K.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-75
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on March 10,2016

K.M. Chikkathayamma And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Karnataka and Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BURRAKUR COAL CO LIMITED EAST INDIAN COAL CO LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY PURAN SINGH KEWAL KRISHAN KRISHAN LAL ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA SONI NARANDAS NAGJIBHAI PUKHRAJ M S VENKITANARAYANA IYER VS. NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY:THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:D R KOHLI:THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
NEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS CO LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. VITHAL RAO [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. M V NARASIMHAN [REFERRED TO]
WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED VS. SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KORBA:SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KORBA [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. GURNAM KAUR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DHANWANTI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
MURARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MARIYAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
C N RUDRAMURTHY VS. K BARKATHULLA KHAN [REFERRED TO]
SUGANTHI SURESH KUMAR VS. JAGDEESHAN [REFERRED TO]
MUNITHIMMAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI CAIRAE VS. U P AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSIONER VS. VEER KUMAR JAIN [REFERRED TO]
BONDU RAMASWAMY VS. BANGLORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
GIRNAR TRADERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT LTD VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
M NAGABHUSHANA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
P. K. KALBURQI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. R.P. SINGH [REFERRED TO]
R. SHANKARAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
SUDHAKAR HEGDE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MAGNUM PROMOTERS P. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV CHOWDHRIE HUF VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VELAXAN KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KARNAIL KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RADIANCE FINCAP (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [REFERRED TO]





JUDGEMENT

Anand Byrareddy, J. - (1.)These petitions are heard and disposed of together. The legal issues arising for consideration are similar.
(2.)The facts as stated in the petitions may be restated briefly as follows:
WP 38868 -38870/2015

The petitioners are said to be owners of lands bearing survey No. 185 and portions of lands bearing survey No. 176 and 183/1, measuring 8 acres 26 guntas and 1 acre 33 guntas, respectively, of Dattagalli, Kasaba hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. These lands, apart from lands belonging to several others, were said to have been notified for acquisition, for the formation of a residential layout, Dattagalli Extension, by recourse to the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KUDA Act' for brevity). A notification under Sec. 17(1) of the KUDA Act was said to have been issued and duly published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 26.12.1991. Thereafter, a notification under Sec. 19(1) and (2) of the KUDA Act, was also said to have been issued and duly published in the Karnataka Gazette on 7.1.1993.

The petitioners are said to have challenged the acquisition proceedings before this court by way of a writ petition in WP 27994/2001. The said petition is said to have been allowed by a learned single judge of this court by an order dated 15.12.2003. The same was said to have been challenged in a writ appeal in WA 1863/2004. The division bench is said to have set aside the order of the learned single judge and is said to have remanded the matter for a fresh consideration. On such remand, the petition is said to have been dismissed on merits, by an order dated 7.2.2011. A writ appeal in WA 15445/2011, was said to have been filed against the said dismissal order. The appeal was said to have been allowed and remanded for a fresh consideration by a judgment dated 13.9.2012. The learned single judge had then allowed the petition and had quashed the acquisition proceedings by an order dated 10.10.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents are said to have filed a writ appeal in WA 6829 -6830/2013, which is said to be pending consideration.

It is said that with the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act, 2013', for brevity) with effect from 1.1.2014, the petitioners are said to have filed an application in the pending writ appeals, before the division bench, as on 29.8.2015, seeking a declaration that by virtue of Sec. 24(2) of the LA Act, 2013, the acquisition proceedings in question stood lapsed by efflux of time and by operation of law. The division bench is, however, said to have expressed that such a prayer could only be made by way of a fresh writ petition and hence the present writ petition.

WP 38871 -38874/2015

These petitioners are said to be owners of lands bearing survey No. 168 and 169/1 and portions of land in survey Nos. 176 and 183/1 of Dattagalli, Kasaba hobli, Mysore taluk and District. These lands were also the subject matter of acquisition under the very notifications issued in respect of the lands which are the subject matter of the writ petitions in WP 38868 -38870/2015, mentioned above, as they are neighboring lands.

The petitioners herein and the petitioners in the first of these petitions above, have proceeded hand in hand, though in independent petitions and appeals, at all stages, as stated in the writ petition in WP 38868 -38870, resulting in the present petitions.

WP 35858/2013 and 35880 -35881/2013

The petitioners are said to be the owners of lands bearing survey No. 70/7 measuring 14 guntas of Bommanahalli, Begur hobli, Bangalore South taluk. It transpires that acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act', for brevity) was said to have been initiated by the issuance of a notification under Sec. 17 of the BDA Act, dated 17.1.1985. The acquisition was for the formation of a residential layout known as Hosur -Sarjapur Road layout. A final notification is said to have been issued on 28.11.1986. However, an award in respect of the petitioner's land is said to have been passed only as on 30.4.2010. It is claimed that physical possession of the land continues to remain with the petitioners. It is hence contended that the award not having been passed within a period of five years from the date of final notification and possession of the land not having been taken, the Scheme under which the acquisition was initiated has lapsed and consequently the acquisition as well.

WP 82/2015

The petitioner is said to be the owner of land to an extent of 14 guntas of the land bearing survey No. 14/1 of Hosahalli, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South taluk. The said land is said to have been converted for non -agricultural purposes, since the year 1995. It is stated that the above land forms part of a larger extent of 6 acres 7 guntas said to have been purchased by the uncle of the petitioner who had got 5 acres out of the same converted for non -agricultural use and is said to have formed house sites and is said to have sold the same to various third parties and that he had also delivered the above said land to the petitioner under a General Power of Attorney and the petitioner is said to have put up residential buildings after obtaining a sanctioned plan from the Talghattapura Panchayat and that he had also paid betterment charges in respect of the same.

It is claimed that several other third party purchasers had paid betterment charges to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and had obtained 'No Objection Certificates' from the said Authority before putting up constructions on their sites.

It is claimed that when the petitioner approached the BDA seeking to pay betterment charges, it is said, he was informed that the land in question was subject matter of acquisition proceedings. A preliminary notification dated 7.11.2002 and a final notification dated 9.9.2003 are said to have been issued. It is however claimed that physical possession, neither of the petitioner's properties nor that of other property owners in survey No. 14/1 had been taken possession of by the BDA. It is contended that though the final notification was of the year 2003, even as on date, the possession of the land not having been taken, the Scheme as well as the acquisition are deemed to have lapsed in view of Sec. 24 of the LA Act, 2013.

WP 26980 -982/2015

It is stated that petitioner No. 1 and the father of petitioner No. 2 are said to be the owners of land in survey No. 55/1 measuring 38 guntas in Malagala. It transpires they had agreed to sell 9 guntas of land in favour of one Ankappa Reddy.

It is further stated that there are two other land owners in land bearing survey No. 55/2 to the extent of 3.36 acres held by S.M. Kannaiah and 55/1 to the extent of 3 acres. The said extents along with the land of the petitioners totally measures 7 acre 34 acres. It is stated that the entire extent of 7 acre 34 guntas along with other lands was notified for acquisition by the BDA, vide preliminary notification dated 15.7.1982 and a final notification dated 5.8.1986.

It is claimed by the petitioners that as neither an award was passed nor possession of their land had been taken, they had sought no objection from the BDA to have the land converted for non -agricultural use. BDA is said to have issued an Official Memorandum dated 1.8.1994 in that regard, indicating that it has no objection.

Insofar as the extent of land held by S.M. Kannaiah is concerned, the same is said to have been withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings as per notification dated 5.10.2007. However, the said notification was sought to be withdrawn, which was challenged by way of a writ petition in WP 10709/2009, which is said to have been allowed on the ground that possession could not be said to have been taken on the basis of a mahazar which was produced in proof thereof. The petitioners claim that they also would have the benefit of the said finding as it pertains to their land as well. It is contended that in view of possession of the land remaining with the petitioners to this day, the benefit of Sec. 24(2) of the LA Act, 2013 would extend to them. Hence the writ petition.

WP 83/2015

The petitioner claims to have purchased land bearing survey No. 27/3 measuring an extent of 27 guntas, of Manavarthikaval village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 15.2.2012. The BDA is said to have notified lands at Manavarthikaval and several other villages for the purpose of formation of further extension of Banashankari VI Stage layout, under a preliminary notification dated 7.11.2002. A Final notification is said to have been issued on 9.9.2003. It is claimed that the notifications did not include the portion of land purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner had sought for conversion of the land for non -agricultural user. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have sought a 'No Objection Certificate' from the BDA, it is then that the BDA is said to have claimed on the basis of a joint survey that the land of the petitioner was indeed part of the notifications for acquisition.

It is pointed out that the acquisition proceedings were initiated without reference to any of the predecessors in interest of the land held by the petitioner and hence it is not open to the BDA to claim that the land had been acquired. In any event, there is no award in respect of the property and the petitioner continues in possession of the property. It is hence claimed that the Scheme was never sought to be implemented in respect of the land in question and as there is no award passed, the acquisition has lapsed in terms of Sec. 24(2) of the LA Act, 2013.

WP 15616 -15620/2013

The petitioner claims that land bearing survey No. 257/2C measuring 20 guntas of Hinkal Mysore taluk, is his ancestral property. It is claimed that an extent of 1 acre of land in survey No. 257/2C of the same village is said to have been inherited by Petitioner No. 2. And the land in Survey No. 255/1 measuring 35 guntas of the same village, is said to belong to petitioner No. 3. The land in survey No. 255/2, measuring 1 acre 16 guntas, also of the same village, is said to belong to petitioner No. 4.

The Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) is said to have issued a preliminary notification dated 1.4.1981, under the provisions of the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'CMI Act', for brevity). A final notification is said to have been issued on 31.3.1984. And it is stated that it is only thereafter a sanction of the Scheme was accorded on 3.6.1989.

It is claimed that there is no award passed in the name of the petitioners nor any compensation paid and that they continue in possession of the lands.

It is urged that with the coming into force of the LA Act, 2013, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed even if the respondents refute the correctness of the petitioners' assertion on facts.

WP 40076/2014

The petitioners are said to be owners of land bearing survey No. 139/3 measuring about 28 guntas of Kacharkanahalli, Bangalore North taluk. The petitioners claim that it is their ancestral property.

The BDA is said to have notified the land, amongst other lands, for acquisition for the purpose of formation of the Hennur -Bellary Road I Stage layout, vide preliminary notification dated 27.6.1978 and a final notification is said to have been issued on 14.3.1985. An award is said to have been passed on 7.1.1987. But it is claimed that the petitioners continue to be in physical possession of the land, though a notification is said to have been issued under Sec. 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act, 1894', for brevity), on the basis of what is alleged by the petitioners, to be a concocted mahazar. It is hence contended that not only has the Scheme lapsed, but also the acquisition ought to be deemed to have lapsed.

(3.)The primary contention that is sought to be canvassed in the present petitions are as to whether the LA Act, 2013 would be applicable to acquisitions initiated under the provisions of the KUDA Act or the BDA Act, respectively. If the answer to the same is in the affirmative, it is then to be addressed whether the acquisition proceedings in the above said petitions are deemed to have lapsed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.