Karnataka High Court
Smt. Hanumakka vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2018
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NOs.52037/2013 &
38501-38507/2014 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.13881/2013 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.58079/2016 (LA-RES)
W.P. NOs.52037/2013 &
38501 - 38507/2014
BETWEEN
1. SMT. HANUMAKKA
WIFE OF LATE CHIKKATHIMMA
AGE:70 YEARS
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HER
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
1(a) SMT.RAMAKKA,
D/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.85, 1ST MAIN,
NEAR OLD KEB OFFICE,
NAGAVARA VILLAGE,
ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
1(b) THIMMARAYAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
-2-
RESIDING AT No.175,
SINGASANDRA VILLAGE,
BEGURU HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 068.
1(c) KAVERAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED
RESIDING AT No.175, VIDE COURT ORDER
SINGASANDRA VILLAGE, DATED 29.11.2017)
BEGURU HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560 068
2. SRI NAGESH
S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/A SINGASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST,
BEGUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 068.
3. SRI THIMMARAYAPPA, (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED
S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA, VIDE COURT ORDER
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, DATED 08.01.2018)
RESIDING AT :
SINGASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST,
BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 068 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI T S AMAR KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER NOs.1(a) to (c) AND
PETITIONER No.2
SRI R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
No.3)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
-3-
GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
K G ROAD,
BANGALORE.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
III FLOOR, V V TOWER,
BANGALORE.
4. THE AIRCRAFTS EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
NO.74/6, 1ST CROSS,
C K C GARDEN, K H ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 027,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
5. ALLE GOWDA,
S/O ASHWATHAIAH
SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
5(a) SMT.NAGARATHNAMMA (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED
W/O LATE ALLEGOWDA, VIDE COURT ORDER
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, DATED 08.01.2018)
5(b) SRI DARSHAN GOWDA B A
S/O LATE ALLE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
BOTH RESPONDENT NOs.5(a) AND 5(b)
ARE RESIDING AT
No.13/1, DARSHAN NILAYA,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
SUBEDAR PALYA,
YESHWANTPURA,
-4-
BENGALURU - 560 022.
6. Dr.PRASHANTH
S/O A RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O No.45, SHAKTI NILAYA,
CONCODRE LAYOUT,
KOODLU,
BANGALORE - 560 068
7. MITHUN CHOWTER,
S/O LATE SUNIL KEERTHI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O SHOBLA, 2-1-2/24,
HILL GROVE, CHIMBLI,
ASHOK NAGAR POST,
MANGALORE -575 006.
8. SREENIVAS N BHOOPALAM,
S/O NARAYAN BHUPALAM,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O 823171/3, FLAT No.202,
ASHOK SILENT VALLEY, ROAD No.10,
BANJARAHILLS,
HYDERABAD - 500 034.
RESPONDENTS NOs.7 AND 8
ARE REPRESENTED
BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
M.VEERENDRA,
S/O M.JAGATH PAL,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
No.453, 9TH MAIN,
2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 011.
9. R SREENIVAS, (AMENDED VIDE COURT
S/O A RAMAIAH, ORDER DATED 08.01.2018)
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O No.745, SHAKTI NILAYA,
-5-
1ST CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR,
KOODLU,
BANGALORE - 560 068. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S V GIRI KUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3
SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT.LATHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NOs.5(A & B), R8 AND R9
SRI K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7)
W.P.NOs.52037/2013 & 38501 TO 38507/2014 ARE
FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) TO HOLD THAT THERE EXISTS
FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION ON THE PART OF 4TH
RESPONDENT-SOCIETY BECAUSE OF ROLE OF MIDDLEMEN,
AS AFFIRMED BY G.V.K.RAO COMMITTEE'S REPORT
SPECIFICALLY CONCERNING THE 4TH RESPONDENT-SOCIETY
AS WELL AS CONSOLIDATED REPORT CONCERNING HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IN BANGALORE, TO
UNDULY INFLUENCE STATE MACHINERY/GOVERNMENT FOR
UNLAWFUL ADVANTAGE TO ENABLE THE SOCIETY CARRY OUT
COMMERCIAL DEALINGS IN LANDS TO THE BENEFIT OF
BOGUS MEMBERS AS WELL AS BUSINESS ENTITIES TO THE
UTTER INJURY OF BONAFIDE INTERESTS OF THE LAND
OWNER/PETITIONER AND ETC.
W.P.No.13881/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI SURESH S M,
S/O MUNIRAJ REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT No.33, 7TH A CROSS,
SINGASANDRA,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 068. ... PETITIONER
-6-
(BY SRI T S AMAR KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
RERESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGLAORE DISTRICT,
K G ROAD,
BANGALORE-09.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
III FLOOR, V V TOWER,
BANGALORE-01.
4. THE AIRCRAFTS EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD.,
NO.74/6, 1ST CROSS,
C K C GARDEN,
K H ROAD,
BANGALORE-560027,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S V GIRI KUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SMT LATHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
W.P.No.13881/2013 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
a] HOLD THAT THERE EXISTS FRAUD AND
MISREPRESENTATION ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT NO.4
SOCIETY BECAUSE OF ROLE OF MIDDLEMEN, AS AFFIRMED
BY G.V.K.RAO COMMITTEE'S REPORT SPECIFICALLY
CONCERNING THE RESPONDENT -4 SOCEITY AS WELL AS
-7-
CONSOLIDATED REPORT CONCERNING HOUSE BUILDING CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETY IN BANGALORE, TO UNDULY INFLUENCE
STATE MACHINERY / GOVERNMENT FOR UNLAWFUL
ADVANTAGE TO ENABLE THE SOCIETY CARRY OUT
COMMERCIAL DEALINGS IN LANDS TO THE BENEFIT OF
BOGUS MEMBERS AS WELL AS BUSINESS ENTITIES TO THE
UTTER INJURY OF BONAFIDE INTERESTS OF THE LAND
OWNER / PETITIONER AND ETC.
W.P.No.58079/2016
BETWEEN :
MR.S.P.RAVINDRA
S/O. LATE PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT: SINGASANDRA VILLAGE,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BEGURU HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK -560068
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHAMMED AKHIL, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU -560 001.
3. THE AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING
CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
-8-
NO. 15, 1ST CROSS,
C.K.C GARDEN, K.H. ROAD,
BENGALURU 560027.
REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
4. SMT.MEDHA NANDAKUMAR,
W/O K T N KUMAR
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
R/AT NO.55, "CHANDRALA",
I AVENUE, TEACHER'S COLONY,
VENKATAPURA, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 034.
5. N SHIVAKUMAR,
S/O NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT No.839, 4TH CROSS,
4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 034.
6. SMT.S N SAVITHRAMMA,
W/O SRI V.MUNIRAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.567, 6TH MAIN,
C.K.NAGAR,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
7. SRI H.E.RAJKUMAR,
S/O SRI H.M.ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT No.33, ROYAL COUNTY LAYOUT,
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
8. SRI M.HARISH BABU,
S/O M.MUNIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
9. SMT.SHILPA.N,
-9-
W/O HARISH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT No.186,
1ST MAIN, OPP: GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
SINGASANDRA,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
10. SRI KUKARAM CHOUDARY,
S/O SRI JEETARAM,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.745, NEW MICO MAIN ROAD,
C.K.NAGAR, HOSUR ROAD,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
11. SRI D MITHUN,
S/O SRI DASHRATH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO.37/2B, NEAR KAVERI
VIDYAKSHATRAM SCHOOL,
SINGASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
12. SRI K S PANDURANGA RAO,
S/O LATE K.SHIVAJI RAO,
AGE : MAJOR, R/AT No.144,
1ST 'D' MAIN ROAD,
DOMLUR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU.
13. SRI L S ASHOK,
S/O L.G.SHIVA MURTHY,
AGED : MAJOR, (AMENDED VIDE COURT
R/AT NO.655, 10TH CROSS, ORDER DATED
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 11.04.2017)
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
- 10 -
14. SRI G.SAMPATH
S/O SRI GAJAPATHY,
AGE : MAJOR,
NO.1, NAL ROAD, MURUGESH PALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 017.
15. SMT.UMA,
W/O P.M.SHANTHRAJ,
AGE : MAJOR, (CAUSE TITLE
R/AT No.498, AMENDED VIDE
TH
4 CROSS, CHANNAKESHAVANAGAR, COURT ORDER
ELECTRONIC CITY POST, DATED 19.04.2017)
BENGALURU - 560 100
16. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020
17. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S V GIRIKUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2,
SRI KIRAN J, ADVOCATE FOR R3,
SRI A V NISHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R13
SRI H. N. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R14 AND R15)
NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R16 AND R17)
W.P.No.58079/2016 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.31 MEASURING 5
ACRES 29 GUNTAS, SITUATED IN SINGASANDRA VILLAGE,
BEGURU HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, STANDS LAPSED
BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 24(2) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND
- 11 -
CONSEQUENTLY HOLD THAT THE ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN RESPECT OF ABOVE SAID LAND
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
1894 BY ISSUANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION ON
5.9.1988 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION ON 28.9.1989 VIDE
ANNEXURES-A AND B HAS NO LEGAL EFFECT IN THE EYE OF
LAW AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These writ petitions are preferred by the erstwhile owners of lands in several survey numbers of Singasandra village, Begur hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru District, for the benefit of Aircraft Employees House Building Co-operative Society.
2. It is seen that initially, W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507/2014 were filed by Smt. Hanumakka and Sri Nagesh. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, Smt. Hanumakka died and her legal representatives, namely, petitioner Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c), were permitted to come on record vide order passed on I.A. No.3/2017 dated 29.11.2017.
- 12 -
3. Petitioner Nos.1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 2 in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014 claim to be the owners of lands bearing: Sy. No.6/1 measuring 01 Acre 37 guntas; Sy. No.22/1 measuring 03 Acres 15 guntas; Sy. No.74 measuring 08 guntas; Sy. No.84 measuring 12 guntas; Sy. No.44/1 measuring 09 guntas; Sy. No.44/2 measuring 14 guntas; Sy. No.44/3 measuring 19 guntas and Sy. No.44/4 measuring 14 guntas situate at the said Singasandra village.
4. Petitioner No.3 - Thimmarayappa, son of late Doddamuniyappa, who got impleaded himself in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014, by filing I.A. No.1/2016, which came to be allowed by order dated 08.01.2018, claims that his father, Doddamuniyappa, was owner of the lands measuring to an extent of 20 guntas in Sy. No.6/1, 14 guntas in Sy. No.44, 04 guntas in Sy. No.84, 01 gunta in Sy. No.57 and 06 guntas in Sy. No.98, totally measuring 01 Acre 05 guntas situate in Singasandra village, which were granted to him by Assistant Commissioner by order dated 27.11.1978 in proceedings bearing No.HOA(S) No.8/78-79. According to him, petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and
- 13 -
2 in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014 are not entitled to the entire extent of land in Sy. Nos.6/1, 44 and 84 as described in the schedule to the said petitions and himself and his family members have share in the said lands as stated in para No.10 of I.A. No.1/2016.
5. The petitioner in W.P. No.13881/2013 is said to be the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.38 measuring 04 Acres 33 guntas situate in Singasandra village.
6. The petitioner in W.P. No.58079/2016 claims to be the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.31 measuring 05 Acres 29 guntas situate in Singasandra village.
7. Admittedly, the aforesaid lands along with other lands situate in Singasandra village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk as well as Kudlu village, Sarjapura hobli, Anekal Taluk, were notified for acquisition by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the L.A. Act') for the purpose of formation of layout by the Aircraft Employees House
- 14 -
Building Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') and distribution of sites to its members.
8. The said Society is a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Act') and it is arrayed as respondent No.4 in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507/2014 and W.P. No.13881/2013 and as respondent No.3 in W.P. No.58079/2016.
9. It is stated that the acquisition of the said lands was done in two stages and hence, two preliminary notifications under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act were issued by the Special L.A.O. The first of the preliminary notifications came to be issued on 15.04.1988 (published in Karnataka Gazette on 28.04.1988) and second of the preliminary notifications was issued on 05.09.1988 (published in Karnataka Gazette on 29.09.1988). Notices were served upon the respective land owners and some of them filed their objections to the said notifications.
- 15 -
10. The Special L.A.O., after considering the objections, overruled the same and thereafter, issued two final notifications under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act. The first of the final notifications was issued on 28.04.1989 and the same corresponds to preliminary notification dated 15.04.1988. The second of the final notifications came to be issued on 28.09.1989 (published in Karnataka Gazette on 30.09.1989) and the same relates to preliminary notification dated 05.09.1988. The copies of preliminary notifications dated 15.04.1988 and 05.09.1988 are produced as Annexures 'U' and 'R' respectively, and the corresponding final notifications dated 28.04.1989 and 28.09.1989 are produced as Annexures 'T' and 'S' respectively, to W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507/2014.
11. It is seen that the pleadings and reliefs sought by petitioners in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507/2014 and the petitioner in W.P. No.13881/2013 are similar. The Society has filed separate statement of objections in the said writ petitions with similar contentions. The common aspects
- 16 -
pertaining to the said writ petitions are discussed in the ensuing para Nos.11.1 to 11.10.
11.1 Petitioners in the said petitions have alleged that the fourth respondent - Society has played fraud on the land owners and the Government inasmuch as it had entered into an agreement on 05.12.1986 with a real estate agent viz., M/s. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Enterprises, to get the lands acquired for the purpose of formation of layout and admitted ineligible members and allotted sites to them and thereby, misutilized the land provided by the Government at a concessional rate to make private gain.
11.2 Petitioners have further alleged that the said acquisition was not made for 'public purpose' as defined under Section 3(f)(vi) of the L.A. Act as amended by Amending Act 68 of 1984 (with effect from 24.09.1984) and there is violation of the mandatory provisions of the said Section as the fourth respondent - Society had not formulated any Housing Scheme and had not taken prior approval of the Government in respect of such Scheme in connection with
- 17 -
issuance of notification under Sections 4(1) of the L.A. Act. The fourth respondent - Society without following the mandatory procedures contemplated under Sections 16(1) and 16(2) of the L.A. Act with reference to possession, has taken steps for dispossessing the petitioners from the petition schedule properties on the strength of the impugned orders.
11.3 Petitioners have referred to two reports submitted by G.V.K. Rao Committee. One is the consolidated report issued by the said Committee under Section 64 of the KCS Act concerning the activities of certain House Building Co- operative Societies in Bengaluru, including fourth respondent - Society and another specifically relating to the fourth respondent - Society, wherein it is held that there were no serious irregularities worth highlighting in respect of the said Society. Copies of the said reports are produced as Annexures 'E' and 'F' respectively to W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014.
11.4 It is further contended by petitioners that the final notifications issued under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act dated
- 18 -
28.04.1989 and 28.09.1989 are vitiated as they are issued beyond the statutory period of one year from the date of corresponding preliminary notifications dated 15.04.1988 and 05.09.1988 respectively.
11.5 It is the case of petitioner No.3 in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014- Thimmarayappa that though in the final notification dated 28.09.1989 (Annexure 'M' to I.A. No.1/2016), the name of his father, Doddamuniyappa, finds place at Sl. No.8 in respect of acquisition of the land bearing Sy. No.6/1 measuring 01 Acre 37 guntas, the said land has not been acquired by the fourth respondent - Society or the Government and according to him, petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and 2 in the said writ petitions are not entitled to the entire extent of lands in Sy. Nos.6/1, 44 and 84 situate in Singasandra village.
11.6 Petitioners in these petitions claim that they or their ancestors have not accepted the compensation from either the Government or the Society and they have not handed over possession of the respective petition schedule
- 19 -
properties either to the Government or to the Society pursuant to the proceedings contemplated under Sections 6(1) and 6(2) of the L.A. Act.
11.7 Petitioners have inter alia sought to hold that there exists fraud and misrepresentation on the part of respondent No.4 - Society in engaging real estate agent / middlemen in the process of acquisition of lands as affirmed by G.V.K. Rao Committee's reports referred supra and in unduly influencing the State machinery to enable the Society to carry out commercial dealings in lands to the benefit of ineligible members as well as business entities to the utter injury of bona fide interests of land owners / petitioners. They have further sought to hold that respondent Nos.1 to 3 had no jurisdiction to acquire the lands for the benefit of respondent No.4 - Society pursuant to the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the L.A. Act. They have also sought for setting aside preliminary notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act dated 15.04.1988 and 05.09.1988 and the corresponding final notifications issued under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act dated 28.04.1989 and 28.09.1989 respectively,
- 20 -
and the consequent notifications issued under Section 16(1) and 16(2) of the L.A. Act with reference to possession referred to in the prayer portion of the said writ petitions.
11.8 The Society has filed statement of objections in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014 as well as in W.P. No.13881/2013 inter alia denying the allegations made in the petitions against the Society. It is contended that the petitioners have sought for quashing of the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of the entire extent of land measuring 339 Acres acquired under the aforesaid preliminary notifications and final notifications even though they are owners of only certain portions of lands. It is stated that the preliminary notifications were issued by the Spl. L.A.O., on 15.04.1988 and 05.09.1988 and after calling for objections from the land owners, considering and overruling the same, the corresponding final notifications came to be issued on 28.04.1989 and 28.09.1989.
11.9 It is further stated in the statement of objections that the husband of original petitioner No.1 in W.P.
- 21 -
Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014 i.e., Chikkathimma and the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner in W.P. No.13881/2013, had consented for acquisition of the petitions schedule lands and they had received substantial amount of compensation from the Society before the consent award was passed. Accordingly, the L.A.O., passed separate consent awards (Annexure 'R6' to statement of objections in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 & cases, Annexure 'R4' to statement of objections in W.P. No.13881/2013) of even date i.e., 04.05.1990 in respect of the lands in question. The same were approved by the Government on 21.11.1990. The possession of the lands in question was taken over by the Government in the year 1992 on different dates mentioned in the statement of objections and notifications under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act in that regard were issued. Thereafter, the Special L.A.O., handed over possession of the lands in question on 09.10.1992, 18.01.1995 and 30.06.1997 to the Society.
