Karnataka High Court
Mr. M. Nagaraj vs The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 4 August, 2023
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4748 OF 2018 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 1130 OF 2021(LB-BBMP)
IN WP NO.4748 OF 2018:
BETWEEN:
MUNISWAMAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRs.,
1(A). M.RAJESH
S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
R/AT NO.61/2, VENKATESHWARA-TEMPLE ROAD,
MANGAMMANA PALYA,
BENGALORE-560068.
1(B). M.RAJAPPA
S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
R/AT NO.61/2, VENKATESHWARA-TEMPLE ROAD,
MANGAMANA PALYA,
Digitally signed BENGALORE-560068.
by CHANDANA
BM 1(C). M.NAGARAJ
Location: High S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
Court of AGED 42 YEARS,
Karnataka R/AT SY.NO.17/8, YELLUKUNTE VILLAGE,
ITI LAYOUT, MANGAMANAPALYA,
BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560068.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. D.ASWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE;
SRI.VARUN PEPIREDDY, ADV. FOR LRs. OF 1(A AND B);
SRI.A.KESHAV BHAT, ADV. FOR PROPOSED LR 1(C))
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDINGS, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
2ND FLOOR, V.V.TOWERS,
PODIUM BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
DIST. OFFICE COMPOUND,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
4. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560001,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
5. ITI EMPLOYEES HOUSING BOARD
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
ITI TOWNSHIP, DOORAVANINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560016,
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT.
6. B. LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
S/O. LATE BASAPPA,
R/A. NO.258, 4TH CROSS,
AYYAPPA NAGAR, DEVASNADRA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560036.
7. SRINIVASA RAJU,
S/O. MR. SUBBARAJU,
R/A. NO.412, 1ST CROSS,
NEELAKANTESHWAR LAYOUT,
MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560068.
8. GARGI NADIMPALLI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O. SRINIVASARAJU,
R/A. NO.412, 1ST CROSS,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
NEELAKANTESHWAR LAYOUT,
MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BOMMANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU-560068.
9. K.M.SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MALLAPPA,
R/A. NO.8, 8TH CROSS,
SIR M.V.NAGAR, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560016.
10. ALI NAWAZ
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MIRZA BASHEER ALI,
NO.44, 8TH B MAIN,
NIMHANS LAYOUT HBCS,
BTM I STAGE, BENGALURU-560029.
11. TAZEEN NAWAZ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
W/O. ALI NAWAZ,
NO.44, 8TH B MAIN,
NIMHANS LAYOUT HBCS,
BTM I STAGE, BENGALURU-560029.
12. L.YESUDAS,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O. LATE LURDUNATHAN,
R/A. NO.22, KAMALAMMA LAYOUT,
RAMAMURHTYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560016.
13. MOHAMMAED YOUSUFF,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. M.K.IBRAHIM,
R/A. NO.151, 5TH CROSS,
ITI LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR,
IST PHASE, BENGALURU-560078.
14. T.PHANIRAJ HEBBAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O. LATE T.NARAYANA HEBBAR,
R/A. NO.297, 11TH CROSS,
25TH MAIN, IST PHASE,
J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078.
15. MANJUNATHA B.R.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
R/A. NO.19, 2ND FLOOR,
2ND CROSS, PATEL LAYOUT,
WARD NO.149, BALAGERE ROAD,
VARTHURU, BENGALURU-560087.
16. M.KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
R/A. NO.D-67, EAST 4TH LANE,
ITI COLONY, DOORAVANI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560016.
17. S.NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SANJEEVA RAJU,
R/A. NO.101, 4TH CROSS,
MANGAMMANA PALYA, BENGALURU-560068.
18. SMT. HEMAVATHI RAJ
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O. NAGRAJA,
R/A. NO.101, 4TH CROSS,
MANGAMMANA PALYA, BENGALURU-560068.
19. K. VISHWESHWARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA,
R/A. D-216, NORTH RINF ROAD,
ITI COLONY, DOORAVANINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560016.
20. RANGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAME GOWDA,
R/A. NO.40, 3RD CROSS,
HOSA PALYA, BENGALURU-560068.
21. M.NAGRAJA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O. LATE A. MUNIREDDY,
R/A. 1ST CROSS, MANGAMMA PALYA,
BENGALURU-560068.
22. SMT. NIRMALA M.S.,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
W/O. LATE B. SHIVANANDA,
R/A. NO.737, 4TH C CROSS,
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560070.
23. SMT. B.S. JAYASHREE,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
SISTER OF LATE B.S.PADMA,
R/A. NO.202/A-51, JAGANMATHRU NILAYA,
5TH MAIN, IST CROSS,
CHIKKANAGARDEN, CHAMRAJAPETE,
BENGALURU-560018.
24. NANDA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MUNI REDDY,
R/A. YELLUKUNTE ROAD,
MANGAMMA PALYA, BOMMANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU-560068.
25. SMT. N. SHNATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O. T.K.SRINIVASAIAH,
R/A. NO.308, 6TH CROSS,
4TH MAIN, VENKATAPURA,
KORAMANGALA IST BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560034.
26. M. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
R/A NO.39, 16/11, SHIVASHAKTHI NILAYA,
KAVERI LAYOUT, MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560068.
27. K.M.SHEIK MOIHDEEN,
S/O. SHEIK MOHAMED MOIHDEEN,
R/A. NO.76, SHOP NO.3 & 4,
LIMHRA STORE, MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560068.
28. R. SANTOSH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O. N.RAMA REDDY,
R/A. NO.42/1, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT
SOMASUNDARA PALYA,
BENGALURU-560102.
29. BUTCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
R/A. NO.559, HMT LAYOUT,
4TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN,
GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032.
30. S.K.SURYA PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O. S.K.RAMPRASAD,
NO.21, SHREENIVASA KRUPA,
1ST STAGE, PIPELINE ROAD,
81ST CROSS, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560078.
31. AZMATHULLA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O. LATE ABDUL AZEEZ B.S.,
R/A. NO.15, 8TH MAIN,
BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560029.
32. C. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O. LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY,
R/A. NO.844, 2ND CROSS,
BSV REDDY LAYOUT, RAMAMURHTY NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560016.
33. MOHAMMAED YOUSUFF,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. M.K.IBRAHIM,
NO.151, 5TH CROSS,
ITI LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR,
I PHASE, BENGALURU-560078.
34. G.K.GANGADHAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O. LATE G.M.KRISHNAPPA,
NO.192, 6TH CROSS,
RHB COLONY, WHITEFIELD ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA,
BENGALURU-560848.
35. ABDUL ALEEM,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O. LATE ABDUL RASHEED,
R/A. FLAT NO.003,
SKYLINE MANOR NO.7 & 8,
BRIDE STREET, LANGFORD ROAD,
RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU-560025.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
36. RAVISHANKAR M.,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE M. MUNISWAMY,
R/A. NO.23, ANUGRAHA,
33RD MAIN, 5TH B BLOCK,
BHAVANI HBCS LAYOUT,
BANAGIRI NAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU-560085.
37. RAMESHCHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O JAYARAMJI,
R/A NO.627, 3RD FLOOR,
9TH MAIN HSR LAYOUT,
SECTOR-7, BENGALURU-560102.
38. MRS UGMA DEVI J.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O. RAMESH CHANDRA,
R/A NO.627, 3RD FLOOR,
9TH MAIN HSR LAYOUT,
SECTOR-7, BENGALURU-560102.
39. M. BHASKAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. LATE M. MUNIRAMAIAH,
NO.60, SLV TEMPLE ROAD,
MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560068.
40. H.V.ESHWARA PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,
R/A NO.169/B, 4TH MAIN,
3RD CROSS,
J.P.NAGAR, 3RD PHASE,
BENGALURU-560078.
41. MRS. V.SHAMALA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
W/O. A.VIJAYA KUMAR,
R/A. NO.6, 2ND FLOOR,
IST MAIN, IST CROSS,
SVG NAGAR, BENGALURU-560072.
42. MOHAMMED YOUNUS IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. M.K.IBRAHIM,
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
R/A. NO.151, 5TH CROSS,
ITI LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, IST PHASE,
BENGALURU-560078.
43. V.MOHAN RAO,
AGED ABOUT 68 AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, YEARS,
S/O. VENKATAPPA,
NO.229, 10TH B MAIN,
I BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560043.
44. MURALIDHAR S.,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O. LATE S.L. SRINIVASAN,
NO.32/13, WAT STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004.
45. B.C.MANJUNATHA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O. LATE B.D.CHANNE GOWDA,
R/A. BERNAGODU,
JENNAGADDE POST,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577136.
46. D. KOSHAL KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O. LATE M. DEVARAJ,
R/A. NO.11, 7TH STREET,
ASHOKNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560025.
47. KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SUNDARAM,
R/A. NO.2, 2ND CROSS,
ANNAYAPPA BLOCK,
BENSON TOWN POST,
BENGALURU-560046.
48. MOHAN PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O. JEETHARAM PATEL,
R/A NO.11, 16/4, 3RD FLOOR,
OPPOSITE SUN SHINE ENGLISH SCHOOL,
ITI LAYOUT, MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560068.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
49. MANGILAL
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O. DEVARAM,
NO.1122, 1ST FLOOR,
26TH B MAIN, 9TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560011.
50. S. VIDURY DAVID,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
W/O. D.DAVID,
NO. 26/2, 5TH CROSS,
LINK ROAD, KODIHALLI
HAL AIRPORT ROAD,
BENGALURU-560008.
