Sudha S Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Sudha S Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009

Equivalent citations: 2009 (5) AIR KAR R 292

 27 ""§§§N_C§ALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORYIY

 

in Tim HIGH COURT 01:' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE .«_'  Q 
DA'i'ED 'I'H§S mg 24TH DAY OF ARRIL 2009 
PRESENT ___u. _ _

THE HOIWBLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPA¥;A"GOWf_)A    "
AND      "  A . _
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE K.N;KESHRVf;i$ARA:§'}§t§.?§_v.  "

W.A.N0.1'?49l200'7 (B91513/W  _  
W.A.NO. 115012007 (Bl}_)_AE..VAND '
w.A.N0.17s;1.12007 {Bing} 

IN W.A.NO.1?_4§ opg%g;o?~«RRR R ;A 

BETWEEN:    
1 SUDHASPATEL _ _    7'

W10 SGMA$HEKA{? PATIL  "

AGED ABOUT 43fTYEAf%fS _' "

R/AT 27;9TF¥.   ' _ '-

MAGADI N1'AIr~¥..R(:AD*.  "    

AGRAHARA DASARAHALLE. 

BANGALORE 79. * _     A?PELLAN'i'

(By:S1'i:_ sR1§{i'~M::iR}~mPPA;" A£)--¥.';' RQR
KES§FY'&VCO.)  j _ 

  " S'£'A'i'E"£_)F RARr:ATAKA
 REP. BY :'1's.,PR1r~:{:1PAL SECRETARY
" -R R. i;%:;R»3AN DEVELOPMENT DEP'I'.,
 M;~s.'BU:LDINGs
"BAN£3AI_.,£)RE 1

 "'REI5'. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
  CHOWDAIAi~i ROAD ,3





9

Corporation No. 9/1, 2" Main Road, 

khata was made out in the name of sesiti   

Subseeueatiy, under a registered sa}:e'"deedA' 

the said Srinivas soid site measuring   feet.

North To South 58 feet in   

RR. Vasanthi, the petitiorxexj ﬁO05'. Under a
registered saie deed dated   portion
of the land in     East to West
38+-40/2 North"   was sold by said
Srinivas  """    the petitioner in
W,P.No.?94é3f~~"the date of respective sale
deeds,  ~:.éreA£.r1VAi.e.taVf1ﬂ possession and enjoyment
 V   by them, and they have been

regtiiafiy faxes to the BMP.

5.  of the petitioners in W.P.Ne.8092/2005 in

5 'brief: is as * ~1,1171d€I':

    bearing Survey No. 199 of Kempapura Agrahara

4: the ancestral property of one Dalappa S/0 Hobalappa.

K
45 'x



10

Under a registered sale deed dated 30/ 5/ 196} 

an extent of 15 guntas in Survey N0.   o§j¢V" 

Doddakempaiah and his brothers wad  

petitioners. Subsequently, the said  w;.§s:_ = k'

sites and they were assigned  .3.V_1A9{~V).'V; 1  1192
and 1193 situated in 4:12  Rdé1d."si.te  1166,
1167, 1168 and 1159   MRCR layout,
Vijayanagar,      are in iawful
pessession and?    'sites and have been

regulariy  
6. It Wes   in all the writ petitions that

the Govenfimeat of "1{ai}I:;ateka for formation of a layout cailed

  Layout issued Notifications dated

 6/4/A'u19_6'1__Vé.f1dA"_i§/;~.1'2.]1961 under Sections 16 (1) and 18 (1)

V CITE Act  I']W provisions of Land Aequisitien Act in

 of _se{?era1 lands i;:"1e1udi1:1g Survey 3403.28 and 199 in

me "petit1'oner's properties are situated and formed the

  V  ' _ "iayeL:t, Hewever, the erstwhile CITE or later BDA did not

6%



31

take possession of the sites in question either. the

erstwhile owners or ﬁnm the petitioners after    

them as such the possession of thegsite's «r_e1inain.ed'«.witIi" 

vendors of the petitioners till  ildete  

subsequently with the petitioners' thns' are V

in peaceful possession and"'enjoyttient:of sitesiin" question.
However, the EDA by the  proposed to

auction the sites  byithe 

'2.   1'nter-aiia contending
that land   hi and 199 along with other
iands were   vilacquisition vide preliminary
   '' e196}. which was gazetted on

1st/5/':95;  ﬁnal notiﬁcation tiated 19/12/1961

 geziettedyion 4/ 1/1962. After the passing of the

_m~a_1iyar§1s, goesession of acquired lands was taken over by the

'1,_'_Governr:eent wide notiﬁcation issued under Section 16 (1) of

  zigcquisition Act. Thereafter, the layout called MRO}?

 "'Ia}4(uQ%.l£ was formed and sites were aliotteci to the eligible



  to ichallenge the acquisition itself, although

19

iand is needed or is likely to be needed for pubiic
purpose and the acquisition proceedings point out

an impediment to anyone to encumber the 
acquired thereunder. It authorises the des_i.@é1te%ijjL~~.i__f.  
officer to enter upon the land to do  

etc. Therefere, any aiienatjon of'tiV1e'iarzd_ aﬁzeif" tifget 
pubiication of the notiﬁcation  it
does not bind the  ortthwie  
under the acquisition. On   offthe
land, all rights, title end  tanasm
vested in the State,  the Act,

free from ail   absolute

title in the hated   t1;;~:x5ameeti~."

Building   case referred to by the

learned Sizagleajﬁdge"hesA'i1e}d:tﬁt1s in para 28:
V  " f'x rt  Vtx  x Now it is a well settled
 ""-39ré>posi't;iorr.Aef Iatttttttﬂmt a person who purchases
 the ».4su§:i»sequent to the issuance of the
iietiﬁcatieﬁ teider Section 4(1) of the Act, cannot

be the owner. Such a purchaser has no

/'
r
'
 ._--.



   heid  subsequent purehaeer cannot challenge

'  rectification or the 1'rregu1a.rity in taking posseeeion

21

and could be accepted as legal and valid transfef.
despite the fact that such iaﬁd was aequi1j;eH(fi'4'*   ~
the State Government under the provisions: :01"  

Land Acquisition Act for pubiie purpcseﬁ'  " "   '

Considering the said issue: the S'u_tireme 
17 held thus;

"When a piece of    actiuired,
a notiﬁcation under' V   the Land
Acquisition Am; is   'ieeued by the
State    with law.
The said  to be foliowed
by a    Section 6 of the
Land  with the issuance of

such a ti0tiﬂCaMtiQI};_az~1y.'i' encumbrance created by

 the_§e¥wner, of  tre;nsfer made after the issuance
.  " 'stiehfajVi1etiﬁcaV;tiei1 would be deemed to be void
    be binding on the eovemmem. A
fi.:;;f;ibei*e;"j_§iecisions of this Court have recogaised

  pmpositicmz of iaw wherein it was

 zecqtiisitien proceedings and also the validity of the



22

of the land after the declaration under Sect:io;f;_.4 V
the Act".  "'   '

17. In the light of the above Well; '..Vla3e," " 

since the sales in favour of all the 

the issue of notiﬁcation under  42 {'1}: of 'Lv;§X;v.Aet;3,  L'

sales in their favour are void  i3a've..1?1ot  any
title to the property by   Sales. Therefore,
they have no righf:  .gue§iion:::g,}ﬁe   in putting up
the sites for   WJCOPY 0f 5316 déed
dated .Vfai'ot.A1:i9' 'elmsaymmppa and sale deed
dated 23~9?%.1&9'?4'(}   ' S_ﬁnivas, do not indicate the
property Yiuliiber   thereunder as the promrty
  mAe1"e£io12ed« «therein. Therefore, it is not clear as

towfhewfher  eale deeds relate to Sy.No. 28 as sought to

     it is assumed that those sale deeds relate

 itiue sale deeds in favour of the appellants are

 to issue of notiﬁcation under section 4 (1) of LA.

. 'V:.Vﬁ;e.ﬁ v_Therefore the learned Single Judge has rightiy held that



23

the appellants have not derived any title over the 

qziestion.

18. The learned Single Judge amiss 'iggogieirzeddi 

eozitention of the appeliants 'that   ,

bettemient charges in respect of   iiave been
made out in their names    to BMP,
has rejected these Coiltentioizs  payment of
betterment Laiiesi  confer any right
on them.  with the observation
of learned regard. Admittedly, the
appellants  not paid any betterment
charges ,e_;itf1er to.' to BSA at any time. It is also not

   have got the land converted to non

  .. required charges nor it is their

 t11at4"the3{ est any time applied to the plaxming authority

,1tfoidddjwproyalvwddof a layout of the house sites and obtained

  by paying betterment charges. Therefore, there is

it  '  to show that they are in possession of the sites in

ﬁx



25

was once aliotted but subsequently the allotment Was.

canceiied by the Authority or surrendered by   

site which has been formed on aceouni:.of_rea<'ijnstn:i.ent in_1:he V'

plan subsequent to the issue of noiiﬁoationey 

applications for allotment of sites._....'kh} tlieeasesii it is" V

not the contention of the   interinediary sites
proposed for auction wereisi:a;;i    by Section
2(j) of the Rules. it  not    that these six
intermediary sites"':.$%?ere'3V'..;_3;§: ti;i1_e:"v§#;n3J.otted to any persons
and subsequ'entZ%f  cancelled nor thai: the
aiiottees   not the case of BEA that
these  sitesA"v_ix?ei;e, formed on account of re»
  the niaﬂ"'snbsequent to issue of notiﬁcation

 allotment of sites. Therefore, these

 ""'~intezmed.i:s1'y  ieannot be construed as stray sites so that

" "could 'disposes oﬁ' by public auction as per Rule 5 of

  In View of the above, these iritennediaxy sites are

 to be oﬁered for allotment to eiigble persons as per

  3 of Rules. These intermediary sites can not be disposed





31
implement this process, it may not be ciiﬁicult for the

concerned authorities as, we now understand tha:"' 

Sub~Reg'strar's oiﬁce in the major cities are ail  

The information ﬁom the acqL1i.eiI:'g«..   V'

transferred to the su'n-Registrafs 

soft computerised copies, so  sa1"ne.eo1,11_'c_i  into'

the computers at the  oﬁice, and
thereby the information égiietsil  level and
Whenever a   certiﬁcate is
generated it  fiendency of acquisition
proceedirxgfieriid   oriote  esiiztion to the prospective
buyer before. iée/ishe" further and purchase
either propose?' 'aoqtiireiéf property for }oub1ic purpose.
enteriiigiof such information should also be

maoe end Oﬁieer failing to comply the same

 =i"siiouid Abe Qpereonally liable for any damage or ioss that

i u "  Voeatiseei to any person or statutory Authority to ensure

 «.:"'p:ro;§eA3f'iH1151ementation of the process.

 -------

25. The appeais are dismissed. Howeve1y4"i.s directed to dispose of Six intennediaxy sites 974, 1167, 1168, 1191 and 1 192 :i3.¥.§}}'s (Alloment of Sites), Rules 1984 by' L. to the eligible persons by inviting'éi%¥:;i5ii_catiéi:e§.'A_": $1) as to cost.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Sudha S Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009

Equivalent citations: 2009 (5) AIR KAR R 292