11.10 The Society has formed layout in the petitions schedule lands. The Society had obtained sanction of layout
- 22 -
plan from the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) on 09.03.2001 and subsequently, a new modified layout plan was issued by the BDA on 23.04.2008. Thereafter, it has allotted sites to its members and has executed sale deeds in their favour transferring right, title and interest in respect of sites so formed and has issued possession certificates in their favour. It is contended that since the individual site owners are not made party to the writ petitions, the same are liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that the writ petitions are filed after an inordinate delay of more than 20 years from the date of issuance of the final notification and are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
12. It is the case of respondent Nos.5(a), 5(b) and 6 to 9 in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014 that Alle Gowda, the husband of respondent No.5(a) and father of respondent No.5(b), was the owner of site bearing No.766/A. Respondent Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 are the owners in possession of site Nos.792, 794, 795 and 792/A respectively. The said sites are carved out of Sy. Nos.6/1 and 6/2 situate at
- 23 -
Singasandra village. It is further stated that Allegowda and respondent Nos.6 and 9 were allotted their respective sites by the fourth respondent - Society. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 are the subsequent purchasers of their respective sites from their vendors, who in turn, had purchased the same from the allottees of respondent No.4 - Society. It is stated that respondent Nos.5(a) and 5(b) have put up construction of a weigh bridge in their site bearing No.766/A. Respondent Nos.6 and 9 have constructed a commercial complex and hotel respectively in site bearing Nos.792 and 792/A respectively. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 have constructed a compound wall in their respective sites bearing Nos.794 and 795. They have referred to the earlier rounds of litigations challenging the acquisition proceedings impugned in these petitions.
12.1 It is the further case of respondent Nos.5(a), 5(b) and 6 to 9 in the said petitions that Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited has acquired some portion of land in Sy. No.6/1, which includes portion of sites belonging to the said respondents, vide preliminary notification dated 22/09/2015 and final notification dated 23/12/2016 issued by Karnataka
- 24 -
Industrial Area Development Board ('KIADB' for short), Metro, for the purpose of construction of metro rail / metro stations. Copy of notice dated 05.11.2015 issued by KIADB to R. Prashanth (respondent No.6) and copy of notice dated 30/01/2017 issued by KIADB to Allegowda are produced as Annexures R4(aa2) and R4(aa3) to I.A. No.1/2017. It is contended that the original petitioner No.1 viz., Smt. Hanumakka and others taking advantage of the interim order passed by this Court, filed suit in O.S. No.5346/2017 (copy of plaint is produced as Annexure 'R4aa5' to I.A. No.1/2017) on the file of learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, as against the State and others seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the second defendant - Special L.A.O., KIADB (Metro) or their agents claiming through them from disbursing the compensation amount arising out of final acquisition proceedings dated 23.12.2016 in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 12 therein (including Allegowda and respondent Nos.6 to 9 in W.P. No.52037/2013 & cases) or any other third parties until the disposal of writ petition Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014 pending before
- 25 -
this Court insofar as it relates to the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties i.e., land bearing Sy. No.6/1 measuring 01 Acre 37 guntas and Sy. No.6/2 measuring 0.12 guntas, both situate in Singasandra Village.
12.2 It is stated that the second petitioner in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014, namely, Nagesh, had addressed a letter dated 01/05/2017 to the KIADB., to the effect that portion of his land along with land in other survey numbers was acquired by KIADB for Bengaluru Metro Rail project and he had filed statement of objections before the said Authority on 14.12.2015. He was in physical possession of the land and he had not received any compensation. Hence, he requested the KIADB., not to release the compensation amount in favour of wife and son of Alle Gowda, who are respondent Nos.5(a) and 5(b) respectively, in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014, or any third party pending adjudication of the matter before this Court in the said writ petitions. The said letter is produced as Annexure 'R4aa6' to I.A. No.1/2017.
- 26 -
12.3 In response to the said representation of Nagesh, Allegowda had addressed a letter dated 24.06.2017 to the Special L.A.O., KIADB., stating that he was an employee of M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) since 1979 and also member of the Aircraft Employees Co-operative Society Limited since more than 35 years next before the date of the said letter. He has sought to reject the representation / claim of Mr.Nagesh and to issue award / release compensation in his favour.
13. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P. No.58079/2016 that his land measuring 05 Acres 29 guntas in Sy. No.31 situate in Singasandra village was acquired under the preliminary notification dated 05.09.1988 and final notification dated 28.09.1989 and though the award was passed in respect of the land in question, the compensation determined was not paid to the petitioner and he claims to be in possession of the said land. He has placed reliance on copy of the endorsement dated 05.10.2016 (Annexure 'C' to the writ petition) issued by Special L.A.O., Bengaluru, to the effect that there were no documents evidencing payment of
- 27 -
compensation to the land owner. It is contended that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Right to Fair Compensation Act').
13.1 The petitioner in W.P. No.58079/2016 has sought for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the said land bearing Sy. No.31 measuring 05 Acres 29 guntas situate in Singasandra village stood lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act and consequently, to hold that the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the said land under the provisions of the L.A. Act by issuance of the preliminary notification dated 05.09.1988 and final notification dated 28.09.1989 had no legal effect.
13.2 In the said writ petition, respondent No.3 - Society has filed statement of objections stating that there are about 2800 members in the Society and they are all employees of H.A.L. The Society had submitted a Scheme in compliance with Section 3(f)(vi) of the L.A. Act to the
- 28 -
Government for approval before initiating the acquisition proceedings. The three member committee constituted by the Government on examining the said Scheme approved the same. Thereafter, preliminary notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act by the Spl. LAO., on 05.09.1988. The Spl. LAO., after considering the objections filed by the land owners and after conducting an enquiry under Section 5A of the L.A. Act, issued final notification under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act on 28.09.1989, which included the petition schedule land bearing Sy. No.31 measuring 05 Acres 29 guntas situate in Singasandra village. The possession of the said land had been taken over and handed over to the 3rd respondent - Society in accordance with law and there is no irregularity or illegality in taking the possession. It is stated that the petitioner had consented for acquisition and for passing the consent award. Respondent No.3 has placed reliance upon the consent award dated 04.05.1990, copy of which is produced as Annexure 'R1' to the statement of objections. Thereafter, the Government took the possession and notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act came to be
- 29 -
issued on 08.04.1992 in respect of the said land. Subsequently, the Spl. L.A.O., handed over the possession of the said land in favour of the third respondent - Society on 09.10.1992.
13.3 It is further stated by respondent No.3 - Society that the Right to Fair Compensation Act came into force with effect from 01.01.2014 and the present writ petition came to be filed in 2016 i.e., after a delay of two years. The writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is stated that the compensation amount was deposited by the Society and the same was handed over to the petitioner and that there is discrepancy in the endorsement relied upon by the petitioner.
