Karnataka High Court
Hanumanthappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 11883 OF 2006 (LA-RES)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION Nos.15877-79 OF 2008 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION No.16801 OF 2008 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION No.16802 OF 2008 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION No.15880 OF 2008 (LA-RES)
IN W.P.No.11883 OF 2006 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Hanumanthappa,
Son of Moganna,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation: Agriculture and Coolie.
2. Siddabylappa,
Son of Moganna,
Aged about 38 years,
Occupation: Agriculture and Coolie.
Petitioners 1 and 2
Represented by G.P.A. Holder
Kamalamma.
2
3. Venkatesh,
Son of Puttappa,
Aged about 30 years,
Occupation : Agriculture and Weaving.
4. Seenappa @ Srinivas,
Son of Siddagangaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation: Agriculture.
5. Siddabylappa,
Son of Siddappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation: Coolie and Carpentary.
6. Smt. Arasamma,
Wife of Bylappa,
Aged about 80 years,
Occupation : Nil.
7. Smt. Gangamma,
Daughter of Arasamma
(wife of Basavaraj),
aged about 35 years,
occupation: Household work.
8. Smt. Sakamma,
Wife of Byla Murthy,
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation: Household work.
9. Smt. Siddamma,
Wife of Byla Venkatappa,
Aged about 40 years,
Occupation: Household Work.
3
10.Hanumanthappa,
Son of Late Bylappa,
Aged about 49 years,
Occupation: Agriculture and Coolie.
11.Bylavenkatappa,
Son of Bylappa,
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation: Agriculture and Coolie.
Petitioners 10 and 11
By G.P.A. Holder Gangamma,
Wife of Basavaraj - petitioner No.7.
All are resident of Kote Beedi,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. Abhinay.P
Patil, Advocate for M/s. Jayakumar S. Patil, Associates )
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
by its Chief Secretary to Government,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. State of Karnataka
By its Secretary to Government,
Department of Urban Development,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. State of Karnataka by is
Secretary to Government,
Department of Housing,
4
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Town Muncipal Council,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore, by its Chief Officer.
5. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore.
6. Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
Raghavendra Nagar,
B.H.Road, Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District,
By its President.
7. G.Shivashankar,
Major,
President, Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
House No.76,
4th Cross Road,
Basaveshwara Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
8. Puttaramaiah,
Major,
Secretary, Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
Raghavendra Nagar,
B.H.Road, Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District.
9. H.C.Raju,
Son of Hanume Gowda,
5
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District.
10.A.V.Suresh Babu,
Son of A.Veeraragavalu,
Major,
Lakshmi Shree,
Doddabommasandra Village,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bangalore - 97.
11.Syed Sajid,
Son of Late Syed Sadiq,
Aged about 35 years,
12.Syed Wajid,
Son of late Syed Sadiq,
Aged about 30 years,
13.Syed Mujahid,
Son of Late Syed Sadiq,
Aged about 26 years,
14.Syed Abid,
Son of Late Syed Sadiq,
Aged about 28 years,
Respondent Nos. 11 to 14 are
Resident of No.416/29,
18th Main, 4th "I" Block,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 41.
6
15.Sri. A.G.Raju,
Son of Andanappa,
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at Kulavanahalli,
Thyamagondlu Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
16.Sri. H.Hanumanthaiah,
Son of Hanumaiah,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at Kulavanahalli,
Thyamagondlu Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
17.Sri. K.Mani,
Son of Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at No.9,
7A Cross, "D" Block
(near Janaki Shivam Complex),
Magadi Road,
Bangalore - 560 023.
18.Sri. Ghousepeer Khan,
Son of Peer Khan,
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at Kulavanahalli,
Thyamagondlu Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
19.Smt. Anusya D.K.,
Wife of Late S. Sathyamurthy,
7
Aged about 68 years,
Residing at No.7,
4th Cross, Kumara Park West
Extension, Bangalore - 560 020.
20.S.N.Raja Rao,
Son of S. Narayana Rao,
Aged about 67 years,
Residing at No.9,
IV Block, 4th Cross,
Kumara Park West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020.
21.Smt. Saroja,
Wife of S. Vasudeva Rao,
Aged about 63 years,
Residing at no.5,
Old No.3, 9th Cross,
Swimming Pool Extension,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 003.
22.Smt Shantha,
Wife of Late M.L.Nagaraj,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at No.16,
Akshaya Gruha Lakshmi Colony,
1st Stage, West of Chord Road,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Bangalore.
23.P.N.Nuthana Babu,
Son of L.G.Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 37 years,
Residing LGM Arcade 1st Floor,
8
No.22, Lakshmana Mudaliar Street,
Bangalore - 560 001.
24.P.V.Nagesh Babu,
Son of P.R.Venkatachalapathy Setty,
Aged about 43 years,
Residing at No.84,
2nd Main Road,
Gayathri Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 021.
25.B.R.Nagaraja Setty,
Son of Late B.L.R.K.Setty,
Aged about 66 years,
Residing at No.483,
1st floor, 3rd Main,
50 ft. Road, Nagendra Block,
Hanumanthanagar,
Bangalore - 560 050.
26.M.Narendra Babu,
Son of Vishwanath Rao,
Major,
No.55, 18th Main,
1st Cross, Canara Bank Colony,
Uttarahalli Road,
Bangalore - 560 061.
27.P.V.Shashi Kumar,
Son of P.R.Venkatachalapathy Setty,
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at No.84,
2nd Main Road,
Gayathrinagar,
Bangalore - 560 021.
9
28.A. Reddy Vikram,
Son of Rajagopal,
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at C/o K. Sikjumar,
No.18, Canara Bank Colony,
Chikkalasandra Village,
Subramanyapura Road,
Bangalore - 560 061.
29.K. Anantha Padmanabha,
Son of Late H.N.Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at no.13/1, I "E" Main,
B.K.Nagar, Yeshwanthpur,
Bangalore - 560 022.
30.Subramanya,
Son of Late H.S.Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 56 years,
Residing at No.471,
2nd Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
31.Hutchison Essar South Limited,
Prestige Blue Chip,
Ground Floor,
Block-1, No.9,
Hosur Road,
Bangalore - 560 029,
By its Manager.
32.Mhomad. Noorulla Hussain,
Zax automobile,
B.H.Road,
10
Nelamangala,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. S.K.V. Chalapathy, Senior Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 6 to 9
Shri. K.S. Mallikarjunaiah, Government Pleader for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 and 5
Shri. S. Mahesh, Advocate for Respondent No.4
Shir. S. Channaraya Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 and
19
Shri. K. Shrihari, Advocate for M/s. Lex Justica, Advocates, for
Respondent Nos.11 to 14
Shri. D.L. Jagadeesh, advocate for Respondent Nos. 15 to 18
Smt. Ambika.S, advocate for Respondent Nos. 19 to 22, 29 and 30
Shri. Sriharsha.R. Londhe, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 23 to
28
M/s. Gururaj, Associates for Respondent No.31
Respondent No.32 served and unrepresented)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records of
Acquisition including the proceedings pertaining to order
Annexure-D dated 9.10.1986, passed by the first respondent and
etc;
IN W.P.Nos.15877-79 OF 2008 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. P.Rangappa,
Son of Puttarangaiah,
Aged about 78 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Devanga Beedi,
11
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
2. N.R.Ranganath,
Son of P. Rangappa,
Aged about 44 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Devanga Beedi,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
3. N.R.Krishnadevaraya,
Son of P.Rangappa,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Aradhya Layout,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
4. N.R.Chandrashekar,
Son of P. Rangappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Devanga Beedi,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
5. N.R. Srirangappa,
Son of P. Rangappa,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Mutton Market Road,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District. ...PEITTIONERS
12
(By Shri. Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. Abhinay
P. Patil, Advocate for M/s. Jayakumar S. Patil, Associates)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka by its
Chief Secretary to Government,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary to Government,
Department of Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary to Government,
Department of Housing,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Town Municipal Council,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore,
By its Chief Officer.
[cause title amended
as per the order
dated 21.7.2009]
5. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore.
13
6. Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
Raghavendra Nagar,
B.H.Road,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District,
By its President.
7. G. Shivashankar,
Major,
President,
Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
House No.76,
4th Cross, Basaveshwara Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
8. Puttaramaiah,
Major,
Secretary, Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
Raghavendra Nagar,
B.H.Road,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District.
9. H.G. Raju,
Son of Hanume Gowda,
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
Near Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District.
10.Hanumegowda,
14
Son of Muddaiah,
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
Near Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District.
11.Smt. M.S. Bhagya,
Wife of H.G. Raju,
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
Near Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District.
12.H. Chandrashekar,
Son of Hanumegowda,
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
Near Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District.
13.Smt. H. Mangalagowri,
Wife of Ramanna,
Major,
Resident of S.P.G. Colony,
Tavarekere,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore.
14.Smt. T. Jayanthi,
Wife of S. Shivaprasad,
Daughter of G. Thammaiah,
Retired Commercial Officer,
15
Major,
Resident of Road behind Yeshwanthapur
Railway Station, Yeshwanthapur,
Bangalore.
15.Smt. Leela Hebbar,
Wife of Late C.S. Hebbar
(Ex. Secretary, Prasanna Anjaneya Trust),
Major, No.98,
18th Stage,
VI Phase, V Main,
Industrial Town,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 044.
16.Manjuanth,
Son of Late C.S. Hebbar,
Major, No.98,
18th Stage, Vi Phase,
V Main, Industrial Town,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 044.
17.Rajesh,
Son of Late C.S. Hebbar,
Major,
No.121, I Stage,
3rd Main, V Phase,
Industrial Town,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 044.
18.Smt. Padma,
Daughter of Late C.S. Hebbar,
16
Major,
No.98, 18th Stage,
VI Phase, V Main,
Industrial Town,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 044.
[amended as per the
court order dated 30.7.2010]
19.Smt. Thimmarasamma,
Wife of Late Dasappa,
Major,
Resident of Kumbara Beedi,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
20.Smt. Siddarajamma,
Wife of Nataraj,
Daughter of Late Dasappa,
Major,
Resident of Kumbara Beedi,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
21.A.V.Suresh Babu,
Son of A. Veeraraghavalu,
Major,
'Lakshmi Sri',
Doddabommasandra Village,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bangalore - 560 097.
22.N.M.Prashanth Kumar,
Son of K. Muniyappa,
17
Aged 38 years,
No.1625, B.H.Road,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore District.
[cause title amended vide
court order dated 16.3.09] ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. K.S. Mallikarjunaiah, Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5
Shri. S. Mahesh, Advocate for Respondent No.4
Shri. S.K.V.Chalapathy, Senior Advocate for M/s. Chalapathy and
Srinivas, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 6 to 8
Shri. R. Nataraj, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 9 to 13, 19, 20
and 22
Shri. S. Chennaraya Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.21
Shri. A. Ganesh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 15 to 18
Respondent No.14 - served through paper publication)
******
These Writ Petitioners are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records of
Acquisition including the proceedings pertaining to order
Annexure-D, dated 9.10.1986 passed by the first respondent and
etc;
IN W.P.NO.16801 OF 2008 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Kamalamma,
Daughter of Late Laxminarasimhaiah,
Wife of Late Thimmappa,
Aged about 68 years,
Occupation: Household,
18
Resident of Hosapalya Village,
Kadaba Post,
Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkur District.
2. Ramaiah,
Son of late Laxminarasimhaiah,
Aged about 62 years,
Occupation: Agriculture and Business,
Resident of Jakkasandra Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
3. Smt. Sarojamma,
Daughter of Late Laxminarasimhaiah,
Wife of Javaregowda,
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation: Household,
Resident of 'Vinayaka Nilaya',
Jyothi Nagara,
Vajarahalli, Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District.
4. N.L. Suryanarayana,
Son of Late Laxminarasimhaiah,
Aged about 56 years,
Occupation: Service,
Resident of No.695,
Municipal Quarters Road,
Subash Nagar, Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
5. Smt. Chandramma,
Daughter of Late Laxminarasimhaiah,
19
Wife of Chikkavenkataramu,
Aged about 53 years,
Occupation: Household,
Resident of Hosapalya Village,
Kadaba Post,
Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkur District.
6. Smt. Puttanarasamma,
Wife of Late Krishnaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation: Household,
Resident of No.695,
Municipal Quarters Road,
Subash Nagar, Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
7. Madhukar,
Son of Late Krishnaiah,
Aged about 34 years,
Occupation: Agriculture and Business,
Resident No.695,
Municipal Quarters Road,
Subash Nagar,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
8. Kumaraswamy,
Son of Late Krishnaiah,
Aged about 32 years,
Occupation: Agriculture and
Business, resident of No.695,
Municipal Quarters Road,
Subash Nagar, Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District. ...PETITIOENRS
20
(By Shri. Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri Abhinay P.
Patil, advocate for M/s. Jayakukmar S. Patil and Associates)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka by its
Chief Secretary to Government,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary to Government,
Department of Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary to Government,
Department of Housing,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Town Municipal Council,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District,
By its Chief Officer.
[cause title amended
as per the order
dated 21.7.2009]
5. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore.
21
6. Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
Raghavendra Nagar,
B.H.Road,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District,
By its President.
7. G. Shivashankar,
President,
Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
House No.76,
4th Cross, Basaveshwara Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
8. Puttaramaiah,
Secretary, Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
Raghavendra Nagar,
B.H.Road,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District.
9. H.G. Raju,
Son of Hanume Gowda,
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
Near Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District.
10.Hanumegowda,
Son of Muddaiah,
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
22
Near Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District.
11.Smt. M.S. Bhagya,
Wife of H.G. Raju,
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
Near Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District.
12.H. Chandrashekar,
Son of Hanumegowda,
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
Near Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District.
13.Smt. H. Mangalagowri,
Wife of Ramanna,
Major,
Resident of S.P.G. Colony,
Tavarekere,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore.
14.Smt. T. Jayanthi,
Wife of S. Shivaprasad,
Daughter of G. Thammaiah,
Retired Commercial Officer,
Major,
Resident of Road behind Yeshwanthapur
Railway Station, Yeshwanthapur,
23
Bangalore.
15.Smt. Leela Hebbar,
Wife of Late C.S. Hebbar
(Ex. Secretary, Prasanna Anjaneya Trust),
Major, No.98,
18th Stage,
VI Phase, V Main,
Industrial Town,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 044.
16.Manjuanth,
Son of Late C.S. Hebbar,
Major, No.98,
18th Stage, Vi Phase,
V Main, Industrial Town,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 044.
17.Rajesh,
Son of Late C.S. Hebbar,
Major,
No.121, I Stage,
3rd Main, V Phase,
Industrial Town,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 044.
18.Smt. Padma,
Daughter of Late C.S. Hebbar,
Major,
No.98, 18th Stage,
VI Phase, V Main,
Industrial Town,
24
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 044.
[amended as per the
court order dated 30.7.2010]
19.Smt. Thimmarasamma,
Wife of Late Dasappa,
Major,
Resident of Kumbara Beedi,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
20.Smt. Siddarajamma,
Wife of Nataraj,
Daughter of Late Dasappa,
Major,
Resident of Kumbara Beedi,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
21.A.V.Suresh Babu,
Son of A. Veeraraghavalu,
Major,
'Lakshmi Sri',
Doddabommasandra Village,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bangalore - 560 097. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. K.S. Mallikarunaiah, Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5,
Shri. S.K.V. Chalapathy, Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 to
8
Shri. S. Mahesh, Advocate for Respondent no.4
25
Shri. R. Nataraj, Advocate for Respondent No.14
Shri. A. Ganesh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 15 to 18,
Shri. S. Channaraya Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.21,
Respondent Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 19 and 20 are served and un
represented)
******
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 for
the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records of
acquisition including the proceedings pertaining to order
Annexure-D dated 9.10.1986, passed by the first respondent and
etc;
IN W.P.No.16802 OF 2008 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Jayamma,
Wife of N.Narasingappa,
Aged about 80 years,
Occupation: Household,
Resident of Jakkasandra Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
2. N. Bhoganna,
Son of N.Narasingappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation: Agriculture and Business,
Resident of Jakkasandra Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
26
3. Smt. Vijayalakshmi,
Daughter of N.Narasingappa,
Wife of Late Govindaiah,
Aged about 56 years,
Occupation: Household,
Resident of Channenahalli,
Bellavi Post,
Taluk and District: Tumkur.
4. Smt. Indiralakshmi,
Daughter of N. Narasingappa,
Wife of Late Lakkanna,
Aged about 53 years,
Occupation: Household,
Resident of Arasingara Beedi,
Chikkapete,
Tumkur.
5. N. Yogananda,
Son of N.Narasingappa,
Aged about 48 years,
Occupation: Agriculture and Business,
Resident of Jakkasandra Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
6. Smt. Lakshmidevi,
Daughter of N. Narasingappa,
Wife of Rangaswamy,
Aged about 46 years,
Occupation: Household,
Resident of Dasaramuddaianapalya,
Oorukere Post,
27
Taluk and District: Tumkur.
7. N. Hariprakash,
Son of N.Narasingappa,
Aged about 44 years,
Occupation: Agriculture and Business,
Resident of Jakkasandra Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District. ...PETITIONERS
(By M/s. Jayakumar S. Patil, Associates, Shri. Abhinay P. Patil,
Advocate )
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka by its
Chief Secretary to Government,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary to Government,
Department of Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary to Government,
Department of Housing,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Town Municipal Council,
Nelamangala,
28
Bangalore,
By its Chief Officer.
[cause title amended
as per the order
dated 21.7.2009]
5. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore.
6. Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
Raghavendra Nagar,
B.H.Road,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District,
By its President.
7. G. Shivashankar,
President,
Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
House No.76,
4th Cross, Basaveshwara Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
8. Puttaramaiah,
Secretary, Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
Raghavendra Nagar,
B.H.Road,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District.
9. H.G. Raju,
29
Son of Hanume Gowda,
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
Near Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District.
10.Hanumegowda,
Son of Muddaiah,
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
Near Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District.
11.Smt. M.S. Bhagya,
Wife of H.G. Raju,
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
Near Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District.
12.H. Chandrashekar,
Son of Hanumegowda,
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
Near Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District.
13.Smt. H. Mangalagowri,
Wife of Ramanna,
Major,
Resident of S.P.G. Colony,
30
Tavarekere,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore.
14.Smt. T. Jayanthi,
Wife of S. Shivaprasad,
Daughter of G. Thammaiah,
Retired Commercial Officer,
Major,
Resident of Road behind Yeshwanthapur
Railway Station, Yeshwanthapur,
Bangalore.
15.Smt. Leela Hebbar,
Wife of Late C.S. Hebbar
(Ex. Secretary, Prasanna Anjaneya Trust),
Major, No.98,
18th Stage,
VI Phase, V Main,
Industrial Town,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 044.
16.Manjuanth,
Son of Late C.S. Hebbar,
Major, No.98,
18th Stage, Vi Phase,
V Main, Industrial Town,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 044.
17.Rajesh,
Son of Late C.S. Hebbar,
Major,
31
No.121, I Stage,
3rd Main, V Phase,
Industrial Town,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 044.
18.Smt. Padma,
Daughter of Late C.S. Hebbar,
Major,
No.98, 18th Stage,
VI Phase, V Main,
Industrial Town,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 044.
[amended as per the
court order dated 30.7.2010]
19.Smt. Thimmarasamma,
Wife of Late Dasappa,
Major,
Resident of Kumbara Beedi,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
20.Smt. Siddarajamma,
Wife of Nataraj,
Daughter of Late Dasappa,
Major,
Resident of Kumbara Beedi,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
21.A.V.Suresh Babu,
Son of A. Veeraraghavalu,
32
Major,
'Lakshmi Sri',
Doddabommasandra Village,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bangalore - 560 097. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. K.S. Mallikarunaiah, Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5,
Shri. S. Mahesh, Advocate for Respondent no.4
Shri. Chalapathy and Shri. Srinivas, Advocates for respondent
Nos. 6 to 8
Shri. S. Chennaraya Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.21
Shri. A.Ganesh and Shri. Sitarama Hegde, Advocates for
Respondent Nos.15 to 18
Shri. R. Nataraj, Advocate for Respondent No.10 and 14)
******
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 for
the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records of
acquisition including the proceedings pertaining to order
Annexure-D dated 9.10.1986, passed by the first respondent and
etc;
IN W.P.No.15880 OF 2008 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. P. Rangappa,
Son of Puttarangaiah,
Aged about 78 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Devanga Beedi,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
33
2. N.R.Ranganath,
Son of P. Rangappa,
Aged about 44 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Devanga Beedi,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
3. N.R.Krishnadevaraya,
Son of P. Rangappa,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Aradhya Layout,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
4. N.R.Chandrashekar,
Son of P. Rangappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Devanga Beedi,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
5. N.R.Srirangappa,
Son of P. Rangappa,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Mutton Market Road,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural District. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. Abhinay
P.Patil, Advocate for M/s. Jayakumar S. Patil, Advocates)
34
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By its Chief Secretary
to Government,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The State of Karnataka by
its Secretary to Government,
Department of Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The State of Karnataka by its
Secretary to Government,
Department of Housing,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Town Municipal Council,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District,
By its Chief Officer.
5. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore.
6. Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
Raghavendra Nagar,
B.H.Road,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District,
By its President.
35
7. G. Shivashankar,
President,
Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
House No.76,
4th Cross,
Basaveshwara Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
8. Puttaramaiah,
Major,
Secretary,
Prasanna Anjaneya Trust,
Raghavendra Nagar,
B.H.Road,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District.
9. H.G.Raju,
Son of Hanume Gowda,
Major,
Resident of Kote Beedi,
Near Parappaswamy Math,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. K.S.Mallikarjunaiah, Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5
Shri. S.K.V.Chalapathy, Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 to
8
Shri. S. Mahesh, Advocate for Respondent No.4
Respondent No.9 served and unrepresented)
*****
36
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records of
acquisition including the proceedings pertaining to order
Annexure-G, dated 9.10.1986 passed by the first Respondent.
These petitions, having been heard and reserved on
25.09.2012 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day,
the Court delivered the following:-
ORDER
These petitions are heard and disposed of together as the petitioners claim to be aggrieved under similar set of circumstances.
2. The petitioners claim as owners of various parcels of land in Nelamangala, Bangalore Rural District. It is their contention that the lands in question were notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of land for House Sites Act, 1972 (Hereinafter referred to as the '1972 Act', for brevity). A preliminary notification under Section 3 (1) of the Act, was issued on 12-2-1987 and a Final notification under Section 3 (4) was issued on 13-8-1987. The land was purportedly 37 acquired for the purposes of granting house sites to weaker sections of society. The acquisition was on the proposal of the State Government and the Town Municipal Council, Nelamangala, respondent no.4 in these petitions. The house sites were to be developed by the said respondent and distributed to eligible persons.
It is the case of the petitioners that respondent no. 4 never took possession of the lands nor did it embark on any development. It is only during the year 2005 that there was some activity brought about by an unregistered body known as Prasanna Anjeneya Trust, of which respondents 7, 8 and 9 are said to be members, which started forming sites on the said lands. When one Suresh Babu, respondent no.10, in the earliest of these writ petitions - WP 11883/2006, started constructing a petrol bunk in one of the sites formed on the lands, while claiming that he had purchased the same through the sixth respondent, that the petitioners in that petition had made enquiries of the state of affairs and discovered the gross illegalities committed in the 38 manner in which the acquisition proceedings had been engineered and the manner in which respondent no. 6 and its so called management was seeking to lay claim to the entire lands acquired for a public purpose for the illegal private gain of the individuals running the said Trust.
As respondent No. 4, the Town Municipal Council refused to divulge the role of respondent 6 and its representatives, or the manner in which it was proceeding with the Scheme of formation of house sites etc., the petitioners had complained to the Lok Ayukta. Respondent no. 4 on being called upon to respond to the complaint, it had sent a reply to the Lok Ayukta claiming that a layout plan in respect of the house sites to be formed on the lands acquired, had been sanctioned by the Bangalore Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and that khatha had been made in favour of the Prasanna Anjeneya Trust. There was however, no indication of the manner in which the Trust came to be associated in the process of formation of sites or in dealing with the same. 39
The Tahshildar, Nelamangala, who had also been called upon to explain the circumstances, had replied to the Lok Ayukta to state that by a resolution dated 15-6-1988, the Mandal Panchayath, the predecessor of the Town Municipal Council, had agreed that site no. 1 to 150 to be formed would be handed over to the Mandal Panchayath and the remaining sites to be formed in the total extent of the lands would be given to the Trust, on the condition that the entire cost of development of the land would be borne by the Trust.
