Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. M/s. Gokula Education Foundation, Bangalore (for short, 'GEF), which is one of the respondents in all these appeals, filed Writ Petition Nos. 3832 to 3849 of 2004 in this Court for quashing of the allotment order dated 13-3-2003 in No. BDA/DS-1/CA/Sy. No. 20/RMV/II/II]72003-04 and consequential possession certificate bearing No. BDA/DS-1/Sy. No. 20/RMV/IMIJ/2003-04, dated 20-9-2003 issued by the BDA in favour of BMTC. The GEF also sought for a declaration that the subject lands have not vested in the BDA and the BMTC and that they have no subsisting rights over the lands in Sy. Nos. 6/1, 6/2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 20 and 21 of Chikkamaranahalli Village and Sy. Nos. 27, 29/1 and 29/2 of Devasandra Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk covered by the preliminary Notification No. A3/PETITIONER-511/SLAO/76-77, dated 3-1-1977 (Annexure-D) and final Notification No. HUD 39 MNJ 78, dated 2-8-1978 (Annexxire-E) and also for a permanent injunction to restrain the BMTC and BDA from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the said lands covered by the preliminary Notification No. A3/PETITIONER-511/SLAO/76-77, dated 3-1-1977 and final Notification No. HUD 39 MNJ 78, dated 2-8-1978. The above writ petitions were opposed by the BDA, BMTC as well as the State of Karnataka by filing statement of objections. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders and declared that the subject lands are not vested in the BDA and BMTC and that the acquisition proceedings under preliminary Notification No. A3/PETITIONER-511/SLAO/76-77, dated 3-1-1977 and final Notification No. HUD 39 MNJ 78, dated 2-8-1978 insofar as the subject lands are concerned have lapsed. Learned Judge has also declared that the BDA, BMTC and the State of Karnataka have no right whatsoever to disturb the possession of GEF in respect of the subject lands in view of the declaration made by him. Hence, these writ appeals by the aggrieved parties.

14. We have heard Sri Deshraj, learned Government Advocate for the State of Karnataka, Sri Udaya Holla, Senior Counsel for Sri R.V. Jayaprakash for BMTC, Sri U. Abdul Khader, learned Standing Counsel for BDA and Sri C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K. Shashikiran Shetty, Advocate for GEF.

15. On behalf of the appellants Sri Udaya Holla, Senior Counsel, lead the arguments. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that since the GEF had sought the reliefs of declaration and injunction apart from quashing the impugned notifications and the dispute brought before the Court bristles with disputed facts, the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petitions as not maintainable and the learned Judge ought not to have undertaken the adjudication of disputed facts. It was further contended that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the actual physical possession of the subject lands was not taken over by the State Government and the BDA is factually incorrect and, on the other hand, the mahazar dated 31-8-1981 would clearly show that the physical possession of the subject lands was taken over on 31-8-1981 itself in the presence of the panchas. It was also contended that the notification issued under Section 16(2) of the LA Act would clearly and conclusively establish the fact that the possession of the subject lands has been duly taken. It was also contended that the opinion of the learned Single Judge that the order passed in C.P. Nos. 144 and 144-A of 1988 has not disturbed the declarations made in the body of the order declaring that the entire acquisition proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction, is untenable. It was further contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to notice that the GEF had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 16464 of 1982 challenging the notifications of acquisition and since that writ petition was withdrawn on 22-1-1987 without reserving liberty to file fresh writ petition, the present writ petitions ought to have been dismissed as not maintainable in law. It was also contended that the writ petitions ought to have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and laches. Apart from the above contentions, in general, on behalf of the appellants, Sri Udaya Holla would contend that the land allotted to BMTC for establishing bus-stand is absolutely needed for public purpose and if the bus-stand is established that facility would not only sub-serve the interest of the public at large in general but also the interest of the patients who visit the hospitals for treatment in particular and, therefore, no exception could be taken to the same. Sri Deshraj, learned Government Advocate and Sri U. Abdul Khader, learned Standing Counsel for the BDA would adopt the arguments of Sri Udaya Holla and supplement the same.

16. Sri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the GEF, at the threshold, seriously questioned the bona fide of the State Government and the BDA to acquire the subject lands for any public purpose. Sri Vaidyanathan would highlight the fact that the entire subject land has been put to use by the GEF not for any other purpose except for the purpose of establishing educational institutions to impart education in various fields of human knowledge and it is well-settled that imparting education is a constitutional obligation and when a Trust like GEF has come forward to discharge this function, it is fair and just that the State should come to its aid in providing the land by acquisition. But, unfortunately, in this case, instead of the State acquiring the land for the benefit of GEF to establish its educational institutions, it has been consistently trying to deny its own land to the GEF for its purposes. Sri Vaidyanathan would draw our attention to what is stated in para 19 of the writ petition which has not been seriously disputed by the respondents-appellants herein. In para 19 of the writ petition it is stated that the State of Karnataka, in pursuance of its constitutional obligation, has acquired lands in and around Bangalore and allotted the same in favour of several Medical and Engineering colleges. It is pointed out that the State Government has acquired private lands to an extent of 150 acres and gifted the same to St. John's Medical College free of cost. Sri Vaidyanathan, therefore, would maintain that the whole idea of acquiring the subject lands which are absolutely needed by the GEF itself for its own purposes should be condemned as unconstitutional, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the doctrine of fairness in action. Sri Vaidyanathan while supporting the order of the learned Single Judge would adopt the same reasons stated by the learned Single Judge to record a finding that the State Government and the BDA did not take over the possession of the subject lands in pursuance of the acquisition proceedings initiated by issuing preliminary notification dated 3-1-1977 and final notification dated 2-8-1978 till the date of filing the writ petition, would highlight the fact that the letter of the BDA dated 12th September, 2001 is apparently with regard to the lands not covered by the withdrawal notification issued under Section 48 of the LA Act and the exemption notification issued under Section 20(l)(a) of the ULCR Act. Sri Vaidyanathan would maintain that the materials and documents laid before the Court would show that the State Government and the BDA have not taken possession of any of the subject lands nor made any attempt to take over the subject lands at any time and, therefore, the question of vesting title in the State Government or the BDA does not arise and as such, the allotment made by the BDA in favour of BMTC is wholly unauthorised and beyond the scope of the Act, It was also contended by Sri Vaidyanathan that if the land allotted in favour of the BMTC, which is within the compound of the medical college and hospital, is utilised for establishing the bus-stand, it would pollute the air endangering the health of the patients who stay as in-patients or others who visit the hospitals. Meeting the arguments of the appellants based on delay and laches, Sri Vaidyanathan would contend that the cause of action to file the present writ petitions arose only in the year 2003 when the BDA allotted a part of the land in Sy. No. 20 of Chikkamaranahalli Village in favour of BMTC and writ petitions were filed on 25-1-2004 without any loss of time. Sri Vaidyanathan would submit that now a mahazar is cited as a proof to show that the possession of the subject land was taken over by the State Government, but, there is no reference to the mahazar in the statement of objections and even the records were not produced before the learned Single Judge by the State Government and a cyclostyled copy now found in the file of the BDA could not be relied upon to conclude that the possession of the land was taken over by the State Government by drawing a mahazar in presence of panchas. Sri Vaidyanathan placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat and Ors., would submit that the State 'Government should take over actual physical possession of the subject lands and not notional possession of the same by drawing a mahazar. In the instant case, he would point out that even according to the Government and the BDA, physical possession was with the GEF even after the date of the so-called mahazar and, therefore, the mahazar is of no help to show that the physical possession of the subject lands was taken over on 31-8-1981. It was contended on behalf of the GEF that the benefit of the order made by this Court in C.P. Nos. 144 and 144-A of 1988 would also be available to the GEF inasmuch as the GEF had also challenged the same notifications and since this Court in the above C.Ps. has quashed the acquisition proceedings in respect of those who had challenged the same, the GEF also should be deemed to have been saved by the said order passed in the above C.Ps. It was submitted that only such interpretation would be reasonable interpretation in the context of the case that the GEF bona fide believing that the order made by this Court on 27-7-1984 in Writ Petition Nos. 29726 and 29355 of 1981 preferred by Shivanna and Sunandamma quashing the preliminary notification and final notification in their entirety and since that order became final, withdrew Writ Petition No. 16464 of 1982 wherein the same notifications were assailed. It was pointed out by learned Senior Counsel that the BDA has acted in a highly mala fide way in directing the GEF to withdraw Writ Petition No. 4691 of 1991 by assuring that it would issue notification of withdrawal of acquisition proceedings under Section 48 of the LA Act in respect of all the subject lands as per its letter dated 17-6-1998, but it issued the notification under Section 48 of the Act only with regard to the part of the subject lands. Lastly, it was contended that Sy. No. 20 of Chikkamaranahalli Village is presently used as a playground for the students and GEF has planned to put up staff quarters in the said land for accommodating the Doctors, Nurses and Attenders working in the hospital in order to discharge its statutory obligation under Regulation 3, Part II(8) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 framed under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

20. We do not find any merit in the contention of the State Government and the BDA that the physical possession of the subject lands was taken over by the State Government on 31-8-1981 by drawing a mahazar in the presence of panchas. The above claim is based on a xerox copy of the so-called mahazar drawn on 31-8-1981 which is available in the file of the BDA. This document could not be trusted as a genuine copy of the original to sustain the above claim of the State Government and the BDA. It needs to be noticed at this stage itself that there is no reference to the above mahazar in the statements of objections filed by the BDA and BMTC. The State Government did not file statement of objections. Furthermore, before the learned Single Judge, the State Government did not produce even the records nor was it the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the State Government before the learned Single Judge that the physical possession of the subject lands was taken over on 31-8-1981. In the statement of objections of BDA, the only thing said is that the possession of subject lands was taken on different dates during 1981 and 1982 and a notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act was published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 29-7-1982. In the statement of objections filed by BMTC, in para 10, it was claimed the possession of the subject lands including Sy, No. 20 of Chikkamaranahalli was taken over by the Government somewhere in the year 1982 itself. Therefore, a cyclostyle copy of the so-called mahazar dated 31-8-1981 now found only in the file of the BDA could not be relied upon to conclude that the possession of the land was taken over by the State Government by drawing a mahazar in the presence of the panchas on 31-8-1981. Alternatively, it needs to be noticed that even assuming that such a mahazar was drawn on 31-8-1981 without notice to and in the absence of the representatives of the GEF, only on the basis of such mahazar and without anything further it could not be concluded that the physical possession of the subject lands was taken over by the State Government on 31-8-1981 and the same vested in the State Government with the issuance of notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act on 1-4-1982. In this regard, it needs to be noticed that a three-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Balwant Narayan Bhagde's case, has held that State must take over actual physical possession of the acquired land and not notional possession of such land by drawing a mahazar. The Supreme Court in the above judgment observed in paragraph 1 thus: