Karnataka High Court
Sri.R. Kodandaraman vs Government Of Karnataka on 1 October, 2013
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION NO.21318/2013 (LA-KIADB)
Between:
Sri R.Kodandaraman,
S/o Sri Ramaswamy,
Aged about 84 years,
R/a No.166, 1st Cross,
4th Main Road, Viveknagar,
Bangalore - 560 047. .... Petitioner.
(By Sri S.Subhash, Adv. for Kumar & Kumar, Advs.)
And:
1 Government of Karnataka,
Department of Commerce and Industries,
1st Floor, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Reptd. By Principal Secretary.
2 Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board,
No.14/3, Rashtrothana Parishath Bldg.,
Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore - 1,
By its Chief Executive Officer.
2
3 The Special Land Acquisition Officer-2,
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board,
No.14/3, Rashtrothana Parishath Bldg.,
Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore - 1.
4 Tahashildar,
Bangalore North Taluk (Additional),
Bangalore.
5 Karnataka Public Land Corporation Ltd.,
And Ex-Officio Government Secretary,
Revenue Department and Member Secretary,
Government Land Protection Squad,
Kempegowda Road,
Bangalore - 9. .... Respondents.
(By Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, AGA for R1 and R4
Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, Adv.for R2 and R3
Sri D.R.Rajashekharappa, Adv. for R5)
---
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to declare the order dated 18.12.2012
passed by the 3rd respondent under Section 11(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 referring the matter to Civil Judge, Sr.Dn.,
and JMFC, Devanahalli under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act is arbitrary and illegal, etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Further Orders this day,
the Court passed the following:
3
ORDER
In this case, the petitioner has assailed the order at Annexure 'L' dated 18.12.2012 whereby the Special Land Acquisition Officer has referred the matter to the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. The petitioner was serving in the Indian Army. On attaining the age of superannuation, he was discharged on 31.1.1971. At the time of discharge, he was holding the rank of Subedar. He was awarded with Vishisht Seva Medal for distinguished service of high order. After retirement, he settled down in Bangalore.
3. It is contended that after retirement, petitioner approached the State Government for grant of Darkasth land as he intended to do agriculture for his living. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. He sought for grant of land under special category and his request was 4 considered favourably. He was granted 3 acres of land in Sy.No.6 situated in Singahalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Jala Hobli (now Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District), which is now re- numbered as Sy.No.6/P12. Along with the petitioner, two more persons were granted land in the same survey number. The petitioner was issued with the saguvali chit. The revenue authorities mutated entries in the mutation register.
4. The Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, complained to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, that the mutation entries effected in respect of the land in question are required to be verified as to their genuineness. Acting on the said complaint, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Division, initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 as to the correctness or otherwise of the entries in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.6 in Singahalli. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice at Annexure 'A' dated 31.10.2007 in this regard. He sent a reply to the notice and 5 appeared before the Special Deputy Commissioner and participated in the enquiry proceedings. After a thorough enquiry, the Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 24.8.2009 holding that the petitioner was granted an extent of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.6 of Singahalli village and ordered to continue his name in the revenue records and to effect 'pakka phodi' in accordance with law. The petitioner has produced a copy of the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner at Annexure 'B'.
5. It is further contended that the second respondent initiated acquisition proceedings of certain lands situated in Singahalli village and surrounding villages including that of petitioner's land. After holding an enquiry under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, petitioner's objections were over ruled and proceeded with the acquisition. The petitioner was called upon to surrender the documents of title pertaining to the land. Accordingly, the petitioner vide letter dated 4.6.2010 submitted the copies of the original documents pertaining to the 6 land to the second respondent. After submission of the documents, as the petitioner did not hear or receive any communication from second and third respondents, he approached them in person and addressed several letters seeking payment of compensation. But he was given evasive reply. It is further contended that the third respondent vide letter dated 3.3.2011 informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs.1,86,00,000/- has been disbursed/paid vide cheque No.668968 dated 18.6.2010 to one R.Kodandarama as compensation amount towards the acquisition of the schedule land. The petitioner immediately lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Halasur Gate Police Station. The Police registered the case and filed FIR. In the meanwhile, the office of the second respondent also lodged a complaint with the Halasur Gate Police Station. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Police issued orders directing CCB to investigate the complaint. The CCB was able to apprehend the fraudster to whom the cheque was issued and recovered a sum close to Rs.90 lakhs.