51. K.S.RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O. SRIKANTA SHASTRY,
NO.66/2, 4TH CROSS,
SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560021.
52. MRS. PUSHPALATHA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
D/O. KRISHNAPPA,
R/A. NO.24, 4TH CROSS,
BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT,
NAGASHETTY HALLI,
BENGALURU-560094.
53. SOMASHEKARAIAH Y.,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
S/O. LATE YEDIYURAPPA,
R/A. NO.302, IST A CROSS,
SHIVAKRUPA, KTV LAYOUT,
KRISHNARAJAPURA, BENGALURU-560036.
54. R. KRISHNAMURHTY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
R/A. NO.57, 10TH CROSS,
RR TEMPLE ROAD, J C LAYOUT,
DEVASANDRA, K R PURA,
BENGALURU-560036.
55. RAJANIKANTH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. LATE A JAYARAMA NAIDU,
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
R/A NO.8, FLAT NO.B-2,
1ST MAIN, IST CROSS,
ITI LAYOUT, MANGAMMANAPALYA
MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068.
56. MRS BHUVANESHWARI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. RAJANIKANTH,
R/A. NO.8, FLAT NO.B-2,
IST MAIN, IST CROSS,
ITI LAYOUT, MANGAMMANAPALYA
MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068.
57. MAHESH M.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O G MUNIRAJU,
R/A NO.85, IST MAIN,
IST CROSS, NEELAKANTESHWARA EXTN:
MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560068.
58. G. SRIHARI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE GOVINDASWAMY,
R/A NO.36/5, G BLOCK,
2ND CROSS, 20TH MAIN,
SAHAKARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560092.
59. M. SATHISHA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
NO.91/48, IST FLOOR,
8TH CROSS, 22ND MAIN,
SECTOR-1, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560102.
60. VENKATARAJU BAKKARAJU BAGGA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O BAKKARAJU BAGGA,
R/A NO.53, IST FLOOR,
5TH CROSS, HOSAPALYA,
OPP.TO NEW MOTHER THERESA
ENGLISH SCHOOL, BOMMANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU-560068.
61. MRS. JANAKI VENKATESH LAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
S/O. VENKATARAJU BAKKARAJU BAGGA,
R/A. NO.53, IST FLOOR,
5TH CROSS, HOSAPALYA,
OPP. TO NEW MOTHER THERESA ENGLISH
SCHOOL BOMMANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU-560068.
62. MOHAMMED SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O. IBRAHIM SHARIEF,
R/A. NO.1112, AMEER LANE,
VIJANAPURA, BENGALURU-560016.
63. K.MANOHAR,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAGHAVARAJU,
R/A. NO.59, IST FLOOR,
12TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
WILSONGARDEN, BENGALURU-560030.
64. B. SURBAMANYA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O. B. RAMARAJU,
R/A. NO.19, 2ND CROSS,
NANJAPPA LAYOUT,
ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560030.
65. MRS. LAKSHMAMA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O. B. SUBRAMANYA RAJU,
R/A. NO.19, 2ND CROSS,
NANJAPPA LAYOUT,
ADUGODI,BENGALURU-560030.
66. MRS. G. PARVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O. G. CHANDRASHEKAR RAJU,
R/A. NO.182, 4TH CROSS,
OPP. HEGDE MEDICALS,
MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560068.
67. RAGHU BANGERA ALIKE
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O LATE THANIYA BANGERA ALIKE
NO.413, 9TH B MAIN
IST BLOCK, KALYANA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560043
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
68. ZIAULLA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHAIK HYDER
R/A NO.82/2, NVR COMPLEX
NEAR CHIKKA BEGUR ROAD
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, SINGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU-560068
69. V. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
NO.17, RAJAGRUHA NILAYA
OPP.TO UJALA FACTORY
HOSAPALYA, BENGALURU-560068
70. N. M. ANANDHRUTHI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
W/O N MADHUKAR
R/A NO.33, 3RD BLOCK
9TH CROSS, THYAGARAJANAGAR
BENGALURU-560021
71. S. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O R SIDDAPA
NO.559/2, 2ND MAIN 13TH CROSS,
R K TOWNSHIP BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL
AREA, BENGALURU-560099.
72. GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O LATE KENCHAPPA
NO.202, SREE MARUTHI NILAYA
3RD B MAIN, NEAR CMR LAW COLLEGE
BHUVANAGIRI, BENGALURU-560043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.N.ANITHA, GCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.K.KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R4;
SRI.G.L.VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SMT.MANASA B.RAO, ADV. FOR R5;
SRI.G.RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR R7, R8,R17, R18, R39, R60, R61;
SRI. S.I.SYED MUNAVAR, ADV. FOR R10 AND R11;
SRI.P.USMAN, ADV. FOR R31, R33 AND R42;
SRI.K.SHIVASHANKAR, ADV. FOR R40, R43, R45, R46, R48, R49, R53, R57,
R58, R62, R67 AND R69 TO R72;
SRI.G.A.SRIKANDE GOUDA, ADV. FOR R29;
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
R14, R21, R22, R24 TO R27, R29, R30, R34 TO R36, R41, R47, R50, R54 TO
R56, R59, R62, R66, R68- SERVED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 18.07.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE IN RESPECT OF
R6, R9, R12, R13, R15, R16, R19, R23, R28, R32, R37, R38, R44, R51, R16,
R19, R23, R28, R32, R37, R38, R44, R51,R52, R63, R64 AND R65 -HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS IN ACQUIRING THE LANDS BY WAY OF THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 28.01.1985 PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL
GAZETTE VIDE ANNX-C AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 24.01.1986,
VIDE ANNX-D AND THE NOTIFICATION DATED 06.01.1997 UNDER
SECTION 16(2) ISSUED BY THE R-3 HAS BEEN ABONDONED AND
LAPSED, IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO PTEITIONER'S LAND BEARING
SY.NO.16/16 AND 17/8 OF YELLUKUNTE VILLAGE, MEASURING TO AN
EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 04 GUNTAS AND 0.11 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY,
SITUATED AT YELLUKUNTE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE
SOUTH TALUK.
IN WP NO.1130 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
MR. M. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
R/O SY.NO.17/8, YELLUKUNTE VILLAGE
ITI LAYOUT, MANGAMMANAAPLYA
BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.A.KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
9TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS,
6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560102.
3. L. SURESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE LAKSHMANA @ LAKSHMAPPA,
R/A. NO.41, GRAMATANA, MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560068.
4. RAMESHCHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O. JAYARAMJI
R/A. NO.627, 3RD FLOOR,
9TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT,
SECTOR-7, BENGALURU-560102.
5. MRS. UGMA DEVI J.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O. RAMESH CHANDRA,
R/A. NO.627, 3RD FLOOR,
9TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT,
SECTOR-7, BENGALURU-560102.
6. B. C. MANJUNATHA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O. LATE B.D.CHANNE GOWDA,
R/AT. BERNAGODU,
JENNAGADDE POST,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577136.
7. SANTHOSH KUMAR
AGED MAJOR,
S/O FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
R/A SY.NO.16/16,
ITI LAYOUT, MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560068.
8. BEEVI LAL
AGED MAJOR,
S/O. FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN,
R/A. SY.NO.17/8, ITI LAYOUT,
MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560068.
9. ALI NAWAZ
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
S/O. LATE MIRZA BASHEER ALI,
R/AT. NO.44 8TH B MAIN,
NIMHANS LAYOUT HBCS,
BTM I STAGE, BENGALURU-560029.
10. SRI. MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O. MUNIRAJU, R/A. NO.35,
7TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560102.
11. ASHOK N.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O NAGARAJU, R/A. NO.18/111,
SAMRUDDI NILAYA, 1ST BLOCK,
4TH CROSS HOSAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560068.
12. JAYARAMA N.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O. NAGARAJU,
R/A. NO.18/111, SAMRUDDI NILAYA,
1ST BLOCK, 4TH CROSS,
HOSAPALYA, BENGALURU-560068.
13. CHANDRAPPA V.C.,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. CHINNAPPA,
R/A. MANGAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU-560068.
14. AKSHAY G.,
S/O. GOVINDARAJU,
AGED 34 YEARS, R/AT: NO.410,
ITR LAYOUT, ELLUKUNTE,
HSR LAYOUT, BBMP WARD NO.190,
BENGALURU-560068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.V.MOHAN KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI.K.SHIVASHANKAR, ADV. FOR R4 TO R6, R10 AND R13;
SRI.S.I.SYED MUNAVER, ADV. FOR R9;
SRI.K.GOVIND RAJ, ADV. FOR R14;
SRI.L.NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADV. FOR R8, R11 AND R12;
VIDE ORDER DATED 05.09.2022,
NOTICE TO R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627
WP No. 4748 of 2018
C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS OF DEMOLITION OF ILLEGAL
CONSTRUCTION IN THE SCHEDULE LANDS VIDE ANNX-L1 TO L16;
GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY, RESTRAINING THE
RESPONDENTS-3 TO 13 FROM PUTTING UP ILLEGAL STRUCTURES IN
THE BARING SY.O.16/16 AND 17/8 OF YELLUKUNTE VILLAGE,
MEASURING TO EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 04 GUNTAS AND 0.11 GUNTAS
RESPECTIVELY, SITUATED AT YELLUKUNTE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
THESE PETITIONS ARE BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON
27.01.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
W.P.No.4748/2018 is preferred by original petitioner, late Muniswamappa seeking quashing of the impugned acquisition proceedings in relation to the subject lands bearing Sy.No.16/16 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas and Sy.No.17/8 measuring 11 guntas, both situated at Yellukunte village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. During the pendency of the petition, the aforesaid Muniswamappa expired and his legal representatives are brought on record, among whom, his son M.Nagaraj has preferred W.P. No.1130/2021 seeking a direction to the BBMP authorities and other reliefs.
2. In W.P.No.4748/2018, while respondents No.1 to 3 are the State and its Officials, 4th respondent is the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) and 5th respondent is the ITI
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 Employees' Housing Board Co-operative Society and the remaining private respondent Nos.6 to 72 are allottees/purchasers from the 5th respondent-Society and their successors-in-title.
3. In W.P.No.1130/2021, BBMP and its Assistant Executive Engineer are arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2, while remaining private respondents are also allottees/purchasers in respect of portions of the subject lands. Both the writ petitions are contested by the respective respondents.
4. Briefly stated, the contentions urged by the petitioners in both the petitions are as under:
The subject lands were notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the L.A. Act') vide preliminary notification dated 01.02.1985 issued under Section 4 of the L.A.Act and final notification dated 27.01.1986 issued under Section 6 of the L.A. Act. The subject lands were sought to be acquired for the purpose of formation of a residential layout for the benefit and in favour of the 5 th respondent-Society. On 24.08.1987, an alleged award was passed in this regard and on 09.01.1992, BDA approved the layout plan which was subsequently cancelled on 05.12.1994 leaving out the subject lands. On 16.01.1997,
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act was issued by the respondent-State. The original petitioner-Muniswamappa along with others preferred W.P.Nos.5321-5323/2000 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent-State to consider their claim for regularization of construction under the provisions of the Karnataka Regularization of Unauthorized Construction in Urban Areas Act, 1991 (for short, 'KRUCUA Act'). In the said petition, the said Muniswamappa was arrayed as petitioner No.3 and the subject land bearing Sy.Nos.16/16 and 17/8 were also subject matter of the said petitions. Further, the 5th respondent-ITI Society was arrayed as respondent No.6 in W.P.Nos.5321-5323/2000 referred to supra. The said petitions were taken up along with connected matters and by final order dated 29.11.2002, the learned Single Judge allowed the petitions and directed the respondent- State to consider the claim for regularization of an unauthorized occupation.
4.1 Aggrieved by the said order passed by this Court, ITI Society preferred W.A.No.1468/2003 and connected matters, which were contested by Muniswamappa and others. By final order dated 23.10.2008, the appeals preferred by the ITI Society were allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge was set
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 aside and the writ petitions filed by Muniswamappa and others were dismissed.
4.2 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, Muniswamappa and others approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.12501-503/2009 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.10.2009, thereby confirming the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
5. It is contended by the petitioners that on 09.04.2011, they approached the ITI Society, which issued communications dated 20.04.2011 to the effect that the subject lands had not been handed over to it. Subsequently, the SLAO issued a letter dated 28.11.2014 handing over the subject lands in favour of the ITI Society. Thereafter, the ITI Society started executing registered Sale Deed in favour of various persons who started putting up constructions/structures over the subject lands. It is contended that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'RFCTLARR Act') came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014 and by virtue of Section 24(2) thereof, the acquisition in relation to subject lands stood lapsed, since compensation had not been deposited/paid
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 and possession of the subject lands had not been taken over by the respondents from the petitioners who continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. The petitioners also contend that the said purchasers/allottees from the ITI Society started putting up illegal and unauthorized construction over portions of the subject lands and though the petitioners submitted a representation to the BBMP, no steps were taken to demolish the same and as such, the petitioners have preferred W.P.No.1130/2021 seeking appropriate directions in this regard. It is therefore contended that the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present petition assailing the acquisition proceedings in relation to the subject lands and for directions to the BBMP and other reliefs.
6. Both the petitions have been opposed by the respective respondents, who have filed their statement of objections along with documents.
7. During the pendency of the petitions, the petitioners filed following three applications viz.,
(i) I.A.No.3/2022 for direction to the respondents-State to produce original records.
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
(ii) I.A.No.4/2022 for permission to produce additional documents.
(iii) I.A.No.5/2022 for amendment of the writ petition by incorporating two additional grounds at paragraph-33(a) and
(b) in the memorandum of writ petition.
8. Respondent No.5-ITI Society has filed its objections to all the aforesaid applications.
9. I have heard Sri.A. Keshava Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. G.L. Vishwanath, learned Senior Counsel for ITI Society as well as Sri.D.Ashwathnarayana, learned Senior Counsel and other counsel for private respondents and also the learned AGA for the State and the respective counsel for the BDA and BBMP and perused the material on record.
10. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petitions and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned acquisition proceedings in relation to the subject lands deserve to be quashed as having lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act, since no award has been passed, compensation has not been deposited and possession has not been taken from the petitioners as held by
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs Manohar Lal & Others1. It is submitted that the subject lands which were included in the original approved layout plan dated 09.01.1992 issued by the BDA were subsequently deleted in the modified layout plan dated 05.12.1994, which indicates that the subject lands were not handed over to the ITI Society. It was submitted that the applications IA Nos.3 to 5 of 2022 are relevant and material for the purpose of adjudication of the issue in controversy between the parties.
10.1 It was further submitted that despite specific order dated 14.09.2022 passed by this Court in the present writ petitions, no award has been passed by the respondents and there is no approval by the State Government of any such alleged award. It was also submitted that no mahazar/inquest report/memorandum evidencing taking of possession has been produced by the respondents and the notification issued under Section 16(2) of the L.A Act is not sufficient to establish that possession was taken from the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that at the time of disposal of W.A.No.1468/2003 by the Hon'ble Division Bench and confirmation by the Apex Court, the RFCTLARR Act had not come 1 (2020) 8 SCC 129
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 into force and consequently, it cannot be said that the present petitions are barred by res-judicata or constructive res-judicata.
10.2 Lastly, it was submitted that since award was not passed, compensation was not paid/deposited by the respondents, who did not take possession of the subject lands from the petitioners, acquisition proceedings stood lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act and the same deserve to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Velaxan Kumar Vs. Union of India2;
(ii) Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi Vs. Lt. Governor, Govt. Of NCT Delhi & Others3;
(iii) Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana & Others4;
(iv) Patasi Devi Vs. State of Haryana 5;
(v) Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki6;
(vi) Sadashivaiah Vs. State of Karnataka & Others7;
(vii) Smt. Choudamma & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Others8;
2
AIR 2015 SC 1462 3 AIR 2010 SC 1143 4 AIR 2012 (SC) 4628 5 AIR 2013(SC) 856 6 AIR 2014(SC) 982 7 ILR 2003 KAR 5088 8 WP 35582/2018, dated 2.2.2022
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
(viii) The Jamia Masjid Vs. K.V. Rudrappa (Since dead) by LRs & Others9;
(ix) ITI Employees HCS Vs. Venkatappa10
11. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5
-ITI Society as well as learned AGA for the respondent - State and respective learned counsel for the BDA and BBMP refuted the various submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there was no merit in the petitions and that the same are liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the petitions are barred by delay and latches apart from the fact that the petitioners are not in possession or enjoyment of the subject lands and their conduct disentitles them to any reliefs in the present writ petitions. It is submitted that the petitions are barred by res-judicata and constructive res-judicata and Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act has no application to the present case. It is also submitted that the petitioners are guilty of suppression of material fact and in view of the dismissal of the earlier petition filed by the petitioners, the present petitions are not maintainable and the same are liable to be dismissed.
9 Civil Appeal No.10946/2014, DATED 23.9.2021 10 WA No.1485/2003, dated 23.12.2005
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
12. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In my considered opinion, the various contentions/claims urged by the petitioners are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be rejected for the following reasons:-
(i) The material on record discloses that pursuant to approval granted for acquisition of the subject lands and other lands for the benefit of ITI Society vide approval dated 02.07.1984, preliminary notification dated 28.01.1985 and 24.01.1986 were issued by the respondents, which were followed by an award dated 24.08.1987 which included the subject lands also. In this regard, the petitioners contend that though an award was passed, no approval was obtained from the State Government, as a result of which, no valid award has been passed in respect of the subject lands. The said contention cannot be accepted in view of the draft award dated 01.01.1987 (Annexure-R9) produced by the ITI Society which was approved subject to modifications vide Annexure-R4 dated 24.08.1987, which clearly establishes that a valid and legal award in respect of the subject layout including the lands was passed.
The said approved award dated 24.08.1987 also indicates that the compensation amount has been deposited in the Civil Court. So
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 also, the validity of the award has been upheld in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.764/1991 and connected matters dated 03.09.1996, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench not only confirmed that an award was passed but also held that the award dated 24.08.1987 was within the period of two years from the date of final notification i.e. 27.01.1986 as required under Section 11(a) of the L.A Act. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the contention urged by the petitioners with regard to non-passing of an award/valid award in respect of subject lands cannot be accepted.
