsiflappeal
who were not parties to the Writ Petiti_ojns;..' owner of lands bearing Suryey No_.-
Sacres 16 guntas, Survey:'»No.:-'~2.23l/4g" 'rneastft-ruingg_A4 acres 21 guntas, Survey'No. 18-2 1 Vmea'sij1ri.ng acreiit 32 gnntas and Survey 2.'n1easu1fi§ng 1 acre 34 guntas in a1l""rrie.as:_1ri--t1gu .ac~res 23 guntas all situated in Bogalcii 2 l Aftertbrce Land (Ceiling and aegfiiatibn) l'i'Act l:"».i976l_ll('fc5i~ short the Act), said Rangegowda ':.lj:"i}le'd._:fsta'tement in Form No.1, as per 5R1%1eslll4"3..:l&I1d"' 9."-ofvthe Rules framed under the Act lV.gi£fingA.particti"lars of the extent of vacant land held V' the urban agglomeration of Mysore city', other particulars, as required by Section A. Blil of the Act on 13.9.1976, before the competent authority under the Act.
According to the appellants, said Rangegowda formed a revenue lay--out of residential building sites in land bearing Survey N0. 210, and sold sites to V
(iv) different persons. According to the appeilants during 1982 a 1983, each of them purcha.s_'e--d"'--one site in the said 1ay--out from Rangegiowdiaffnnderv.4 unregistered sale deeds, and»--they wer'eI.'4pi'aced'9'».in f Vacant possession of the respective sit.es,vpa,1fc;has'ed by them, and thereafteI'v,..:'p:ti1ey const1*ucted:Vstfuctures thereon. Thus accyordingf appellantsvgthey have been in possession 'sites.
In the; authority, 'as"'per Section 8(1) of the held in excess of ceiling 1irn;it," on showing that the declarant 5Rangeégoyvdatisffhoiding 36,344.01 sq.Ints. of excess ~.Thereafter, final statement as per Section 9 if under Section 10(1) of the Act were p1.;z1:)iis:hed on 1.8.1985; notification under Section A. 10(3) of the Act was published on 25.9.1985 9' "jdeclaring that the excess vacant land is deemed to have been acquired by the State Government with effect from 10.10.1985; possession of excess vacant land was taken on 19.9.1990 as per Section 10(6) of i
(ix) memorandum dated 21.9.1993 Annexure--F issued by MUDA are void and ineffective.
In these Writ Petitions. The appellants _ that pursuant to unregistered ,sa1e_-'deeds: = 'V by Rangegowda, they are in ;"pos'.s_'es;sion 'ofjreispiectiiye sites and at no point of-tlinie possession sites-"
was taken from them bythe-cornpetentauthority, as per Section 10(6)' 9 of no notice as required. Sectiong ..th'e":,ri'rct was served on them;' as V"s'uch,"--.i,jtliey ycointinued to remain in possession respective sites, therefore, by virtue- of of Sections 3 (2) & Section 4 j' .,of Act 91999, all further proceedings stood lal:iateid,p'They""a1so contended that Bogadi Village was it the urban agglomeration of Mysore City, as' the entire proceedings initiated were illegal and without jurisdiction. They further contended that, even prior to passing of the award dated 31.3.1993 and taking possession of the land by the Government as per the provisions of the Act, the Government purported to have exercised its power ( Xi) "rt 12 After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal, dismissed the_,«p:et4itions holding that the appellants being who filed the declaration andnot ' _ the proceedings before the e_orripete_nt_ have no locus standi to.,:;c'h_allelnge the '-orders" passed' V by the respondent 'Deputy"Comrnissioner.
The learned held that the originalfovvner toyhvave hands with the ' called sale deeds as the appellants based 'e.oll:.isive documents, created by the _ original ,_:dcclarantA"'to over come the effect of order
7...hAiissued.gunder"Section 10(3) of the Act, which he did as provided by Section 12 of the Act beforeithe Divisional Commissioner. aggrieved by the order of the learned Single
--*:Judge, dismissing the Writ Petitions, the appellants have filed this appeal. Upon service of notices of appeal, the respondents have appeared through their learned Advocate.
3. We have heard Sridayakurnar S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants; Sri.P.S.Manjunath, learned Advocate Sri.H.M.Mnjunath, learned Advocate for':
respondents 1 and 2, and Advocate for respondent _ Coal' operative Society. We.havev.pert1sed the " origintal records pertaining to the Deputy Commissioner', . f1;\:/Iysoijeg H by the learned Governmefl ti . A it 4:;__ Patil, learned Senior counsel would subafrlitpthatl' be seen from the recitals of theagreement' / sale deeds, the appellants are the
4 sites in Revenue lay out formed by the 'origir1al'VRangegowda, and they were placed in possessionv of respective sites and in the absence of any it to show that ULC authorities took possession of V the sites from the appellants as provided by Section 10(5) and (6) of the Act, the appellants deemed to be in possession of the sites as such, the entire proceedings stood abated by virtue of Repeal Act of 1999, and the %//.