13.4 Respondent Nos.4 to 13 in W.P. No.58079/2016 state that some of them are the allottees of sites from respondent No.3 - Society and few of them are said to have purchased sites either from original allottees or their respective vendors, who in turn, had purchased sites from the original allottees, in the layout formed by the third respondent
- Society in Sy. No.31 situate in Singasandra village. It is
- 30 -
their case that the layout formed by the third respondent - Society is approved by BDA and khatas in respect of the sites formed in the layout are issued by BDA / Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). They are the absolute owners in physical possession of their respective sites, details of which are mentioned in I.A. No.1/2017. It is their grievance that they would be directly and substantially affected if the prayer/s made in the said writ petition are considered.
13.5 It is stated that respondent No.14 was allotted site bearing No.1793 'A' block in Sy. No.31 and the mother of respondent No.15 was allotted site bearing No.1799 'A' block in Sy. No.31 by the Society and the said respondents are in possession of the same. It is their case that they have made huge investment on the properties and if acquisition is quashed at this belated point of time, they would be put to severe hardship and irreparable loss.
14. In W.P. No.13881/2013, this Court by order dated 04.03.2014, directed the respondent to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing. The said interim order was
- 31 -
extended on 27.03.2014 and 16.04.2014. Thereafter, by order dated 02.06.2014, the said interim order was continued till the disposal of the petition.
15. Similarly, in W.P. No.52037/2013 and W.P. Nos.38501 to 38507 of 2014, this Court considering the fact that interim order was granted in the connected writ petition, by order dated 12.08.2014, granted an interim order of status quo in respect of the petition schedule properties. However, it is the contention of petitioner No.3 in the said writ petitions i.e., Thimmarayappa, that though petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and 2 in the said writ petitions are not entitled for the entire extent of the land in Sy. Nos.6/1, 44, 84, they had obtained interim order of status quo in respect of the entire extent of the petitions schedule lands, which includes his share in the said lands.
16. In W.P. No.58079/2016, this Court by order dated 11.11.2016, directed the parties to maintain status quo. It was in force till 24.01.2017.
- 32 -
17. It may be noted that in W.P. No.58079/2016, I.A. No.5/2017 filed by the impleading applicant, Sri Shivaraj G. Pandharpurkar, came to be dismissed in view of the peremptory order passed by this Court dated 08.01.2018 as objections raised by office on the said application were not complied.
18. Insofar as W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507/2014 are concerned, heard Sri T.S. Amar Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and 2, Sri R.B. Sadasivappa, learned counsel for petitioner No.3, Sri S.V. Giri Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Latha Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5(a and
b), 8 and 9 and Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7.
19. In respect of W.P.No.13881/2013, heard Sri T.S. Amar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.V. Giri
- 33 -
Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Latha Shetty, learned counsel, for respondent No.4.
20. With regard to W.P. No.58079/2016, heard Sri Mohammed Akhil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.V. Giri Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Kiran J., learned counsel for respondent No.3, Sri A.V. Nishanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 13 and Sri H.N. Shashidhara, learned counsel for respondent Nos.14 and 15. Perused the material on record.
21. Admittedly, the aforesaid lands in respect of which petitioners in these petitions claim to be owners, are subject matter of acquisition under two preliminary notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act dated 15.04.1988 and 05.09.1988. The said preliminary notifications are subsequently concluded in the final notifications issued under
- 34 -
Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act dated 28.04.1989 and 28.09.1989.
22. The said acquisition proceedings were subject matter of writ petitions in W.P. NOs.1200 to 1205 and 1207 of 1990 (AGADURAPPA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS) disposed of on 22.01.2002. The said writ petitions were preferred by owners of certain lands in Singasandra and Kudlu villages of Begur hobli. They had called in question the preliminary notifications dated 15.04.1988 and 05.09.1988 and the final notifications dated 25.04.1989 (28.04.1989 in the present petitions) and 28.09.1989 on the same grounds, such as the said Society had committed fraud on the land owners as well as the Government in securing acquisition of lands as it had appointed an agent, namely, M/s. Laxminarasimha Enterprises and it had allotted sites to ineligible members, the purpose for which petitioners' lands were sought to be acquired under the impugned notifications was not a 'public purpose' and the impugned notifications were vitiated for want of prior approval of the Government as contemplated in sub-clause (iv) of
- 35 -
Section 3(f) of the L.A. Act, which are urged in the present petitions.
23. In W.P. NOs.1200 to 1205 and 1207 of 1990, a coordinate Bench of this Court has placed reliance on the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court dated 26.11.1999 in W.A. No.1415/1999 (S.N. SHIVANANJEGOWDA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS). The said writ appeal was preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 04.01.1999 passed in W.P. No.10131/1990, whereby the said petition filed seeking for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act dated 05.09.1988 and final notification issued under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act dated 28.09.1989, by the Land Acquisition Officer proposing to acquire certain extent of land situate at Singasandra village for the purpose of formation of layout by the very same Aircraft Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited was dismissed holding that the objections filed by petitioners therein to the preliminary notification dated 05.09.1988 were considered by Land
- 36 -
Acquisition Officer and after overruling the same, he had issued final notification dated 28.09.1989 and hence, there was no ground to interfere with the declaration.
24. In Writ Appeal No.1415/1999, Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the contentions similar to the one raised by petitioners in the present petitions, has made pertinent observations. The relevant paras of the judgment dated 26.11.1999 are extracted as under:
"6. In the writ appeal, the principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the acquisition is not for a public purpose as envisaged under Section 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act and that there was no prior approval of the scheme by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the notifications were totally without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed."
xxx (emphasis supplied) "7. During the course of the argument, in answer to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the acquisition was not for public purpose and that there was no prior approval of the state is concerned, the learned counsel for respondents has produced a document dated 21.5.1988 to the effect that a State-level Co-ordination Committee has recommended acquisition proceedings in rd favour of the 3 respondent - society to an
- 37 -
extent of 358 acres. Therefore, it cannot be said that the acquisition is not for a public purpose and that there was no prior approval by the 1st respondent. Thus, having regard to the document dated 21.5.1988, we hold that there was prior approval for acquisition by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent." xxx (emphasis supplied) "9. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the case of HMT House Building Co-operative Society vs. Syed Khader & Others (AIR 1995 SCW 1766) for the proposition that there was no committee constituted by the government to recommend the acquisition of land for the benefit of the 4th respondent - society and therefore the acquisition proceedings was invalid. As already stated above, the counsel for the 4th respondent - society has produced Govt. Order dated 21.5.1988 in order to show that a State-level Committee had recommended the acquisition of large extent of land including the land in dispute for the benefit of the 4th respondent - society.
