Karnataka High Court
M/S Prestige Estates Projects Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION Nos.38041-38042/2011
AND 40182-40183/2011 (LA-KHB)
BETWEEN :
M/s. Prestige Estates Projects Ltd.
(earlier M/s. Prestige Estates Projects Pvt. Ltd.)
A Limited Company
Having its registered office at
'The Falcon House'
No.1, Main Guard Cross Road
Bangalore 560 001
Rep. by its
Authorised Signatory and
Sr. Vice President - Legal
Mr. T. Arvind Pai ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. Navkesh Batra, Adv.)
AND :
1. State of Karnataka
Rep. by Principal Secretary
Department of Industries and Commerce
Vidhana Soudha
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore 560 001
2
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Karnataka Housing Board
4th Floor, Cauvery Bhavan
K.G Road, Bangalore
3. Karnataka Housing Board
Rep. by it Commissioner
4th Floor, Cauvery Bhavan
K.G Road, Bangalore ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. K.S. Mallikarjunaiah, HCGP for R-1)
These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash preliminary
notification dated 20.3.2007 as per Annexure-G and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary
Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
In these cases, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the preliminary notification at Annexure-G dated 20.3.2007 and the final notification at Annexure-H dated 15.1.2009 issued by the Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, K.G. Road, Bangalore, for acquisition of the lands in Sy. No.48/8, 48/9 and 48/10 of Addevishwanathapura Village, Hesarghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 3 acres 10 guntas. 3
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no scheme has been sanctioned by the State Government before acquisition of the lands as provided in the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings is vitiated. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of this Court in CHICKRANGAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (ILR 1996 KAR 3577).
3. The petitioner has purchased the properties under the deeds of sale at Annexures-A to C, all dated 15.12.2009. The sale deeds at Annexures-A to C have been executed after the issuance of the notifications in question. It is well settled that a subsequent purchaser of the land cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and that he would be only entitled to get compensation. In AJAY KRISHAN SHINGHAL, ETC. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (AIR 1996 SC 2677), the Apex Court was considering a case where a subsequent purchaser of the property was challenging the acquisition proceedings. It 4 has held that since the title to the property has void title, at best, he has no right to claim compensation in respect of the acquired land. It has been held thus:
"13. Another contention raised by Shri Ravinder Sethi is that the claimant in the first appeal had purchased the property after the declaration under Section 6 was published and that therefore he does not get any right to challenge the validity of the notification published under Section 4(1). Since his title to the property is a void title, at best he has only right to claim compensation in respect of the acquired land claiming interest in the land, which his predecessor-in-title had. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Pista Devi (1986) 4 SCC 251: (AIR 1986 SC 2025); Gian Chand Vs. Gopala (1995) 2 SCC 528: (1995 AIR SCW 1487); Mahavir Vs. Rural Institute, Amravati (1995) 5 SCC 335 and Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583: (1995 AIR SCW 2114). We need not deal at length with this issue as is the settled legal position."
(Emphasis supplied by me) 5
4. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in STAR WISE (INDIA) LIMITED VS. STATE OF HARYANA [(1996) 11 SCC 698] and in UNION OF INDIA VS. SHIVKUMAR BHARGAVA AND OTHERS (AIR 1995 SC
812).
5. In POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. BAILAMMA @ DODDA BAILAMMA & OTHERS (ILR 1998 KAR 1441), a Full Bench of this Court while considering rights of the purchasers of the land subsequent to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) has held that a person, who purchases the land subsequent to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act cannot be said to be the owner. Such a purchaser has no right to challenge the acquisition itself, although he is entitled to claim compensation by virtue of the sale deed made in his favour i.e. of right, title and interest of his predecessor. 6
6. In MEERA SAHNI VS. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND OTHERS [2008 (9) SCC 177], the Apex Court has held as under:
"In view of the aforesaid decisions it is by now well-settled law that under the Land Acquisition Act, the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and that he would be only entitled to get the compensation."
7. In view of the decisions referred to above, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the acquisition proceedings on any of the grounds much less on the ground that the scheme has not been sanctioned by the State Government. Therefore, I decline to entertain these writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Cs/-