17 the property who was the declarant did not question the actions on the part of the respondents, and sincelethe declarant and his family members themselye--s'_' _ admitted that they have voluntarily .del_iver_ed" po:sse'ssi'on oi " = the property to ULC authorities, :'t.he1'_'_AapVpeiiants locus standi to question the orders A13..nexures=§_*Eand that as the excess vacant --v§rith'the._yGo;irernment upon publication of Section 10(3) of the Act, and since. had been taken in of Section 10(5) 8: (6) of the ;Act coming into force, acquisitiorrof as such, the Repeal of the Act 1jor.e;.:"reictk3i~1 the acquisition of the land in 'hquestionf a"s.,such,"'the learned Single Judge is justified in thehwrit Petitions; that since there is nothing on'"r.eco_r'd show that as on the date of taking possession of,,land"-as per Section 10(5) 8: (6) of the Act, the appellants ""«2s:7e're' in possession of the sites, they were not entitled for "any notice from the competent authority under Section 10(5) of the Act; that the observation made during the course of the order dated 16.4.1997 -- Annexure--R2 and f'\ unregistered sale deeds are all created documents in collusion with the erstwhile owner. Before this Court the appellants have produced the alleged unregisteVre':::l""'rs.ale deeds, along with a memo. Reading of the _ these documents indicates that they 2 deeds transferring title in respect of irnmiovablre As could be seen from the's_e'~--._docu1nents,f:they.,,are note' properly staniped and they are__u:Iiregistered«.f_ Seciiion 34 of the Karnataka Stamp uthatfiio document not properly stamped ._shali"'beiilreceiiredlv'-indict'evidence for any purpose] l"Not..o:dioubl§,"'Section the Indian Registration Act permits unregistered document for collateral purpeosefto prove a transaction, which does not ' V' "requ.a.fe :registration';"""However, the prohibition imposed i..1nc_l_er of the Karnataka Stamp Act is total and as provision a document which is not properly insufficiently stamped cannot be received and into for any purpose including the collateral
-purpose. The decisions cited by the learned Senior " counsel for the appellants in this regard have been rendered in the light of the provisions of Section 49 of the 29 the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government or by the competent authoriisfiiyand any amount has been paid by the State Gove_rnm.e_nt:
respect of such land, such landwshall unless the amount paid has been Government. Section 4 abatement of legal Section, all proceedings relating"-any' or purported to be made underiflghe immediately before the before any court, abate. However, according vpflselction 4, the said section has no ap_plicat'ion'to: the.,_p1'..oceedings relating to Sections 11, oi'tl1e----«13'rincipal Act, if such proceedings are "tIr:1:e:..1and, possession of which has been taken 'State Government or any person duly V'~».autho"rised by the State Government or by any competent it Admittedly, in this case by 1999, no __proceedings as referred to under Section 4 of the 1999 Act V was pending before any Court, Tribunal or authority. In View of the fact that possession had been taken much ('3 32 in contravention of Section 23 of the Act. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was dismissed and the said order was not challenged. Therefore, it is not now again open appellants to question the very same order _ Petition also. Therefore, the challenge to V. this Writ Petition is not competentpasfthe suffered an adverse order inrespect" ofltliisg * order AnneXure--F', in the earlierV:Wri't._» so far as the order dated rjtflw/_VGovernment as per AnneXuref.Efallottingflthe in favour of the said order was not questioned "Petition though in the order dated _2l.9.l"i-993. 5 [Ann'exure--F, a reference has been made ' Vto An'nexure--E an'd"'it is only pursuant to Annexure--E, to be passed. From this, it is clear that the»..app'ell.ants. were not aggrieved by the order Annexure -- passed by the Government when they filed the earlier Wrtt,.'..fr"Petition. In fact, their relief in the earlier Writ ..Petition for regularisation of their unauthorised V occupation sought against MUDA was based on the notice said to have been issued by MUDA admitting that MUDA 34 proceed against the legal representatives of the original owner. However in these proceedings, no reiief can be granted in favour of the appeliants against re's.p:ondent Nos. 5 to 8 being the legal representatives In view of the above discussion, we .ans\zvergJpeint'"No,3"int" the affirmative. Therefore, there a.re':no"nierits appeal and the appeai is 1iab1eVg:'to_%be
16. Accordingly, we dis_mis:s'g_:the-.appeal;-..
EUDGE Sfi/4 , EUDGE . _._...-.4 V.Rw?'