10. The learned counsel for respondents have also produced order dated 4.10.1998 of the Apex Court and contended that the principle laid down in AIR 1995 SCW 1766 is not applicable to the facts of the case inasmuch as a separate order dated 21.5.1988 was passed by the 1st respondent consenting to acquire the land in question for the benefit of the members of the society. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the said order has stated:
- 38 -
"In the present case, a separate order dated 14.10.1985 was passed by the government under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Govt., Revenue Department conveying the approval for the govt. in the issuance of the Notification dated 31.1.1986 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire certain parcels of land in favour of LRDE Employees Housing Co-op.
Society, Bangalore. Therefore, there is a separate specific order made by the govt. on the basis of the recommendation of the committee unlike in the HMT case. We, therefore, don't see any merit in this petition and dismiss the same.
11. Similar is the position in the present case also wherein by virtue of Govt. Order dated 21.5.1988, the govt. has consented to initiate acquisition proceedings by issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for an extent of 358 acres as recommended by the State-level Co-ordination Committee in respect of Singasandra and Kudlu villages in favour of Aircraft Employees House Building Co-op. Society, namely, the 4th respondent in this appeal. Therefore, having regard to the order of the Apex Court in a similar situation, we hold that there is no illegality in the initiation of the acquisition proceedings as per Annexures A & B."
(emphasis supplied)
- 39 -
Following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1415/1999 in the matter of S.N. Shivananjegowda's case (referred supra), learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 22.01.2002 passed in W.P Nos.1200 to 1205 and 1207 of 1990 (Agadurappa's case) has dismissed the said writ petitions.
25. The said order of the learned single Judge dated 22.01.2002 was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Appeal Nos.1172 to 1178/2002 (LA-RES) preferred by Agadurappa and others before Division Bench of this Court. Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the said writ appeals with cost of Rs.1,000/- each on the appellants therein, has observed at para No.5 of its judgment dated 22.07.2003 as under:
"5. It is not necessary to go into the detailed facts as the learned single Judge has discussed the facts elaborately and they are not much in dispute. The only points to be considered are whether prior permission has been taken or not and the allegation with regard to fraud is sustainable. As per the facts culled out, the Committee considered and recommended for acquisition in favour of the Housing Board. It has also come on record that the same notification which had been challenged in W P 10131/1990, has been upheld by the learned single Judge and the same has been approved
- 40 -
by the Division Bench in W A No.1415/1999, which is not in dispute. Once the point in issue and controversy has been set at rest holding that acquisition is for public purpose and as it was also held that there was prior approval for acquisition, under the circumstances, this Court cannot go into the alleged facts now. It is also seen that the learned single Judge has considered the material on record and the case law where similar notification was challenged by the various owners on similar ground, and dismissed the writ petitions. The writ appeals were also dismissed not interfering with the respective notifications. The respective SLP filed against that order of Division Bench was also dismissed in 1996. It is well settled that in the absence of any averments or pleadings, this Court cannot go into the question of fraud and if the points are not raised initially at the time of filing objections before the authorities or in the writ petition, the same cannot be permitted to be raised later. So far as regards the allegation of fraud, the same cannot be investigated in writ jurisdiction. That apart the allegation of fraud must be clear, definite and specific and cannot be argued without pleadings and evidence. The learned single Judge considering the material on record has repelled the argument. We find no error. It has also come on record that a layout has been formed and sites have been distributed to various members of the 4th respondent - society and most of them have constructed houses. Under the circumstances, the appellants cannot take advantage of the case cited by him and rather the appeals are liable to be dismissed. We find no reason to take a different view which has been taken long back approving the notification and upheld in the S L P by the Apex Court in 1996. As stated,
- 41 -
the learned single Judge by a detailed order has not interfered. In any view of the matter, as this Court has held that the lands have been acquired for public purpose the Deputy Commissioner was competent to issue notification at the point of time and as discussed we find no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge. It is also found that appellants - petitioners filed the writ petitions, without disclosing the fact that W P 10131/99 challenging very same notification, was dismissed and the appeal against the order in the said writ petition was also dismissed."
(emphasis supplied)
26. It is seen that subsequently, the appellants in W.A. Nos.1172 to 1178 of 2002 filed I.A.IV/2003 for stay of the said order / judgment dated 22.07.2003 and sought for a direction to the respondents therein not to dispossess the appellants from the lands in dispute for a period of 90 days from 02.08.2003 i.e., the date of the application as they intended to approach the Hon`ble Supreme Court.
27. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants therein that the S.L.P. filed against the impugned judgment had been rejected by the Apex Court and I.A. IV/2003 had become infructuous, Division Bench of
- 42 -
this Court in its order dated 17.11.2003 has observed that no order could be passed on I.A.IV/2003 as the said Court had become functus officio and accordingly, dismissed the said application.
28. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.07.2003 passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.1172 to 1178 of 2002, appellants viz., Agadurappa and others preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.19733 to 19739 of 2003 before the Hon`ble Supreme Court. The said Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the Apex Court by order 07.11.2003.