The petitioners had got issued a legal notice to the persons claiming to be managing the Trust to furnish details of their role. A reply was issued on their behalf, claiming to be legitimately developing and sell the sites formed in the layout at the behest and with the authority of the State.
The attempts of the petitioners to obtain the official documents in so far as the claim of the Trust is concerned was without any success. It is with some difficulty that they were able 40 to secure some details which are disclosed in the writ petition in W.P.11883/ 2005.
The petitioners thus retrace the sequence of events:
As per resolution dated 27-8-1984, the erstwhile Mandal Panchayath, Nelamangala, has declared that it lacks the financial capability to acquire land in survey no. 212, 216 etc., and sought to propose to the Government to bear the cost of acquisition. Thereafter, the Panchayath appears to have made a proposal dated 1-4-1985, to the effect that the lands in question may be acquired under the provisions of the 1972 Act, for the benefit of the Trust, as a special measure. That proposal had been rejected as on 12-6-1985. However, by a further communication dated 18-3-1986, the Government has approved the proposal by respondent no.4, the Town Municipal Council to acquire land for distribution of sites to members of the economically weaker section. Respondent no.4 is said to have pleaded its inability to bear the cost. In the alternative, it was suggested by the Town Municipal Council, that the Trust was ready and willing to secure 41 agreements from land owners to willingly give up their lands for acquisition and that it would also undertake the development of the land into sites all at its own cost. It was proposed that the Trust would form 150 sites of the dimensions of 30feet x 40feet in Survey no. 8/3 of Chikkasandra village and hand over the same to the Council, for distribution to eligible persons, and in consideration the sites formed in the extent of lands acquired under the above said notifications, would be for the benefit of the Trust and its managing members. The State Government is said to have approved the proposal. However, in the notifications issued under the 1972 Act, there was no indication of any such arrangement. The avowed purpose as indicated under the same did not create any suspicion in the mind of the petitioners. In other words, all the 150 house sites to be formed were in the land in Sy. No. 8/3, Chikkasandra. In the result, the bulk of the land acquired was for the benefit of respondent no.6 and its managing members - as payment in kind for having formed the said sites in 42 Chikkasandra and handing over the same to the Town Municipal Council, for distribution to eligible persons.
It is on the above allegations that the several petitioners are before this court. Though with additional details of the irregular manner in each of the petitions, as to the lands of the particular petitioners being illegally usurped by the named respondents for their illegal and private benefit, in the name of acquisition for a public purpose.
3. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the above facts would contend that the illegality and mala fides are glaring and need no elaboration. On the face of it the acquisition proceedings are to be set at naught. It is highlighted that the State Government ostensibly seeking to acquire land for the avowed purpose of formation of housing sites for distribution to members of the weaker section- under the provisions of the 1972 Act, with the fore knowledge that the acquisition would be for the sole 43 benefit of the Trust and its managing members, who had proposed that they would develop and form 150 sites of 30 feet x 40 feet dimension at their own cost, for distribution to eligible people. And when those sites were to be formed in land, which was only a small part of the lands acquired. Such a trade carried out by the State Government at the cost of the petitioners' lands and for the benefit of few private individuals - is shocking and a grossly illegal abuse of power and a fraud committed by the State which should on the other hand protect the individual and his property from the hands of unscrupulous elements.
It is contended that the acquisition cannot be sustained as being for a public purpose when it is evident that respondent no.6 and its managers are the only beneficiaries of the acquired land.
The entire scheme has come to light only in retrospect and therefore the present petitioners cannot be denied relief on the ground of delay and laches as the fraud has come to light immediately preceding the petitions. It is contended that it is well 44 established by a long line of decisions that fraud unravels all. The answering respondents cannot claim equities or of having created third party interest in the land in question, either. The learned Senior Advocate, Shri Patil places reliance on the following authorities in support of the petitions and pleads that the same be allowed.
1. Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Limited. vs. State of Karnataka and others (2012 (2) Scale 235)
2. Vyalikaval House Building Co-op. Society vs. V. Chandrappa and Others (ILR 2007 KAR 1810)
4. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State Government would contend that the claim of the petitioners that they are the owners of the lands claimed by them is disputed. It is asserted some of the petitioners are not the owners as identified from the revenue records. It is claimed that the subject acquisition proceedings were not resisted by the land owners and a consent 45 award was passed for a sum of Rs.6,76,642/- which was duly approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District as on 7-12-1987. The compensation amount has also been paid to the land owners. Copies of the statements made by the land owners consenting to the acquisition are produced. Attention is also drawn to a General Power of Attorney executed in favour members of the Prasanna Anjeneya Trust, to receive the compensation amount on their behalf. It is also claimed that the Trust had entered into agreements with the land owners even prior to the award of compensation and had paid the sum equivalent to the compensation amount well in advance.
The arrangement between the State Government, the Town Municipal Council and the private trust is candidly admitted. The statement of objections filed also endorses this. It is emphasized that the Town municipal council did not have the wherewithal nor the capacity to carry out the Scheme and therefore the medium of the private trust was utilized. It is admitted that apart from 150 46 sites to be formed in survey no. 8/3 of Chikkasandra, the rest of the lands were available to the Trust and its managers.
It is contended that the Trust having formed 150 sites as undertaken at its cost, has not acted in violation of the law and it also claimed that the said sites have been handed over by the Trust to the Town Municipal Council. It is contended that the petitioners are precluded from challenging the proceedings after several decades and that the petitions are to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.
5. The learned Senior Advocate S.K.V.Chalapathy, appearing for the Counsel for respondents 6 to 9 contends as follows :
That the claim of the several petitioners as owners of the lands in question is disputed. He would contend that their bona fides in bringing these petitions on the footing that there are common issues, is misleading. It is highlighted that the land owners whose lands had been acquired under the impugned 47 notifications have all received compensation as early as in the year 1986. The proceedings have thus attained finality. The petitions are a mischievous ploy to hold the respondents to ransom at this remote point of time. He would therefore contend that the petitions ought to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. The petitioners cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate.
Without prejudice to the above preliminary objection, it is contended that the State Government had passed an order dated 29-9-1983 for payment of 80% of the compensation in advance. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District had issued a memorandum dated 2-11-1984 granting permission to acquire lands in several survey numbers notified. The land owners are said to have executed a special power of attorney authorizing a third party to represent them in the acquisition proceedings. Further, the land owners had executed an agreement in Form-D in favour of the Government and had received the compensation amount in respect of the lands acquired.48
It is contended that the Trust has invested enormous amounts of money to develop the lands and to form sites and to provide other infrastructure and had also distributed sites to various allottees, identified from amongst the economically weaker section of society. Those allottees have constructed houses on the sites long ago. The agricultural lands are no longer existent and cannot be identified by their original description.
It is contended that the total extent of land acquired and handed over to the Trust, by the State Government through the Town Municipal Council, totally measures 41 acres and 21 guntas. The Trust was required to develop sites in the land in Survey no. 214 to 219 of Nelamangala and Survey number 8/3 measuring 4 acres 19 guntas of Chikkasandra. The learned counsel contends that this condition has been fulfilled. Namely, that 150 sites each measuring 30 feet x 40 feet had been formed in land in Survey no 8/3. It is also admitted on page-12 of the statement of objections that though the sites formed had been handed over to the council, on account of some dispute the sites 49 are still with the Town Municipal Council and garbage is being dumped on the same. Further on page-14 of the statement of objections, it is admitted that the sites formed in survey numbers 214 to 219 are left for the benefit of the Trust.
It is contended that there are a large number of people who have been allotted sites and who have in turn constructed their houses thereon. The said persons are not before this court and their interest would be directly and substantially affected if any orders are passed affecting the lands and hence the learned Senior Advocate would plead that without those persons being made parties, the petition is bad for non-joinder and ought to be rejected on that ground as well.
The Town Municipal Council, though represented by counsel, has not chosen to file any statement of objections. However, in the wake of vehement contentions on behalf of the petitioners that the claim of the Trust of a large number having been allotted sites and they having put up constructions being 50 strongly disputed and further pleadings having been brought on record, with the petitioners claiming that there are only a few structures that have come up during the pendency of this petition. The trust in turn seeking to deny the same. The Town Municipal Council was called upon to atleast ascertain from its records whether it had handed over sites formed in the lands to any eligible persons and whether it had assessed any properties which were constructed upon as claimed in the lands in question. An affidavit of the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council is filed dated 22.9.2012. The same is reproduced, hereunder:
"AFFIDAVIT I, KU. Muthappa, Son of K.U.Uthappa, Aged 44 years, Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Nelamangala residing at Chief Officer's quarters, Nelamangala, now at Bangalore do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
1. I am the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, Nelamangala and I am acquainted with the facts of the petition based on the records maintained in the office of the Council.51
2. In respect of Sy. No.8/3 of Nelamangala Village(sic) there are no records for having received 150 sites from the 6th respondent, however by a paper publication dated 2.9.2003 the then Pattana Panchayath, Nelamangala had called upon the public to produce the Hakku Patras in respect of the lay-out formed by the 6th respondent.
3. In response to the said paper publication, this respondent has received 32 hakku patras. The same after verification 13 khatas have been opened in respect of the sites in Sy. No.8/3, but so far non of the persons have come forward to pay the taxes and further non of the above said persons have put-up any construction.
4. In respect of the other Survey Numbers, about 40 constructions have come up and some of them have not obtained license nor have they obtained sanctioned plan.
Such of the buildings are being identified and appropriate action will be initiated shortly.
5. From the records of the T M C it is found that the water tank which have been erected are without permission.
6. Solemnly affirmed by me that this is my signature and the contents stated above are true and correct. "
6. Given the above circumstances, there is no denial of the fact that the major beneficiary of the acquisition is the respondent no.6, a private Trust, and its managing members. The State 52 Government seeks to defend its actions notwithstanding that the acquisition proceedings were initiated not for the object of providing the lands to the said respondent but for providing house sites for persons belonging to the weaker sections of society.
The circumstance that the Town Municipal Council, Nelamangala or its predecessor- the Mandal Panchayath did not possess the finances to meet the cost of acquisition and development of the lands to form house sites, could not have enabled the said authority to involve a private party, with the purported sanction of the State Government, to act on its behalf in facilitating the acquisition of lands and the development thereof and proceed to deal with the major portion of the acquired land as its own and for its benefit, on the pretext that the said Trust had met the entire cost of acquisition in having entered into advance agreement with the land owners and had even paid the corresponding compensation amount even before the acquisition proceedings had attained finality or that the cost of development 53 of about 150 house sites in Survey no. 8/3 of Chikkasandra, to be handed over to the Town Municipal Council, who would in turn distribute the same to eligible members of the public. Such a barter could not have been carried out by the State government in the guise of acquiring land for a public purpose. It shocks the conscience of this court to notice that even the said 150 sites said to have been formed for distribution to the poor are not in the occupation of anyone even as on date and none has come forward to construct any house thereon or pay taxes in respect of the same. This would lead to a serious doubt as to whether even those sites had been legitimately allotted to any deserving person. Though in the course of these proceedings the learned counsel for respondent no. 6 had sought to produce revenue documents to prove allotment and distribution of sites, the Town Municipal Council has disputed the veracity of those documents.
The lands are acquired under the 1972 Act, it would follow that such acquisition can only be for acquisition of lands for granting house sites to the weaker sections of the people by the 54 State. This is explicitly spelt out in the preamble to the Act. There is no scope for the involvement of any private parties in the process of the acquisition proceedings or in the development of the house sites, except the engagement of such contractors or other professionals whose services may be utilized on payment of money for any services rendered in carrying out civil works involved in the process. In the instant case on hand, the State Government and the Town Municipal Council have willfully abdicated their authority and allowed the sixth respondent to utilize the power available and the process of law to acquire lands under the Act, for its benefit, seemingly through the medium of the State. This is blatantly illegal and a fraud on the power of the State. The said acquisition proceedings cannot be sustained at all.
The circumstance that there may be some third parties who have constructed houses on sites allotted by the Trust, which are said to be illegal constructions, according to the Town Municipal 55 Council, cannot be pleaded to save the acquisition which is patently illegal, on admitted facts.
The further defence sought to be urged that the petitions are barred by delay and laches and the large number of authorities cited in support of the same by the respondent no.6, is also not tenable. Even though there is no period of limitation for filing petitions invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court, a petitioner should approach the court without loss of time and if there is delay, a cogent explanation should be offered in respect of the same. There can be no hard and fast rule or a strait jacket formula to decide whether this court should entertain a belated petition. Each case must be decided on its own facts. In the case on hand the explanation offered by the petitioner, in the earliest of the petitions - that the entire design of the Trust had come to light only when enquiries were made as to the manner in which a person was enabled to set up a petrol bunk in the land that was 56 acquired for providing house sites to the poor, immediately preceding the petition, cannot be disbelieved.
The knowledge attributed to the petitioners on the ground that they had received monies through the medium of the sixth respondent towards compensation or its continued presence in developing the land also could not have lead to any suspicion of the illegality of the acquisition as it was possible for the Trust to have claimed that the State had legitimately involved the Trust in the development of the lands.
In the result the petitions are allowed. The acquisition proceedings pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 12.2.1987, Annexure - A and the Final Notification dated 13.8.1987 Annexure- B, to the writ petition in WP 11883/2006, respectively, are hereby quashed - the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated by fraud and are void ab initio.
A writ of mandamus shall issue to the respondents 1 to 5 to recover possession from respondent no.6 and such other third 57 parties and to redeliver possession of the subject lands to the petitioners and other land owners. Subject to all such land owners and the petitioners refunding the compensation amounts, if any received by them to the State, with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of receipt till the date of payment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nv
58
ABJ: W.P. No.11883/2006 c/w
10.10.2012 W.P. Nos.15877-15879/2008
16801/2008, 16802/2008
and 15880/2008 (LA-RES)
ORDER
On an oral request of respondent No.14 in W.P.
No.16801/2008, the concerned respondents shall not dispossess respondent No.14 during the period provided for filing an appeal against this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE AHB