(ii) The material on record discloses that the subject layout comprise not only of the subject lands but also other lands notified for acquisition for the benefit of ITI Society. The land owners in respect of other lands viz., Munivenkatappa & Others preferred W.P.No.764/1991 and connected matters, in which they challenged the instant acquisition proceedings. The said petitions were contested by the ITI Society and culminated in the final order dated 03.09.1996, by which the challenge to acquisition proceedings was dismissed by this Court which upheld the acquisition. The said order passed by this Court was upheld by the Apex Court vide order dated 01.08.1997 passed in SLP No.3765/1997 and connected matters, as a result of which, the claim of the said
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 petitioners which was rejected, has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the parties. Apart from the aforesaid petitions, Abbaiah son of original petitioner herein Muniswamappa also preferred W.P.No.12102/1990 before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of the present subject lands. The said petition was tagged along with W.P. No.13302/1990 filed by Chikkachannappa and by common order dated 13.09.1996, this Court dismissed the said petition also by following the earlier judgment in Munivenkatappa's case supra in W.P. No.764/1991 and connected matters dated 03.09.1996. In fact, the rejection of the challenge to acquisition in respect of the subject lands has been admitted by the petitioner himself in one more writ petition in W.P.No.5323/2000 filed by him. The said order passed in W.P.No.12102/1990 filed by Abbaiah s/o of Muniswamappa, the original petitioner herein in respect of the subject lands bearing Sy.Nos.16/16 and 17/8 rejecting the claim of the petitioner in respect of the subject lands vide order dated 13.09.1996 passed by this Court has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioner and his legal representatives; needless to state that having challenged the acquisition proceedings as long back as in 1990 and the same having been rejected by this Court as stated
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 supra, the present petitions attempting to yet again re-agitate the same issue and once again challenging the acquisition proceedings is clearly barred by res-judicata and principles of res- judicata.
(iii) Subsequent to dismissal of W.P.No.12102/1990, as stated supra, the petitioner herein filed one more writ petition in W.P. No.5323/2000 which has been referred to by him in the present writ petitions. It is a matter of record that the said petition was tagged along with other writ petitions filed by persons claiming right over different portions of the subject layout of the ITI Society. Interestingly, all the writ petitioners in the said writ petitions including the petitioner herein admitted that the subject lands had been acquired for the benefit of the ITI Society. It was contended by all the said writ petitioners including the petitioner herein that they had put up construction on portions of the said lands and that they were entitled to regularization of the said constructions by virtue of the provisions contained in KRUCUA Act and they sought for necessary directions in this regard. In the said writ petitions in W.P.No.5323/2000 and connected matters, the petitioner herein specifically admitted that the subject lands had been acquired for the benefit of ITI Society and that the earlier writ petition in
- 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 W.P.No.12102/1990 filed by his son Abbaiah challenging the acquisition in respect of the subject lands was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.09.1996. By final order dated 29.11.2002, the said petitions filed by the petitioner and others was allowed by the learned Single Judge; however, the ITI Society having preferred appeals in W.A. No.1468/2003 and connected matters, the Hon'ble Division Bench allowed the said appeals vide final order dated 23.10.2008 and set-aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The said order passed in W.A.No.1468/2003 was confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No.12501/2009 dated 01.10.2009 and the same has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioners. It is therefore clear that in view of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court which was confirmed by the Apex Court, the present claim of the petitioners challenging the acquisition proceedings is barred by constructive res-judicata as well as by principles of the estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment and waiver and consequently, the petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
(iv) The undisputed material on record also discloses that the acquisition proceedings having been initiated in the year 1985 and having been unsuccessful in the earlier rounds of litigations,
- 30 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 the present petition filed in the year 2018 after more than thirty years is clearly barred by inordinate and unexplained delay and enormous laches and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. In this context, it is relevant to state that the averments in the memorandum of writ petition do not constitute or make out sufficient or valid grounds so as to explain the huge delay in preferring the present petition and consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
(v) As stated supra, though in W.P.No.5323/2000, Muniswamappa, the original petitioner herein has categorically admitted that W.P.No.12102/1990 had been filed earlier in respect of the subject lands and that the same was dismissed by this Court on 13.09.1996, whereby the challenge to the acquisition in relation to the subject lands was rejected and the acquisition was upheld, in the present petitions, whereby the petitioners have once/yet again challenged the acquisition, there is no averment as regards W.P. No.12102/1990 or its dismissal on 13.09.1996. As stated earlier, in the said petition, challenge to the acquisition was rejected by this Court and non-mentioning about the said earlier order, clearly tantamount to suppression of material facts and the petitioners being guilty of abuse of process of law and not having come to the
- 31 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 Court with clean hands, the conduct of the petitioners disentitles them from claiming any reliefs in the present writ petitions, which are liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
(vi) The material on record discloses that the petitioners have themselves stated that Notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A.Act dated 16.01.1997 was issued in respect of the subject lands; it is however contended that despite the same and the other material on record, the petitioners continue to remain in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. In this context, it is relevant to state that issuance of the aforesaid Section 16(2) notification clearly evidences that the possession of the subject lands had been taken from the petitioners. Further, though the ITI Society issued communication dated 20.04.2011 addressed to the petitioner stating that the subject lands have not been handed over to the ITI Society, subsequently, the SLAO has issued an Official Memorandum dated 28.11.2014 confirming that possession of the subject lands had been handed over to the ITI Society. Apart from the fact that the revenue records have been made out and Khata have been mutated into the name of ITI Society pursuant to the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject lands, the petitioner himself has produced several sale deeds executed by the
- 32 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 ITI Society in favour of its members and allottees in relation to the subject lands; on the other hand, petitioner has not placed any legal or acceptable material evidence to establish that he is in possession of the subject lands. It is also significant to note that in the earlier round of litigation in W.A.No.1468/2003 and connected matters referred to supra, the Hon'ble Division Bench has categorically held that the possession had been taken over from the respective writ petitioners including the petitioner herein and has also held that the presumption arising from Section 16(2) notification had not been rebutted and also that they are not in actual or physical possession or enjoyment of the subject lands. Though the petitioner seeks to rely upon photographs, tax paid receipts, electricity certificate etc., the said documents sought to be produced along with I.A.No.3/2022 are insufficient not only to rebut the presumption arising from Section 16(2) notification and no reliance can be placed upon the said post litem documents to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession or enjoyment of the subject lands. In fact, the mutation register extracts produced by the petitioner himself along with I.A.No.3/2022 also confirms that the Khata in respect of the subject lands and other had been mutated into the name of the ITI Society.
- 33 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 The aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record, including the various sale deeds executed in favour of the private respondent Nos.6 to 72 and subsequent alienations are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands and their claim in this regard cannot be accepted.
(vii) I.A.No.5/2022 is filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the petition by incorporating additional pleadings for the purpose of contending that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject lands had stood lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act. It is contended that the twin requirement of subject lands from the petitioners and payment of compensation to the petitioners had not been fulfilled/satisfied by the respondents resulting in lapsing of the acquisition by virtue of Section 24(2) of the said Act. Insofar as the contention regarding non-taking of possession of the subject lands from the petitioners are concerned, as stated herein before, I have already come to the conclusion that the respondents had taken over the possession of the subject lands from the petitioners and handed it over to the ITI Society as borne out from the material on record and as such, this contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
- 34 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021
(viii) As regards the contention of the petitioners that the compensation had not been deposited pursuant to the award is concerned, as stated supra, the approved award dated 24.08.1987 itself states that the amount was deposited before the Civil Court; in addition thereto, in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.764/1991 and connected matters dated 03.09.1996, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has already come to the conclusion that the compensation amount was deposited before the Civil Court and it was open to the parties to approach either LAO or the reference Court for enhancement of compensation. In addition thereto, as stated earlier the petitioners have been repeatedly approaching this Court and had challenged the acquisition proceedings as long back as in the year 1990 itself. In Indore Development Authority's case supra, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
- 35 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. The word "or" used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as "nor" or as "and". The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression "paid" in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case
- 36 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non- deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
- 37 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition".
(underlining by me)
(ix) As held by the Apex Court, Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act cannot be used to put forth stale or time barred claims nor give rise to a new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings; it is also held that Section 24(2) also does not reopen the concluded proceedings nor allow land owners to question the legality of mode of taking possession or mode of deposit compensation in the treasury instead of Court to invalidate the acquisition; in the facts of the instant case, it is clear that no
- 38 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 reliance can be placed upon Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act by the petitioner in support of his stale and time barred claim which is clearly barred by delay and laches.
(x) Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.Chowdamma @ Pillamma Vs. State of Karnataka & Others11 in respect of Sy.No.23/4 measuring 23 guntas also situated in the subject layout, to which the ITI Society is a party is concerned, apart from the fact that the said judgment was rendered under different facts and circumstances, which are distinguishable from the facts in the instant case, the said judgment has been stayed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No.320/2022 dated 30.05.2023 in addition to the fact that in the instant case, there is a categorical finding recorded by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No.1468/2003 and connected matters referred to supra, in which, this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioners herein are not in possession or enjoyment of the subject lands and consequently, no reliance can be placed upon the said judgment by the petitioners in support of their contentions.
(xi) Insofar as the other judgments relied upon by the petitioners are concerned, the facts and circumstances in the said 11 W.P. 35582/2018, dated 02.01.2022
- 39 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29627 WP No. 4748 of 2018 C/W WP No. 1130 of 2021 cases are different from the facts obtaining in the instant case and the same are not applicable in view of the findings recorded by me hereinbefore in the present case to which the judgment of the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority's case is applicable.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the petition in W.P. No.4748/2028 and the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, W.P.No.1130/2021 also does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE JTR/SRL List No.: 19 Sl No.: 5