Karnataka High Court
M/S Pruksa India Housing Pvt Ltd vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 9 November, 2017
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NOS.1052-1053/2012(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN
M/S PRUKSA INDIA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,
FERNS ICON, UNIT -7, 1ST FLOOR
NEXT TO AKME BALLET,
MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 037,
REP.BY ITS
ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT,
INDIA BUSINESS,
MR ASHOKE MANORANJAN. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S.HOLLA & HOLLA)
AND
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE.
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
K.R.PURAM,
BANGALORE.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
-2-
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 041. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE LETTER DATED 21.11.2011 SENT BY THE
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, R2 VIDE ANNXURE-Z AND QUASH THE
NOTICE DATED 4.1.2012 ISSUED BY R1 VIDE ANNXURE-Y
AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is said to be owner of certain portions in land bearing Sy.No.96, has come up in these writ petitions seeking to quash the notice dated 4.1.2012 in No.RRT(E) CR.21/2011-12 issued by the 1st respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner, which is at Annexure-Y as well as seeking quashing of communication dated 21.11.2011 in No.LND(2) 136(3) CR.38/2011-12 sent by Special Tahsildar - 2nd respondent, which is at Annexure- Z in the proceedings before Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore.
-3-
2. The grievance of petitioner is that they have purchased lands measuring to an extent of 26 acres 3 guntas in Sy.Nos.182 to 189 and 192 of Bommenahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, under various sale deeds and thereafter they have taken up developmental activity on the said lands for putting up a residential township. When matter stood thus, it is stated that they have received notice dated 4.1.2012, which is at Annexure-Y and immediately thereafter, they have approached this Court challenging not only Annexure-Y but also the communication between Special Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, K.R.Pura and Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, dated 21.11.2011, which is at Annexure-Z, on the premise that notice dated 4.1.2012 issued vide Annexure-Y is based on the communication received at Annexure-Z, that they are erroneous, inasmuch as the development activity on the aforesaid lands is after securing said lands under various sale deeds for valuable consideration. Thereafter duly got said land converted from competent authority by paying necessary charges. Also after -4- obtaining sanction for development of Township thereon. Therefore, the proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964, is without any basis and the same is required to be quashed. It is also contended that the said notice is issued at much belated stage when the construction is completed with reference to several blocks of houses having been put up and they are already in occupation of several persons, who have acquired the same under registered documents from the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. When this matter had come up at the first instance, this Court had directed the learned Government Advocate to secure necessary documents and present the same before Court to demonstrate that the lands, which are now referred to as Sy.Nos.182 to 186 and 189 are earlier said to be part of Sy.No.96, which is Government Gomal land. To substantiate the same, he has produced two books, one is for the year 1975 - 76 onwards and another from 1988 - 83 onwards. -5- Both the books would indicate that the original RTC for Sy.No.96, which is measuring to an extent of 171 acres 16 guntas is Government Gomal land. He would also bring to the notice of this Court the original of Index of lands, wherein it is seen that the entire book is in a particular stationery, whereas the additional sheet which is provided to that is in a different stationery, which is with reference to the lands in question, according to the learned Additional Government Advocate.
4. In any event, this Court is not willing to conduct a roving enquiry about all these aspects. It is open for the petitioner to appear before the competent authority, who has issued the notice under Annexure-Y, dated 4.1.2012 and to demonstrate that the lands in question, which are in their possession and developed are not the Government Gomal lands but it is private lands, for which the predecessors in title had necessary documents of title with them, which is duly passed on to the petitioners. To demonstrate the same, the petitioner should be provided with ample opportunity in -6- the proceedings, which is initiated in No.RRT(E).CR.21/2011-12 by 1st respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner.
5. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the 1st respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner shall complete the aforesaid proceedings within four months from the date the petitioner appearing before him pursuant to the order passed in this writ petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-