7
6. The petitioner subsequently approached the second and third respondents demanding payment of compensation. They kept on assuring him that compensation amount will be paid within few days. The second respondent Board in its 308th meeting held on 25.7.2011 resolved to initiate criminal action against the fraudster and disciplinary action against the then Special Land Acquisition Officer Nagaraj. The Board further resolved that the compensation be paid to the petitioner after confirming his identity. The petitioner has produced a copy of the same at Annexure 'C'.
7. It is further contended that since respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to pay the compensation, the petitioner filed a writ petition in No.43759/2011 seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein to pay the compensation to him for the lands acquired along with interest. The writ petition was allowed on 18.10.2012. When the matter stood thus, petitioner was served with a notice dated 8 5.11.2012 issued by the third respondent under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act calling upon him to appear before the third respondent along with the documents substantiating his claim over the land. In the said notice, the Managing Director of the Karnataka Land Corporation and the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk were included and notified as interested parties. Neither the Karnataka Land Corporation nor the Tahsildar are interested parties. The petitioner challenged the said notices by filing W.P.No.47507/2012. During the pendency of the said case, a submission was made on behalf of the respondents that an award has already been passed. Therefore, petitioner withdrew the said writ petition on 2.2.2013. The petitioner was informed that the matter being referred under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli. That is why petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli to pay the award amount deposited in Court by the third respondent and for certain other reliefs. 9
8. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed their statement of objections opposing the writ petition.
9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the lands in question have been granted to the petitioner. In the RTC, the name of the petitioner was shows as 'K.Kodandaraman' instead of 'R.Kodandaraman'. The mistake was corrected by an order dated 27.1.2009. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. After enquiry, the Special Deputy Commissioner has passed an order dated 24.8.2009 holding that the petitioner was granted the land in question and ordered to continue his name in the revenue records and to effect pakka phodi in accordance with law. The petitioner's 10 objection for acquisition of the land was over ruled and he was directed to surrender documents of title. The petitioner has complied with the said demand. It is only when he received the letter dated 3.3.2011, he came to know that the third respondent has disbursed the compensation amount in favour of one R.Kodandaraman. A police complaint has been registered against the said person. A sum of Rs.90 lakhs was recovered from him. Disciplinary action has been initiated against the then Land Acquisition Officer, Nagaraj.
11. Since the respondents failed to pay the compensation, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in No.43759/2011 seeking a direction to pay the compensation. In the said case, the Court has observed that petitioner is the owner of the land. In terms of the directions contained in the said order, notice was issued to the petitioner under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act showing the Managing Director, Karnataka Public Land Corporation and the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk as 11 interested persons. This was deliberately done with malafide intention. The Managing Director of Karnataka Public Land Corporation or the Tahsildar have nothing to do with the title of the land. The writ petition filed by the Tahsildar in No.27346/2011 challenging the order dated 24.8.2009 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner has been dismissed by this Court on 4.11.2011. Therefore, it was not necessary for the Special Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the amount under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act.
12. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have sought to justify the deposit of the amount by the third respondent in the Civil Court.
13. I have carefully considered the arguments made by the learned Counsel at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.
12
14. It is clear from the materials on record that petitioner was serving in the Indian Army. He was holding the rank of Subedar. He was awarded with Vishishta Seva Medal for distinguished service of high order. He was discharged from service on 31.7.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, he was granted 3 acres of land in Sy.No.6 of Singahalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Jala Hobli, now Bangalore North Taluk, which is now renumbered as Sy.No.6/P12. Following the issue of saguvali chit, the revenue authorities mutated the entries in the mutation register. The mistake made in the RTC while showing the name of the petitioner was corrected on 27.1.2009.
15. On the basis of the complaint made by the Tahsildar, the Special Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act as to the correctness or otherwise of the entries in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. The show cause notice issued to the 13 petitioner in this regard is dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure 'A'). After enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order dated 24.8.2009 at Annexure 'B' holding as under:
"In view of the reports, information and documents furnished by the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk and the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub Division, it is held that Sri Kodandaraman, the respondent herein was granted an extent of 3-00 acres of land in Sy.No.6 of Singahalli Village and ordered to continue his name in the revenue records and to effect 'pakka phodi' in accordance with law."
16. It is thus clear that the grant of land in favour of the petitioner is in accordance with law and that he is the kathedar/owner of the said land and is in possession and enjoyment of the same.
17. The lands have been acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development 14 Board after over ruling the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 28(3) of the Act. However, he was not paid compensation. It is only when he received the notice dated 3.3.2011, he came to know that a sum of Rs.1,86,00,000/- has been disbursed in favour of one R.Kodandarama as compensation towards acquisition of the land. Therefore, he lodged a complaint with the Halasuru Gate Police Station. The office of the second respondent has also lodged a complaint with the Halasuru Gate Police Station. The Commissioner of Police issued orders directing CCB to investigate the complaint. It appears that a sum of Rs.90 lakhs has been recovered from R.Kodandarama. Disciplinary action was also initiated against the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagaraja as per the resolution of the Board at Anenxure 'C'.
18. Since the compensation has not been paid, petitioner filed a writ petition in No.43759/2011 seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay the compensation. The 4th respondent was also a party to the said writ petition. The first 15 respondent in its statement of objections at Annexure 'D' has admitted that petitioner is the actual owner of the land. It has been stated thus:
"4. It is further submitted that on 15.6.2010 one Sri P.Kodandaraman S/o Ramaswamy an imposter, impersonating himself as petitioner and falsely claiming to be the land owner filed the claim petition along with the documents. After receipt of the said claim petition, based on the report submitted by the officials, the then Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed order dated 18.6.2010 to disburse the award amount to the imposter R.Kodandaraman. On the basis of the above said order, the above said R.Kodandaraman and his son Sri Gopi have received joint account payee cheque for a sum of Rs.1,86,00,000/-. Subsequently, it reveals that on 30.9.2010 and 25.2.2011 the actual land owner i.e. the petitioner herein has made representation, requesting for payment of compensation against which, an endorsement dated 3.3.2011 has been issued to respondent No.2 informing that the compensation has 16 already been disbursed to P.Kodandaraman on 18.6.2010. Thereafter, based on the above said endorsement, the petitioner on 10.3.2011 lodged a police complaint before the Halsoor Gate Police Station which is registered as Crime No.60/2011 against the imposter R.Kodandaraman, s/o Ramaswamy and his son K.Gopi, Smt.Manjula daughter of R.Kodandaraman and Smt.Bhagya w/o Gopi. The said complaint was investigated by the investigating Officer, C.C.B., Bangalore. During the course of investigation, a sum of Rs.79,73,362/- in cash and title deeds in respect of residential plot at Hoodi, K.R.Puram, Bangalore worth Rs.15,00,000/- purchased out of the ill-gotten money were seized from the above said R.Kodandarman and his son. The seized cash and the title deeds all valued to a sum of Rs.94,79,262/-. After completion of investigation, the C.C.B has filed charge sheet registered as C.C.No.7808/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419 of IPC."
(emphasis supplied by me) 17
19. This Court allowed writ petition No.43759/2011 on 18.10.2012. Perusal of the order would indicate that this Court has observed that petitioner is the owner of the said land. In paragraph 17, it has been stated thus:
"17. Indisputedly, amongst other lands, land belonging to the petitioner, measuring 3 acres, forming part of Sy.No.6 of Singahalli, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, was acquired for industrial purpose, by issue of a preliminary notification dated 7.8.2006 under S.28(1) and a final notification dated 25.9.2008 under S.28(4) of the Act. There is no dispute that the petitioner had appeared before the SLAO in the enquiry held under S.28(3) of the Act and the proceedings of the SLAO dated 26.11.2007, at serial No.13 makes a reference to the petitioner's claim."
(emphasis supplied by me) In paragraph 19, the Court has again observed as under: 18 "19. Respondent No.4 has not disputed the fact that the acquired land was granted to the petitioner. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in respect of the said land, under S.136, by the Deputy Commissioner was dropped and even W.P.No.27346/2011 filed by the Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Ltd., was dismissed on 4.11.2011. Based on the representation submitted by the petitioner, the Government having directed the CEO of KIADB to take appropriate action in the matter, the matter having been taken up for consideration in the 308th meeting of the Board, a resolution, as afore-
noticed, was passed. It is clear from the said resolution that compensation in respect of the acquired land was resolved to be disbursed to the petitioner after ascertaining the validity of the claim made by him as regards his title to the acquired land. Sri P.V.Chandrashekar submitted that an award has not been passed. Keeping in view the provisions noticed supra and also the ratio of the decision reported in Spl.LAO, Dharwad, Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2009(1) AIR Kar. R 353 (DB), the SLAP has statutory obligation to pass an award, since the petitioner has 19 not entered into an agreement, resulting in a consent award."
(emphasis supplied by me)
20. Therefore, the Court has directed the Land Acquisition Officer to make an award and if there are any rival claims to make a reference under Section 30 of the LA Act before the Civil Court.
21. The legality of the grant of the schedule land was concluded before the Deputy Commissioner holding that grant of land to the petitioner is legal and valid. The Special Deputy Commissioner passed the said order on 24.8.2009. The said order was challenged by the Tahsildar in W.P.No.27346/2011. The writ petition was dismissed on 4.11.2011.
22. After making the award, notices were issued to the petitioner under Sections 8 and 9 of the LA Act by showing that Managing Director, Karnataka Public Land Corporation and 20 Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk are interested parties. The materials on record would clearly indicate that the said lands were granted to the petitioner long ago and that he is the owner and kathedar in possession of the lands in question. In the circumstances, the Managing Director, Karnataka Public Land Corporation and Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, cannot be persons interested in the land. If it was Government land wherein the Managing Director and Tahsildar had interest, question of acquisition does not arise.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHARDA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR - AIR 2003 SC 942 has held that State is not a 'person interested' as defined in Section 3(2) of the Act. It is not a party to the proceedings before the Collector in the sense, which the expression 'parties to the litigation' carries. The Collector holds the proceedings and makes an award as a representative of the State Government. Land or an interest in land pre-owned by State cannot be subject matter of acquisition by State the question of deciding 21 the ownership of State or holding of any interest by the State Government in proceedings before the Collector cannot arise in proceedings before the Collector (as defined in Section 3(c) of the Act). If it was a Government land there was no question of initiating the proceedings for acquisition at all. The Government would not acquire the land, which already vests in it. A dispute as to pre-existing right or interest of the State Government in the property sought to be acquired is not a dispute capable of being adjudicated upon or referred to the Civil Court for determination either under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act. The reference made by the Collector to the Court was wholly without jurisdiction and the Civil Court ought to have refused to entertain the reference and ought to have rejected the same. All the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act beginning from the reference and adjudication thereon by the Civil Court suffer from lack of inherent jurisdiction and are therefore a nullity liable to be declared so. 22
24. In M/S AHAD BROTHERS VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER - AIR 2005 SC 355, the Apex Court has again held that when the State was owner of the land in question, there was no reason for it to acquire its own land. The State cannot be said to be a person interested to agitate any claim either under Section 18 or under Section 30 of the Act. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 18 could not decide the question of the title of the State over the acquired land.
25. Therefore, question of reference of the matter under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act to the Civil Court is totally without jurisdiction. After passing of the award, the Land Acquisition Officer has deposited the amount in the Civil Court. The petitioner is the owner of the land. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have paid the award amount to the petitioner. Since compensation has already been deposited in the Civil Court, the Civil Court has to release the amount to the petitioner.
23
26. In the result, writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. I direct the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli, to disburse the award amount deposited by the third respondent in respect of the land in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
BMM/-