Karnataka High Court
Chinnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
WP No. 11182 of 2021
C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 11182 OF 2021 (LA-KIADB)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 23727 OF 2021
IN W.P.NO.11182/2021:
BETWEEN:
SRI SURENDRA K.M.,
S/O LATE SRI MULBAGILAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O KARINAYAKANAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
CHANDRASHEKAR AND INDUSTRIES,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE CHAIRMAN,
DHARWAD BENCH
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING
4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
WP No. 11182 of 2021
C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. DEER FIELD LOGISTICS,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY,
INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.136, 2ND FLOOR, 10TH 'A' MAIN,
JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. ASHWIN GOVINDAN.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI NIKHILESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1;
SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER THE ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND PROCEEDS OF THE CASE, QUASH THE IMPUGNED
NOTIFICATION DATED 13.03.2012 ANNEXURE-H AND J AND THE
IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATIONS DATED 04.12.2012 ANNEXURE-K,
DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-H, J AND K ARE
DEEMED TO HAVE LAPSED, INSOFAR AS THEY RELATE TO 3 ACRES
OF LAND IN SY.NO.16 (MOREFULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE
HEREUNDER) AS PER SECTION 24(2) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RE-SETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.23727/2021:
BETWEEN:
1 . CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O DODDA THIMMAIAH,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 130.
2 . MUNIRAJU Y.,
S/O LT YELLANA BHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
WP No. 11182 of 2021
C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
3 . VENKATESHAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNITHIMMANNA BHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
4 . MUNIYAMMA,
W/O DODDATHIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
5 . VENKATESHAPPA,
S/O RAMAIAH AND LATE MUNIYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
6 . VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
D/O LT VENKATAMMA AND YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
7 . SAKAMMA,
S/O CHIKKA NARAYANA BHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
...PETITIONERS
[BY SRI NARESH KUMAR P.C., ADVOCATE (PH)]
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
WP No. 11182 of 2021
C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING
4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. DEER FIELD LOGISTICS,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY,
INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.136, 2ND FLOOR, 10TH 'A' MAIN,
JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. ASHWIN GOVINDAN.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI NIKHILESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER THE ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 13.03.2012 ANNEXURE-B AND
THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 04.12.2012 ANNEXURE-A ISSUED
BY THE R2 AND R3 AND ETC.,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
WP No. 11182 of 2021
C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 14.12.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed seeking for following reliefs:
IN W.P.No.11182/2021:
"1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order of Direction, quashing the impugned Notification dated 13.03.2012 (Annexure-H), bearing No.CI100SPQ2012, Bangalore impugned Notification dated 13.03.2012 (Annexure-J), bearing No.CI100SPQ2012, Bangalore, and the impugned Final Notification dated 04.12.2012 (Annexure-K), bearing No.CI568SPQ2012;
2. Issue of Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring that the Notifications Annexures-H, J and K are deemed to have lapsed, insofar as they relate to 3 acres of land in Sy.No.16 (more fully described in the Schedule hereunder), as per Section 24(2) of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re- settlement Act, 2013 etc. IN W.P.No.23727/2021:
"1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order of Direction, quashing the impugned Notification dated 13.03.2012 bearing No.C1100SPQ12 (Annexure-B) and the Final Notification dated 04.12.2012 bearing No.CI 568 SPQ qw (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent nos.2 & 3 etc. -6- NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
2. Sri G.A. Srikante Gowda, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner's father Mulbaglappa purchased 03 Acres of land in Sy.no.16 of Jakkasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk from Jodidar - Bapu Singh under registered sale deed dated 27.09.1956 and was in possession and enjoyment since then. On 28.05.2013, this Court in W.P.no.19183/2013 directed Tahsildar to consider representation for continuation of name in revenue entries, in accordance with law. After death of petitioner's father in year 2019, name of petitioner was mutated as per MR.no.H4/2019- 2020, and petitioner was growing ragi, groundnuts, eucalyptus etc. and his family was dependent entirely on income from said land.
3. But, in June 2021, there were attempts by officials of respondents to dispossess petitioner. On enquiry, petitioner was informed that Notifications dated 13.03.2012 were issued under Sections 3 (1) and 1 (3) of KIDB Act, at Annexures-H and J; and Final Notification dated 04.12.2012 issued under Section 28 (4) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD Act' for short) at Annexure-K to acquire petitioner's land for industrial purposes. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
4. It was submitted, though petitioner was owner/occupier in actual possession and revenue entries were standing in his name, impugned notifications for acquisition were issued without issuing notice to petitioner under Sections 28 (1), 28 (3) or under 28 (6) of KIAD Act providing opportunity of being heard. As such, notifications were illegal and liable to be quashed.
5. It was submitted, though respondents claim to have issued Final Notification at Annexure-K on 04.12.2012, till date no award was passed by respondent no.3 or actual physical possession taken. Therefore, failure to pass award and take possession within reasonable period, acquisition proceedings insofar as petitioner's land was liable to held as lapsed or abandoned, applying principles under Section 24 (2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('RFCTLARR Act' for short).
6. It was submitted, Full Bench of this Court in State Government v. M.L. Manjunatha Shetty, reported in AIR 1972 KAR 263, had held whether there was transfer of -8- NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 property or interest under a document had to be gathered from expressions used in document and expression 'hereby relinquished' would indicate that right /interest in land was being conveyed under said document. Relying on decision in Mrs.Mathekar Taherunissa by LRs and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., in W.P.no.15027/2007, disposed of on 23.08.2013, rendered referring to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Ahuja Industries Limited v. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 3519 and in HMT Limited v. Mudappa and Ors., reported in 2007 (3) KCCR 1985, it was held, only after issuing Preliminary Notification, State Government would evince interest to acquire land notified and that issuance of notice to land owner or occupier and personal hearing in course of acquisition proceedings were mandatory.
7. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in 2012 (1) SCC 792, referring to its earlier decision in Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and Ors., reported in 2011 (5) SCC 394 reiterated principles regarding taking of possession. It was held, mere -9- NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 record by revenue authorities showing delivery of possession to beneficiary would not be sufficient. It was submitted acquisition proceedings without due compliance with Section 5A (2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act' for short) providing opportunity of personal hearing and participation would be unsustainable. It was further held, even 'person in occupation' would be a person interested in land and entitled for notice, opportunity of personal hearing etc. It was also submitted, Apex Court had taken note of casual approach of statutory authorities while acquiring agricultural lands. It observed, before acquiring private land, State or its agencies should as far as possible use land belonging to State and even in case, acquisition of land was necessary, same ought to be with strict compliance of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
8. It was submitted, as per statement of objections, allotment of land in favour of respondent no.4 herein was even prior to alleged date of taking possession of land and its handing over to Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('Board' for short). Therefore, respondent no.4 had no locus standi to oppose present writ petition.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
9. It was submitted, as per Annexure-R7, Deputy Commissioner had authorized SLAO to take possession, who in turn delegated said power to Tahsildar, under Annexure-R8. Thereafter, as per Annexure-R9, Tahsildar authorized a retired Tahsildar to take possession. It was submitted Annexure-R10 is record for taking of possession from petitioner and its delivery to Board. It was submitted mode of taking possession under Annexures-R7 to R10 and delivery to Board was therefore illegal. It was submitted, admission in written statement filed in O.S.no.603/2011 about taking possession was in respect of Sy.no.16/P5, measuring 05 Acres only and not present land.
10. Insofar as W.P.no.23727/2021 filed by Chinnappa and others, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that as per order at Annexure-C dated 10.11.1983, extent of 02 Acres out of Sy.no.16 (new Sy.no.16/P22-P1) was granted in name of petitioner no.1 and his name was mutated as per ME.no.17/87- 88 and entered into record of rights as per Annexures-C1 and C2 on 30.06.1988 in revenue records. Though, respondents had contended that there was creation of revenue records, same would not hold good as police after investigation had filed
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 'C-report' as per Annexure-Q. Therefore, petitioners as grantees were 'interested persons' in land under acquisition and entitled to challenge same. As admittedly no notice was issued to petitioners, acquisition was illegal and liable to be quashed.
11. On other hand, Sri Yogesh D. Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1 and Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 sought to oppose writ petition. Referring to statement of objections filed, Sri B.B. Patil , learned counsel submitted that insofar as W.P.no.11182/2021, with object of establishing an industrial area, Board had issued Preliminary Notification dated 13.03.2012 under Section 28 (1) of KIAD Act, as per Annexure- R1. Thereafter, Final Notification dated 04.12.2012 under Section 28 (4) of KIAD Act, was issued. It was submitted, without producing copy of sale deed, petitioner was claiming interest in respect of 03 Acres of land in Sy.no.16 of Jakkasandra village. In fact, Record of Rights ('RoR' for short) produced showing his name as khatedar were questionable. It was further submitted, even alleged sale deed of 27.09.1956 produced as Annexure-R6 was in fact only a "khayam geni kaagada" and absolute sale deed. Said right would stand
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 extinguished after coming into force of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('LR Act' for short) with land vesting in State. Thereafter, unless such occupier filed necessary application and obtained grant of occupancy certificate, he could not lay any claim over such land. Therefore, petitioner could not lawfully claim to be a person interested in any land notified for acquisition by Board.
12. It was submitted, as on date of issuance of acquisition notifications name of petitioner or his father were not entered in RoRs. In fact, even as per petitioner, names were mutated only after disposal of W.P.no.19183/2013 on 28.05.2013. It was submitted, as held in Smt.P.Venkatalakshmamma v. SLAO and Ors., reported in 2002 SCC OnLine KAR 143, there was no obligation on Land Acquisition Officer to conduct enquiry into possible interests of all persons in respect of lands proposed for acquisition. Hence, contention about acquisition being in violation of principles of natural justice would not sustain as held in M/s.Ahuja Industries Limited's case (supra).
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
13. In Mr.Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in 2011 (3) SCC 11, it was held by operation of law, with issuance of notification under Section 28 (4) of KIAD Act, lands stood vested in State free from all encumbrances. Therefore, claim of petitioner to have continued in possession of notified land would be illegal. It was submitted, unauthorized occupant or person in illegal occupation did not have any right of hearing under Section 28 (3) of KIAD Act, as held in Venkataramanappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in 1984 (2) KLJ 326. Even contention that petitioner had no other land and dependent on income for livelihood would not sustain as Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chameli Singh and Ors., v. State of UP and Ors., reported in 1996 (2) SCC 549, had held that compulsory acquisition by State for public purpose in exercise of power of eminent domain would not amount to deprivation of right of livelihood and that individual interest ought to yield to larger public purpose.
14. It was also contended, Section 28 (4) of KIAD Act, did not contain provision about time limit and therefore as held in P. Narayanappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2006
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 (7) SCC 578, acquisition could not be negated on that count.
It was submitted, acquisition notifications issued in year 2012 were sought to be challenged by filing writ petition in year 2021 after nine years. Therefore, writ petition was liable to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches.
15. It was submitted, Division Bench of this Court in Smt.Jalaja and Ors. v. Union of India, Ministry of Rural Development and Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine KAR 15768, had held KIAD Act being special enactment, provisions of RFCTLARR Act, specifically Section 24 (2) would not apply to acquisition under KIAD Act. Therefore, none of petitioners' contentions were meritorious and sought dismissal of writ petition.
16. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Nikhilesh Rao, advocate for respondent no.4 submitted that on 04.12.2012, Board issued Final Notification for acquisition of 627.18 Acres of land including 03 Acres of Sy.no.16 of Jakkasandra village, Malur Taluk for formation of industrial area. It was submitted, as per petitioner, his father Mulabagilappa purchased schedule property under registered
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 sale deed dated 27.09.1956. Perusal of copy of said deed obtained by respondent no.4 indicated that it was not a sale deed, but only a lease deed. It was submitted, since said land was tenanted, it stood vested with State after coming into force of amendment to LR Act. Relying on decision in Basappa v. The Land Tribunal, Bagalkote Taluk and Ors., reported in 1977 SCC OnLine KAR 230, it was submitted admittedly, neither petitioner nor his father were granted occupancy rights and consequently, they had lost their rights over schedule property.
17. It was further submitted that Sri Mariyappa and others had filed O.S.no.603/2011 before Civil Judge at Malur for partition of several properties include schedule property and petitioner was arrayed as defendant no.2 in said suit. It was pointed out that in paragraph no.6a of very plaint mentioned about schedule land being acquired by Board. In said suit, petitioner had filed written statement and also additional written statement on 01.07.2013 clearly admitting acquisition. Hence, petitioner was fully aware of acquisition and neither approached Court in time nor by disclosing all material facts. Such being case, without arraying Board as a party, filed
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 W.P.no.19183/2013 and obtained directions for entering name in revenue records.
18. Despite being aware of above facts, petitioner had suppressed same and filed writ petition disentitling him for any relief as per ratio laid down in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, reported in 2007 (8) SCC 449.
19. It was further submitted that on 31.12.2015, State Government had allotted land bearing Sy.nos.16, 47 and 59 of Jakkasandra village, totally measuring 84 Acres 01 guntas in favour of Board, free of cost. In furtherance of same, Final Notification was issued by Deputy Commissioner on 26.04.2016 transferring lands to Board and delivered possession. On 12.02.2016, respondent no.4 paid sum of Rs.44.32 Crores to Board. Thereafter on 21.07.2016, a registered lease deed was executed by Board in favour of respondent no.4 leasing 64 Acres including schedule property for setting up an Industrial Logistics Park.
20. It was submitted, first prayer sought i.e. for declaration about acquisition having lapsed by virtue of Section 24 (2) of RFCTLARR Act, would not be tenable in view of
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore and Anr. v. Anasuya Bai (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Ors., reported in 2017 (3) SCC 313 and S. Jalaja's case (supra).
21. It was submitted that writ petition filed nine years after issuance of acquisition notification, when petitioner was aware of, would liable to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches also. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration and Ors. v. Kaushilya Thakur and Anr., reported in 2012 (5) SCC 412 has held delay of four years in challenging acquisition as fatal.
22. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Narasimhamurthy and Ors., reported in 1995 (5) SCC 534, had held that Land Acquisition Officer was not obliged to hold roving enquiry to ascertain persons having interest in land under acquisition and it would suffice, if acquisition proceeded in name of person whose name was shown in revenue entries. Admittedly, by virtue of provisions of LR Act, schedule property stood vested in State
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 and as per Annexure-R9 transferred extent of 84 Acres 01 Guntas in favour of Board, free of cost. Having left over his right, petitioner could not maintain grievance against acquisition.
23. In reply, it was submitted that name of petitioner's father shown in revenue records was mutated and continued till year 1986 and after his death name of petitioner was mentioned. Denying that writ petition suffered from delay and laches, it was submitted, petitioner had been in possession and cultivation until attempt by staff of Board to disturb possession. And since acquisition was not in name of petitioner, was unaware of acquisition, therefore, there was no delay or laches.
24. Insofar as W.P.no.23727/2021, learned counsel for respondents submitted in unison that instant writ petition was filed based on created revenue records and liable to be dismissed with cost. It was submitted that on a complaint dated 16.11.2016 filed by Tahsildar, Malur Taluk as per Annexure-R2, FIR was registered against petitioner and revenue officials in Crime no.339/2016. As per Annexure-R4 after filing of 'C- report', Police had obtained permission for further investigation and on finding incriminating material, filed charge-sheet on
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 20.02.2019. Therefore, petitioners were misconceived that filing of 'C-report' on 29.06.2018 amounted to discharge. It was further submitted that writ petition filed after delay of more than nine years without an acceptable explanation was liable to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches also.
25. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition records.
26. From above, it is seen that petitioners are challenging notifications issued by Board for acquisition insofar as 02 Acres of land in Sy.no.16 of Jakkasandra village, Malur Taluk. Main grounds of challenge in W.P.no.11182/2021 were that petitioners being owners/occupiers was not issued with any notice of acquisition and it was contrary to Section 28 (1), 28 (3) and 28 (6) of KIAD Act; failure to pass award, pay compensation and take possession; non-consideration of alternative Government land for acquisition; following illegal procedure for taking possession and illegally claiming to have allotted land to respondent no.4 even prior to conclusion of acquisition etc. While in W.P.no.23727/2021, it is mainly on ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
27. On other hand, respondents contend that petitioners not falling into category of interested persons were not entitled to challenge acquisition proceedings; that challenge long after issuance of notification under Section 28 (4) of KIAD Act, suffered from delay and laches and in any case, land was acquired in exercise of power of eminent domain and suppression and misrepresentation of material facts etc.
28. Therefore, questions required to be considered are:
i. Whether petitioners would be interested persons and consequently, acquisition without issuing notice to them would be illegal?
ii. Whether writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on ground of suppression and misrepresentation and from delay and laches?
iii. Whether acquisition is liable to be quashed on ground of failure to follow procedure prescribed under KIAD Act?
Question (i):
29. As per Section 2 (11) of KIAD Act, term 'interested person' shall have same meaning as in Section 3 of LA Act,
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 where it is defined to include all persons claiming interest in compensation to be paid for acquisition of land, including a person interested in an easement affecting such land.
30. As stated above, petitioner in W.P.no.11182/2021 claims to be owner/occupier of schedule property, which is claimed to have been purchased under sale deed dated 27.09.1956, produced by respondent no.4 as Annexure-R6. Its nomenclature is as permanent lease, while recitals mention about transfer of interest and enjoyment of property leased by legal heirs and successors of lessee perpetually. In ME.no.10/1972-73 produced by petitioner as Annexure-P1, respondent no.4 recorded such transfer as sale of tenancy. As per Section 44 of LR Act, all tenanted lands vested with State by operation of law. It is specifically contended by respondent no.4 that petitioner did not file application for grant of occupancy rights and vesting attained finality. Thereafter with consent of Government, it was transferred to Board, free of cost for formation of industrial layout and as per Annexure- R10, possession was delivered to Board. But, none of records produced by respondents bear any indication about vesting of land. Specific order for mutation of revenue records indicating
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 vesting is not produced. Annexures-R7 to R9, refer to G.O.no.RD437SGB/2015, Bangalore, dated 31.12.2015 consenting for transfer of 84 Acres and 01 gunta of land including scheduled land herein in favour of Board. In entire writ petition, petitioner has asserted and claimed interest in land as owner.
31. In rejoinder statement, petitioner asserts that land referred to in O.S.no.603/2011 is Sy.no.16/P15, measuring 05 acres and was different portion than property scheduled herein measuring 03 acres in Sy.no.16 and in which petitioner's interest was subsisting. It is asserted that name of petitioner was mutated and subsisted as on date of initiation of acquisition. Respondent no.1 - State has not supported assertion by respondent no.4 about such vesting. Therefore, whether there is vesting of scheduled property due to coming into force of amendment to Land Reforms Act, would be a disputed question of fact. In case, if lands were to have vested, then as per Section 44 (2) (f) of LR Act, only right available to land owners would be for compensation under LR Act. Proviso to Section 44 (2) (e) of LR Act, contemplates enquiry by State to determine whether any person in possession of vested lands
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 is prima-facie entitled to be registered as occupant and protects such persons from dispossession by State.
32. In fact, condition no.2 in orders at Annexures-R7 and R9 mandate payment of compensation by Board, in case any applications in Form-50 and Form-53 were filed. Order at Annexure-R7 refers to proceedings under Section 68 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('KLR Act' for short) read with Rule 97 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. Section 68 (2) and (3) provides opportunity to every person having interest or right or likely to be adversely affected to file objections and Sub-Section 3 specifically provides application of provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 11 of LA Act. Thus, even in case of proceedings under Section 68 of KLR Act, determination and payment of compensation is contemplated.
33. Though petitioner has contended that he has been in occupation of schedule property even as on date of initiation of acquisition proceedings and therefore entitled for notice, High Court of Madras after referring to several earlier decisions held in Palani Gunrukkal v. Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, reported in 1995 SCC OnLine Mad 74 as follows:
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 "6. Learned Special Government Pleader has raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the 7th petitioner is only a cultivating tenant and if at all, he can only claim compensation and he has no right to challenge the acquisition itself. It is also stated that the 7th petitioner did have the notice of the award enquiry. Secondly it is pointed out that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. In support of these two contentions several judgments are relied on. I am not referring to the earner judgments because of the judgment of D. Raju, J. in W.P. Nos. 10147 and 10148 of 1983 dated 11.11.1991. As already stated, these two writ petitions are decided by D. Raju, J. relating to the very land in question filed by another occupier. It specifically relates to the 15 cents of land in S. No. 17, Villivakkam village and the land is claimed to be a factory building. Relying on the judgment of this Court in T.K. Sambanda Rao, A Registered Partnership Firm v. The Union Territory of Pondicherry 1984 Writ L.R. (Summary of Judgments) 134, the learned judge held that a lessee is not a person interested for the purpose of S. 5-A of the Act and that he has no locus standi to challenge acquisition proceedings issued under Ss. 5-A and 6 of the Act.
In Kesavan v. Government of Tamil Nadu 1992 Writ L.R. 453, a Division Bench of this Court has taken the same view. In this case also, several judgments are relied upon and consequently, the Division Bench has held that persons who are having only a status of a lessee have no locus standi to agitate a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. The above judgments conclude the issue against the petitioners that a cultivating tenant cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings, but, he may have an interest only in claiming compensation."
(emphasis supplied)
34. Wherefore, if petitioner is able to establish his possession of acquired land, as per Annexure-R3 in statement of objections of respondent no.4, his status would be that of
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 tenant. In Union of India v. A. Ajit Singh, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 50, it is held that tenant would be entitled for share in compensation. Admittedly, Form-7 for grant of occupancy rights is not filed. Petitioner/s have also lost right to grant of land under Section 77 (A) of LR Act, as even Form-7A is not filed. Though filing of Form-50 or 53 under KLR Act, is claimed, same is not substantiated. It is seen petitioner claims to be lessee under deed of permanent lease and cannot be equated with owner. Therefore, failure to issue notice to petitioner would not be fatal. Hence, question (i) is answered partly in affirmative insofar as petitioner being interested person for purposes of compensation and partly in negative insofar as right to challenge acquisition notification. Question (ii):
35. In its statement of objections and contentions urged, respondent no.4 has alleged suppression and misrepresentation of material facts insofar as lack of knowledge of acquisition on ground that petitioner herein was defendant no.2 in O.S.no.603/2011 in which plaintiff himself had stated about suit schedule property (including Sy.no.16 of Jakkasandra village) being under acquisition. Though in
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 rejoinder statement, petitioner attempts to refute allegation by claiming that reference in Civil suit was with regard to different portion of land namely Sy.no.16/P15 of Jakkasandra village measuring 05 Acres, such assertion could not have been made without consulting acquisition notifications prior to filing written statement in said suit. Admittedly, present schedule property was part of lands notified for acquisition under very same notification. Therefore, if petitioner claims lack of knowledge, it can only be attributed to failure of due diligence on his part. Consequently, assertion about lack of knowledge of acquisition may not be deliberate with intention to mislead this Court into passing favourable orders. Hence, question (ii) insofar as suppression and misrepresentation is answered in negative.
36. However, writ petitions are filed in year 2021 challenging acquisition issued in preliminary notification dated 13.03.2012 and final notification dated 04.12.2012 i.e. after nine years. In writ petition, stand of petitioner is one of complete lack of knowledge of acquisition proceedings until 1st week of June 2021, when officials of Board allegedly sought to interfere with petitioners possession of suit property. But, as
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 per conclusion reached above lack of knowledge at best can be attributed to lack of due diligence on part of petitioner.
37. In Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 285, Hon'ble Supreme Court held :
"11. Nor do we think that the petitioners in the writ petitions should be allowed to raise this plea in view of their conduct in not challenging the validity of the notification even after the publication of the declaration under Section 6 in 1966. Of the two writ petitions, one is filed by one of the appellants. There was apparently no reason why the writ petitioners should have waited till 1972 to come to this Court for challenging the validity of the notification issued in 1959 on the ground that the particulars of the public purpose were not specified. A valid notification under Section 4 is a sine qua non for initiation of proceedings for acquisition of property. To have sat on the fence and allowed the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis that the notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the notification on grounds which were available to them at the time when the notification was published would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioners (see Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110 : (1969) 2 SCR 824] and Rabindranath Base v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84 : (1970) 2 SCR 697] )."
38. Thus, belated challenge against acquisition notifications cannot be entertained as substantial effort on part of State would have ensued in pursuance of notifications. In instant case, Board has allotted large portion of land including
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 schedule property herein to respondent no.4, which as per assertions in statement of objections made substantial payments to Board and has been in possession. Thus, third party rights are created and it will be inequitable to disturb said position after lapse of substantial amount of time. Likewise, belated challenge feigning lack of knowledge due to lack of diligence was also turned down in Sawaran Lata v. State of Haryana, (2010) 4 SCC 532. Hence, question (ii) insofar as delay and laches is answered in affirmative. Question (iii):
39. This question is mainly due to petitioners contention that acquisition procedure is not compliant with Section 28 (1), 28 (3) and 28 (6) of KIAD Act. Annexures-H, J & K in W.P.no.11182/2021 indicate that respondent no.1 - State by two notifications dated 13.03.2012 issued under Sections 1 (3) and 3 (1) of KIAD Act, declared extent of 696 acres 25½ guntas of land in Jakkasandra village as 'industrial area' and extended application of provisions of KIAD Act, followed by notification under Section 28 (1) of KIAD Act. Thereafter, notification at Annexure-K dated 04.12.2012 is issued under Section 28 (4) of KIAD Act, for vesting of notified lands.
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
40. Indeed, in all these notifications, name of petitioner is not mentioned. As per statement of objections, respondent no.2 - Board disputed claim of title by petitioner in respect of schedule property under alleged sale deed dated 27.09.1956. Producing copy of same as Annexure-R3, it is contended that same is permanent lease deed and with promulgation of amendment to LR Act, tenancy was abolished and land stood vested with State. Since petitioner did not file application for grant of occupancy rights, vesting continued. Further as per petitioner's assertion recorded in order dated 28.05.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.no.19183/2013 produced as Annexure-C, his name had not continued in RoR in respect of petition property after year 1995. As per averments made in present writ petitions, it was re-entered only as per MR.no.H4/2019-2020 produced as Annexure-E. Thus, as on date of acquisition, name of petitioner was not found in record of rights. In fact, writ petition itself was filed in year 2013, after issuance of impugned acquisition notifications. Therefore, it would be uncharitable to attribute State with knowledge of all claims of title or interest in respect of lands proposed to be acquired. As held in Narasimhamurthy's case (supra), neither
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 State nor land acquisition officer is required to hold roving enquiry to ascertain all persons having any interests whatsoever in lands proposed to be acquired. It would suffice if name of anubhavdar/khatedar is notified.
41. Apart from above, one of grounds urged by petitioner is that acquisition lapsing due to failure to pass award and pay compensation. Though Division Bench of this Court in H.N. Shivanna v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 8956, had held though no period of limitation is prescribed in KIAD Act for passing award, it should be passed within reasonable time which would normally be within period of two years. In Premakala Prabhakara Reddy v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2985, learned single Judge of this Court held same as not good law. And Appeal before Division Bench was dismissed. Further in instant case, right of petitioner to claim compensation is required to be established as held above. Admittedly, as on date of issuance of acquisition notifications, extent 124 acres in Sy.no.16 including schedule land, therefore respondent would be justified in not passing award until demonstration of his right by petitioner. Even contention that alternative
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 Government lands available were not considered would be invain, as lands were shown to be belonging to Government as per entries in revenue records. Hence, question (iii) is answered in negative.
42. In view of above findings, W.P.no.11182/2021 insofar as challenge against acquisition notifications is dismissed, with observation that dismissal would not come in way of petitioners claiming compensation by establishing their right as tenant/occupant or unauthorised occupant, in accordance with law.
43. Insofar as W.P.no.23727/2021, it is seen that prosecution is launched for falsification of revenue records in collusion with revenue officials in respect of petition properties. As per Annexure-R4 dated 20.02.2019 produced by respondent no.4, charge-sheet is filed. Though, learned counsel for petitioners sought to rely on 'C-report' dated 29.06.2018 at Annexure-Q to contend that prosecution had ceased, said submission would be on misconception about effect of 'C- report' and in any case, would not subsist with charge-sheet being filed subsequently. Since entire contentions urged are
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301 WP No. 11182 of 2021 C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021 with reference to suspect revenue records, it would not be appropriate to entertain writ petition based on tainted records. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GRD List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1