29. After dismissal of the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions, appellants in W.A. Nos.1172 to 1178 of 2002 i.e., Agadurappa and others preferred Review Petitions in R.P. Nos.827 to 832 of 2003 before this Court seeking review of the judgment dated 22.07.2003 passed in the aforesaid appeals on the ground that at the time of final hearing of the said writ appeals, the appellants' counsel could not bring to the notice of the Court the provisions of the L.A. Act, 1961,
- 43 -
according to which, it was necessary to follow the prescribed procedure, but the Division Bench without considering the said aspect, had considered Section 3(f)(vi) of the L.A. Act and decided the issue of requirement of prior approval. It was further contended that the other points could not be brought to the notice of the Court as the report was received on 17.07.2003, whereas the appeals were reserved for judgment by Division Bench on 16.07.2003 and that there was an error apparent on the face of the record on account of non- consideration of subsequent events. Accordingly, learned senior counsel for review petitioners sought for review of the said judgment dated 22.07.2003. The relevant portion of the order dated 30.01.2004 (portion of para No.7 and para No.8) reads as under:
"We have considered the respective arguments and the settled position in law on review. We are not satisfied that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. Moreso, the point in issue has been decided by the Supreme Court in M/s.Kanaka Gruha Nirman Sahakara Sagha case (supra), Paras 4 and 22 reads under:
"4. At this stage, we may note that in Writ Appeals Nos.6804- 05/1996, Full Bench of the
- 44 -
Karnataka High Court by judgment and order dated 27th March, 2002 held that the view taken by the Division Bench in case of Naveen Jayakumar and Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha was not a good law. The Full Bench arrived at the conclusion that initiation of proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be said to be illegal. There was no inconsistency or repugnancy between the State Act and the Land Acquisition Act as amended in 1984"
"22. These appeals are filed against judgment and order dated
18.6.1998 and 17.6.1998 in W.P.16783/1991, 25283/90 and 1002 of 1991 respectively. For the reasons recorded above, these appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside."
8. The learned counsel instead of filing the review petitions at appropriate time has filed after the dismissal of S.L.Ps. with abnormal delay of 103 days. Generally, this Court is liberal in condoning the delay if sufficient and reasonable cause has been shown. In the facts of the given case, mere filing of review petitions after dismissal of S.L.Ps. cannot be a ground to condone the delay. The time spent cannot be excluded in the facts of the given case, and we are not satisfied with the explanation. Since, we have considered the case on merits also as stated above, we find no ground to entertain the review petitions in the
- 45 -
absence of any error apparent on the face of the record.
As discussed above, these review
petitions are dismissed. "
30. The order dated 30.01.2004 passed in R.P.
Nos.827 to 832 of 2003 was the subject matter of challenge in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.11306 to 11311 of 2004 preferred by Agadurappa and others. The said Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by order dated 16.07.2004.
31. With this, it is clear that the challenge to the acquisition proceedings impugned in the present writ petitions on the premise that fraud is committed by the Society in employing an agent, namely, M/s. Lakshminarasimha Enterprises, for acquisition of lands described in the schedule to the present petitions and that the impugned notifications were vitiated for want of approval of the Government as contemplated in sub-clause (iv) of Section 3(f) of the L.A. Act has been rejected and the matter has reached finality by the order of the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.11306 to 11311 of 2004 disposed of on 16.07.2004.
- 46 -
32. Though the matter had reached finality by the said order of Apex Court, another round of litigation was initiated by some other land owners viz., S.P. Krishnappa and others by filing W.P. No.6410/2006 connected with W.P Nos.5798/2006, 5795/2006, 5792/2006 and 6409/2006 (LA- RES). In the said writ petitions, petitioners had inter alia challenged several notifications issued under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act dated 08.04.1992, 18.02.2003, 02.03.2002, 05.05.1997 and 13.08.2003 with regard to taking of possession pursuant to preliminary and final notifications issued in respect of acquisition of lands belonging to petitioners therein situate at Singasandra village, Begur hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, for the benefit of respondent No.4 therein - The Aircraft Employees Housing Co-operative Society Limited.
33. The said writ petitions were placed before Division Bench of this Court by order of Hon`ble the Chief Justice in view of the reference made by learned single Judge of this Court under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. It was inter alia observed by Division Bench of this Court that
- 47 -
some of the petitioners therein had earlier agitated the matter relating to the said acquisition by filing W.P. Nos.1200 to 1205 and 1207 of 1990 and therefore, it could not be assumed that they were not aware of their rights. Division Bench while dismissing the said writ petitions (W.P. Nos.6410/2006 and connected cases) on the ground of delay and laches, has observed in para No.8 of its order dated 21.02.2007 as under:
"8. Similar details have been furnished by the Society in respect of other survey numbers involved in the other writ petitions which indicate that possession of the lands has been taken and layout has been formed. Without taking possession and the formation of the layout, such site numbers could not have been demarcated and the registration of sales could not have been completed. This fact is relevant to indicate that when there was activity of formation of the layout, the same could be possible only if the lands were in possession of the society. Further details are also furnished with regard to the earlier round of litigation which had culminated in Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court in SLP
(c) No.19733-39/2003 and SLP(c) No.11306-
11/2004. Therefore the cumulative effect of all these aspects is that it cannot be accepted that the petitioners were not aware of Section 16(2) notification about possession taken. Hence the explanation offered by the petitioners for delay and laches in approaching this Court cannot be accepted. That apart when details of the allottees have been
- 48 -
furnished in the objection statement and that it is stated that certain persons have been put in possession of the properties, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to implead all the allottees instead of merely filing reply statement, since as on the date of filing the petition, the society which had taken possession of the land from the Government has thereafter passed on the possession of the sites to the said allottees. Therefore the petitions are not maintainable both on the ground of delay and laches as well as for non-joinder of necessary parties respectively."
34. The said order of Division Bench dated 21.02.2007 passed in W.P. No.6410/2006 and connected cases was subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal No.373/2016 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.4185/2007) and connected appeals preferred by Krishnappa and others before the Apex Court. The Apex Court while considering the said appeals, has observed in para No.3 of its order dated 19.01.2016 as under:
"Having thus extensively heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be served and complete justice would also be done in case the following order is passed in these cases. The appellants-land owners will be allotted a site of 4000 sq. ft free of cost in Marasandra Malur Taluk per acre or part thereof not exceeding 50 cents. The plots thus allotted shall be free from all encumbrances. We make
- 49 -
it clear that in view of the order which is passed by us there should not be any further litigation between the parties with regard to their claims, interest or possession of the land in question. The registration charges shall be borne by the allottees. The needful will be done within three months. We make it clear that the benefit of this order will not be available to the appellants in Civil Appeal No.374/2016 @ SLP(C) No.4186/2007, since the equity has already been meted out by the release of certain extent of land in their favour before the High Court.
(4) The appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.
In Civil Appeal No.374/2016 @ SLP (C) No.4186 & Civil Appeal No.379/2016 @ SLP(C) No.31587/2008 Having regard to the orders passed by us in Civil Appeal No.373/2016 @ SLP (C) no.4185/07 etc. we do not think that either in law or in equity the parties are entitled to any relief in these appeals. Therefore, these appeals are dismissed. "
35. In the light of the aforesaid judgment dated 19.01.2016 of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.373/2016 and other connected cases, it is clear that the finding rendered by Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.6410/2016 and connected petitions with regard to possession of lands taken by the Aircraft Employees House
- 50 -
Building Co-operative Society Limited from the erstwhile land owners and the same having been notified under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act has reached finality.
36. The records would indicate that Chikka Thimma, the husband of original petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(c) in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014, and Chikka Muniyappa had filed W.P. Nos.36787 to 36788 of 2001 challenging the preliminary notification dated 05.09.1988 (published in the Gazette on 29.09.1988) and the final notification dated 28.09.1989 (published in the Gazette on 30.09.1989), which are impugned in the present writ petitions. A coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 03.10.2001, has inter alia held that the said writ petitions were filed after more than a decade from the date of final notification and there was no explanation for the said delay and accordingly, dismissed the said writ petitions in limine.
37. It is seen that some of the land owners including petitioner No.1(b), 1(c) and 2 in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501-38507/2014 and others had earlier approached this
- 51 -
Court in W.P. No.24964/2005 challenging the preliminary notification dated 05.09.1988 and final notification dated 28.09.1989, which are impugned in the present writ petitions, on the ground that the said notifications were contrary to Section 7A of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. A coordinate bench of this Court in its order dated 28.06.2007, has observed that the acquisition proceedings were upheld by this Court and the same had reached finality in the proceedings before the Apex Court and accordingly, it has dismissed the said writ petition.
38. When these writ petitions are considered together, it is seen that the grounds urged in these petitions were considered in the earlier litigations challenging the acquisition proceedings, which has attained finality by the order of the Apex Court dated 16.07.2004 passed in SLP (Civil) Nos.11306 to 11311 of 2004 as well as in Civil Appeal No.373/2016 disposed of by judgment dated 19.01.2016 by the Apex Court.
39. It is seen that the final notifications were issued on 28/04/1989 and 28/09/1989. The present writ petitions are
- 52 -
filed after an inordinate delay of more than 20 years from the date of issuance of the final notifications and hence, they are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
The Society after taking possession of the lands in question and after getting approval of sanctioned plan from the BDA has formed a layout and has allotted sites to its members, who are said to have put up construction of houses.
40. Perusal of copy of G.V.K. Rao Committee's report (Annexure 'F' to W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507/2014) discloses that the said Committee has concluded that there were no serious irregularities worth highlighting in respect of the respondent No.4 - Society. Therefore, the question of going into the allegations of fraud made against the Society on the basis of G.V.K. Rao Committee's report does not arise for consideration.
41. The petitioner in W.P. No.58079/2016 has sought to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.31 measuring 05 Acres 29 guntas
- 53 -
stood lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act. Section 24 of the said Act reads as under:
"24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)--
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
- 54 -
PROVIDED that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
PROVIDED FURTHER that in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any court or the period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession or such period where possession has been taken but the compensation lying deposited in a court or in any account maintained for this purpose shall be excluded."
42. It is the specific case of respondent No.3 - Society that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner had consented for acquisition of his land in Sy. No.31 measuring 05 Acres 29 guntas and consent award was passed on 04.05.1990 (Annexure 'R1' to the statement of objections in W.P. No.58079/2016). The compensation amount was paid to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Government took possession of the said land and notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act came to be issued on
- 55 -
08.04.1992 in respect of the said land. Subsequently, the Spl.
L.A.O., handed over possession of the said land in favour of the 3rd respondent - Society on 09.10.1992. In the present case, the award under L.A. Act was made more than 5 years prior to commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation Act and compensation has been paid to the land owner and physical possession of the land has been taken by the Government.
43. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, which came into force with effect from 01.01.2014.
44. It is pertinent to note that the grievance of respondent Nos.5(a), 5(b) and 6 to 9 in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014 stands on a different footing. It is stated that Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited has acquired some portion of land in Sy. No.6/1, which includes portion of sites belonging to the said respondents vide preliminary notification dated 22/09/2015 and final notification
- 56 -
dated 23/12/2016 for the purpose of construction of metro rail / metro stations. The second petitioner in the said petitions, namely, Nagesh, had addressed a letter dated 01/05/2017 to the KIADB., requesting them not to disburse the award amount in favour of Alle Gowda or any third party pending adjudication of the matter before this Court in W.P. No.52037/2013. Allegowda, the husband of respondent No.5(a), had filed reply / objections to the said letter of Nagesh on 24.06.2017 and had requested the KIADB to release the compensation amount in respect of acquisition of his site No.766/A carved out of Sy. No.6/1 of Singasandra village, by rejecting the representation of the said Nagesh. It is the further grievance of the said respondents that since the erstwhile land owners have preferred these writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of their land/s, their claim for release of compensation is kept pending by KIADB. The KIADB, which is the nodal authority for acquisition of lands and disbursement of compensation to land losers, is harassing the said respondents and is holding back compensation on the basis of the interim order of status quo
- 57 -
passed by this Court dated 12/08/2014 and on the premise that the said writ petitions are pending consideration before this Court.
45. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would observe that any attempt on the part of the Land Acquisition officer of KIADB to hold back the compensation amount and not disburse the same to respondent Nos.5(a), 5(b) and 6 to 9 in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507/2014 would be viewed seriously by this Court. It is also observed that in the absence of any order restraining the KIADB from disbursing the compensation in favour of the said respondents, they would be entitled to initiate contempt proceedings in the light of the fact that the writ petitions filed by petitioners / erstwhile land owners are being dismissed.
46. With such observations, all these writ petitions are dismissed.
47. In view of disposal of these petitions, I.A. Nos.4 and 5 of 2017 filed in W.P. Nos.52037/2013 and 38501 to 38507 of 2014 for setting aside abatement caused due to the
- 58 -
death of Alle gowda and for condonation of delay in filing the L.R. Application respectively, are dismissed as not maintainable as the application, I.A.No.6/2017, for impleading the legal representatives of Alle Gowda was filed within time. I.A. No.2/2017 filed in the said writ petitions for vacating interim order and I.A. No.4/2017 for direction filed by learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P. No.58079/2016 do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma