Karnataka High Court
Sri N Ramaraju vs The Principal Secretary Revenue ... on 2 August, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A. No.17016/2011 (LA-RES)
IN
W.P. Nos.16289-16298/2008 (LA-RES)
C/W
W.A.No.16566 OF 2011 (LA-RES)
IN
W.P.Nos.15607-611/2008 (LA-RES),
W.A.No.23/2012 (LA-RES)
IN
W.P.Nos.15607-611/2008 (LA-RES),
W.A. No.504 OF 2012 (LA-RES)
IN
W.P. Nos.16238/2009 & 17107-110/2009 (LA-RES),
W.A.No.2514 OF 2013 (LA-RES)
IN
W.P.Nos.1999-2002 & 2004-2032/2010 (LA-RES),
W.A.No.2941 OF 2013 (LA-RES)
IN
W.P.No.16797/2011 (LA-RES),
W.A.No.4317 OF 2013 (LA-RES)
IN
W.P.No.3292/2012 (LA-RES),
2
W.A.No.5630 OF 2013 (LA-RES)
IN
W.P.Nos.2976-80/2011 (LA-RES)
W.A. No.17016 OF 2011 IN
W.P. Nos.16289-16298/2008
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. N. RAMARAJU
S/O LATE CHIKKANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
2. SMT. S. RADHAMMA
D/O LATE R. SRINIVASAIAH
DEAD BY HER LR'S.
2(1) SRI. N. KARIYAPPA GOWDA
S/O LATE N. NARAYANAPPA
(HUSBAND OF DECEASED RADHAMMA
- 2ND APPELLANT HEREIN)
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
2(2) SMT. K. SAHANA
D/O SRI N. KARIYAPPA GOWDA
& LATE RADHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
2(3) SRI. K.M. SAGAR
S/O SRI N. KARIYAPPA GOWDA
& LATE RADHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/O NO.40
CQUAL LAYOUT, SAHAKARANAGARA POST
BANGALORE.
3. SMT. G .LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
3
4. SRI. M. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
5. SRI. B. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE BACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
6. SMT. RATHNAMMA L R
W/O LATE K S SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
7. SRI. L. ASHWATHANARAYAN
S/O PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
8. SRI. SRINIVASA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
9. SRI. G. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS.
10. SRI. P. JAYARAM
S/O LATE PUTTANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
1 TO 10 ARE R/O
KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. G.S. BALAGANGADHAR, ADV., FOR
APPELLANT AND ALSO FOR LR'S OF A2)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.
4
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
DISTRICT OFFICE COMPOUND, BANGALORE.
4. N.T.I. HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
NO G 5, PALACE ORCHARDS APARTMENTS
NO.51, 6TH A CROSS, 9TH MAIN
RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE.
5. RAJIV GANDHI NAGARA LAYOUT ALLOTTEES'
WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD)
NO.3, GANESH KRUPA, 3RD MAIN
2ND CROSS, ASHEERWAD COLONY
ANJANAPPA LAYOUT
HORAMAVU, BANASWADI
BANGALORE 560 043
REP BY ITS SECRETARY 560043.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4 AND R5)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.16289-16298/2008 DATED 4/5.7.2011.
W.A. NO.16566 OF 2011 IN
W.P. Nos.15607-611/2008
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. A. JAYARAM
S/O LATE ANNAIAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/AT 'C' BLOCK
5
SAHAKARANAGAR, KODIGEHALLI
SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL, BANGALORE 92.
2. SMT. VISHALAMMA
W/O LATE V. JAGADISH GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/AT NO.25
17TH CROSS, SAMPANGI MAIN ROAD
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003.
3. SRI. B N VASUDEVAMURTHY
S/O SRI. B.M. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEAS
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/AT NEAR DODDAMMA
MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD
BYATARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE 92.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER THE
COURT ORDER DATED 6.10.2009)
4. SRI. BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/AT NEAR DODDAMMA
MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD
BYATARAYANAPUARA, BANGALORE-92.
5. SRI. S. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SRI. SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/AT 'C' BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR
KODIGEHALLI, SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL
BANGALORE 92.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. K.S. CHANDRAHASA, ADV., FOR A3 TO R5
MR. G.B. ESWARAPPA, ADV., FOR A1 & A2)
6
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 1.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
III FLOOR, V.V. TOWER, BANGALORE.
4. M/S NTI EMPLOYEES' HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD.,
LATER RENAMED AS NATIONAL
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE HOUSING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD.,
G-5, PALACE ORACHRDS APARTMENTS
NO.51, 9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS
R.M.V. EXTENSION, BANGALOER-90
5. H. NARAYANA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE.
6. M/S. ANTEVORTA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES
ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT, NO.514, DALAMAL TOWER
NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021.
ALSO HAVING ITS REGIONAL
CORRESPONDENCE OFFICE AT
757/B, 2ND STAGE HAL, 100 FT. ROAD
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. CHETHAN B.S.
... RESPONDENTS
7
(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. B.N. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4
MR. MADHU NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. BADRI VISHAL, ADV.,
R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.15607-611/2008 DATED 4/5-7.2011.
W.A.No.23/2012
IN W.P.Nos.15607-611/2008
BETWEEN:
H. NARAYANA
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560064.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. JANARDHANA G, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 1.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE560002.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
III FLOOR, V.V. TOWER
BANGALORE-560001.
4. M/S. NTI EMPLOYEES HOUSING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD.,
( NAME CHANGED TO NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL
8
INSTITUTE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD.,)
G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS APARTMENTS
NO.51, 9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS R.M.V. EXTENSION,
BANGALOER-90
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. SRI. A. JAYARAM
S/O LATE ANNAIAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT. 'C' BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR
KODIGEHALLI
SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL
BANGALORE-92.
6. SMT. VISHALAMMA
W/O LATE V. JAGADISH GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT. NO.25, 17TH CROSS
SAMPIGE MAIN ROAD
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-01.
7. SRI. B.N. VASUDEVAMURTHY
S/O B.M.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT. DODDAMMA MAHESHWARAMMA
TEMPLE ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE-92.
8. SRI. BASAVARAJU
S/O ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT. DODDAMMA MAHESHWARAMMA
TEMPLE ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE-92.
9. SRI. S. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT. 'C' BLOCK
SAHAKARANAGAR, KODIGEHALLI
SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL
BANGALORE-92.
9
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
MR. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. K.S. CHANDRAHASA, ADV., FOR R9
MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4
R5, R6, R7 AND R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.15607-15611/2008 DATED 4/5.7.2011
W.A. No.504 OF 2012
IN
W.P. Nos.16238/2009 & 17107-110/2009
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. H. SEETHARAMAIAH
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/O. KODIGEHALLY VILLAGE
BANGALORE.
2. SMT. NARASAMMA
D/O PAPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 092.
3. SMT. PREMA
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O NO.292, 7TH CROSS
1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 011.
4. SRI. RAMANJANEPPA
S/O LATE ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
10
SAHAKARNAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 092.
5. SRI. S. PAPANNA
S/O LATE SONAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O KODIGEHALLI
SAHAKARNAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 092.
6. SRI. RAMANNA @ RAMAIAH
S/O KURI BUJJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/O KODIGEHALLI
SAHAKARNAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 092.
7. SRI. G. NARASAIAH
S/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YERAS
R/O KODIGEHALLI
SAHAKARNAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 092.
8. SRI. NANJUNDAPPA
SINCE DEAD REP. BY LR
8(a) SRI. VASANTHAPPA
S/O N. NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O NO.494, GANGA BHAVANI ROAD
KODIGEHALLI, SAHAKARNAGAR POST
BANGALORE-92.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.6.2019)
9. SMT. SAKAMMA
W/O LATE MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
R/O KODIGEHALLI
SAHAKARNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 092.
... APPELLANTS
11
(BY MR. G.S. BALAGANGADHAR, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPT.,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
K P WEST, BANGALORE.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
DISTRICT OFFICE COMPOUND
BANGALORE-560001.
4. N.T.I. HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
NO.G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS APARTMENTS
NO.51, 6TH A CROSS, 9TH MAIN
RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560020.
5. RAJIV GANDHI NAGARA LAYOUT
ALLOTTEES' WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD)
NO.3, GANESHA KRUPA, III MAIN
II CROSS, ASHEERWAD COLONY
ANJANAPPA LAYOUT
HORAMAVU, BANASAWADI
BANGALORE - 560043
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
6. SRI. SOMAKESHAVA M
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.141/2, KODIGEHALLI
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
BANGALORE 560 092.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. B.N. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4
12
MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R5
V/O DTD:4.9.2014 APPEAL ABATED AGAINST R6)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NOS.16238/2009 & 17106-110/2009, DATED
4/5.7.2011.
W.A.No.2514 OF 2013 IN
W.P.Nos.1999-2002 & 2004-2032/2010
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O RAMAIAH
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
2. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
3. SRI. V. RAMU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
4. SMT. RENUKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
W/O LATE R. NARAYANAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
13
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
5. SMT. SIDDAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O NANJAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
6. SMT. NAGARATNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE YASHODAMMA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
7. SRI. MUNIRAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O LATE BACHAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
8. SMT. MUNIMARAMMA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
W/O ANDANAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
9. SRI. LAXHMAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIHANUMAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
14
10. SMT. MUNITAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
W/O LATE ANJANAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
11. SRI. GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
12. SRI. ANIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
13. SRI. V. SRINIVASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
14. SRI. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIHUCHAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
15
15. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
16. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
W/O LATE NANJAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
17. SMT. RATNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
W/O LATE MARAPPA
R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
BANGALORE 560092.
18. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA
R/O BYATARAYANAPURA
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
19. SRI. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA
R/O BYATARAYANAPURA
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
20. SMT. KAMALAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
W/O LATE MADHU
R/O BYATARAYANAPURA
16
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
21. SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O B M ANJANAPPA
R/O BYATARAYANAPURA
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
22. SRI. PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
S/O LATE CHICKMUNI
R/O BYATARAYANAPURA
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
23. SRI. B S SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE SUBRAYAPPA
R/O BYATARAYANAPURA
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
24. SRI. RAJENDRA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
R/O BYATARAYANAPURA
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
25. SRI. GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
R/O BYATARAYANAPURA
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
17
26. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA
R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
27. SRI. RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O LATE BAIYANAPPA
R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
28. SRI. DODDANARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
S/O OBALAPPA
R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
29. SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
30. SRI. MUNIRAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE BACHAPPA
R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
31. SRI. H. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
18
S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
32. SRI. GIRIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560092.
33. SMT. PREMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/O LATE B N KRISHNAPPA
R/O NO.292, 1ST BLCOK
7TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560011.
APPELLANTS NOS.1 TO 33 ARE PRESENTLY
REPRESENTED BY THEIR SPECIAL POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI. SUDHAKAR SHENOY
S/O LATE B H SHENOY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ADDRESS: NO.123/17, KANKANADI
BISHOP VICTOR ROAD
MANGALORE 2.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. VENKATESH P. DALAWAI, ADV.,)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001
THROUGH ITS PRINCIAPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
19
K G ROAD
BANGALORE-560009.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
III FLOOR, V V TOWER
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
4. NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL
INSTITUTIONS (NTI) HOUSING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD
G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS
APARTMENTS, NO.51
9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS
RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560090
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. B.N. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NOS.1999-2002/2010 & 2004-2032/2010
DATED 6.3.2013.
W.A. NO.2941 OF 2013
IN W.P. No.16797/2011
BETWEEN:
SMT. RAMAKKA
W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 097.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADV.,)
20
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE
M.S. BUILDINGS
BANGALORE 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD
BANGALORE-09.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
3RD FLOOR, V.V. TOWERS
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE 560 001.
4. M/S. NTI EMPLOYEES HOUSING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
(NAME CHANGED TO NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL
INSTITUTE OF HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.)
G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS APARTMENTS
NO.51, 9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS
RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560 080.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.16797/2011 (LA-RES) DATED 6.3.2013.
21
W.A. NO.4317 OF 2013 IN W.P. No.3292/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M. SAMPANGIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O MUNIRAMAIAH
RESIDING AT RAMACHANDRAPURA
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560064.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. VARADARAJAN M.S. ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
III FLOOR, V.V. TOWER
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE 560 001.
4. M/S NTI EMPLOYEES HOUSING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
(NAME CHANGED TO:
NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF
HOUSING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., )
G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS APARTMENTS
NO.51, 9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS
RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560 080
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI. R. PRAKASH.
5. M/S. S.B. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.902
22
9TH 'A' CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD
7TH CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD
BANGALORE-560086
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. N. CHANDRASHEKAR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR.SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
MR.G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR.R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4
MR.REUBEN JACOB, FOR C/R5 )
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.3292/2012 DATED 6.3.2013.
W.A. NO.5630 OF 2013 IN W.P. Nos.2976-80/2011
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O THIMMAIAH.
2. SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
3. SRI. PILLAPPA
S/O MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
APPELLANT NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT KODIGEHALLI
GANGABHAVANI ROAD
SAHAKARNAGARA POST
BANGALORE - 560 092.
4. SRI. DODDA MUNISHAMAPPA
S/O KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
23
5. SRI. NAGARAJ
DELETED VIDE ORDER
DATED 9.12.2014.
6. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA
W/O CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
7. SMT. CHINNAMMA
W/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS .
APPELLANT NOS. 4 TO 7 ARE
R/AT MARUTHINAGAR
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD
SAHAKARNAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 092.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. R.P. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
3RD FLOOR, V V TOWER
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. M/S. NTI EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES LIMITED
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTION
HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS
24
APARTMENTS, NO.51, 9TH MAIN
6TH CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 090
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI. R. PRAKASH, MAJOR.
5. SRI. VENKATESH
DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 9.12.2014.
6. SMT. AKKAYAMMA
W/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
MARUTHINAGAR
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD
SAHAKARNAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 092.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4
MR. MANJUNATHA B.R. ADV., FOR R6
V/O DTD:9.12.2014 R5 IS ABATED)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.2976-80/2011 DATED 6.3.2012.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
25
JUDGMENT
In these intra court appeals under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the appellants / land
owners have assailed the validity of the orders dated
04/05.07.2011 and 06.03.2013 passed by the learned
Single Judge, by which writ petitions preferred by the
appellants seeking quashment of notifications dated
04.01.1985 and 25.09.1986 issued under Section 4(1)
and under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short)
respectively and award dated 31.01.1989 as well as
notifications dated 12/15.04.1991 and 4/5.11.1992
issued under Section 16(2) of the Act, have been
dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellants'
grievance, few facts need mention, which are stated
infra.
2. The appellants claim to be the owners and in
possession of agricultural land situated at Kothihosahalli,
Kodigehalli, and Bytarayanapura Villages, Yelahanka
Hobli, Bengaluru. The respondent No.4 namely National
Tuberculosis Institute (NTI) Housing Co-operative
Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society' for
short), submitted a representation to the Government
for acquisition of 66 acres and 5 guntas of land situate
at Kothihosahalli, Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura
Villages for formation of a residential layout for its
members. The Commissioner Revenue conveyed
sanction of the government to acquire 171 acres and 37
guntas of land i.e., much in excess of the land in respect
of which the acquisition was sought by the Society. It is
the case of the appellants that extent of land mentioned
in the aforesaid communication was fraudulently
changed to 177 acres and 37 guntas. The Commissioner
Revenue by a communication dated 15.12.1984
requested the special Deputy Commissioner to issue a
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of
280 acres of land. Thereafter, a preliminary Notification
dated 04.01.1985 was issued under Section 4(1) of the
Act proposing to acquire 322 acres of land for the
Society, which included the land of the appellants. On
22.08.1986, the name of the Society was changed to
National Technological Institution Employees Housing
Co-operative Society Limited, after obtaining approval
from the competent authority. The norms pertaining to
membership of the society were also changed.
Thereupon the membership of the society was extended
to employees of the bank and employees to State
Government and others. Thereafter, a declaration under
Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 22.09.1986 in
respect of land measuring 210 acres and 37 guntas.
3. The Deputy Commissioner by a communication
dated 16.10.1986 requested the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies to place the matter pertaining to
acquisition of land in question before a three men
Committee constituted to scrutinize the land acquisition
proceeding. The three men Committee, after conducting
an enquiry under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-
operative Societies Act, 1959, submitted a report dated
07.11.1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the GVK Rao
report' for short) and placed the Society under the
category of the Societies, which had indulged in serious
irregularities. It was found in the enquiry that Society
collected site deposits to the tune of Rs.2.71 crores and
entered into an agreements with two agents namely M/s.
Vellalu Constructions and Sri.Surya Rao and Co. and paid
a sum of Rs.3.57 Crores to M/s.Vellalu Constructions. It
was further found that the Society had illegally admitted
large number of members from one organization. Thus,
it was held that the Society had indulged in serious
irregularities.
4. The State Government, on 28.01.1989, granted
approval for acquisition of 184.04 acres of land in
respect of 184.04. acres in favour of the Society under
Section 11(1) of the Act (as modified by Land
Acquisition (Mysore Extension Amendment) Act, 1961.
Thereafter, a general award in respect of 68 acres and
36 guntas of land on 31.01.1989 and a consent award in
respect of 111 acres and 33 guntas of land were passed
on 28.04.1989. The State Government took possession
of the land under Section 16(1) of the Act on
26.03.1999 and 03.11.1992. Thereafter, notifications
dated 12/15.04.1991 and 4/5.11.1992 were issued
under Section 16(2) of the Act and the possession of the
lands measuring 173 acres and 29 guntas was handed
over to the Society on 05.11.1992.
5. Some of the land owners challenged the
validity of the land acquisition proceeding in
W.P.No.37086/1995, which was dismissed by a Bench of
this Court vide order dated 16.07.1996. The appellants
in W.A.No.2514/2013 instituted O.S.No.7694/2008
seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining
the State Government from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the appellants over the said land. The
aforesaid civil suit was dismissed in default on
17.11.2008.
6. The appellants in W.A.No.2514/2013
thereafter filed a writ petition namely W.P.No.1998-
203/2010 on 29.01.2010 which was allowed by learned
Single Judge of this Court by order dated 10.11.2010
with the direction to the Society to restore possession of
the land to the owners and to the appellants subject to
refund of the amount of compensation received by
them. Against the aforesaid order, the Society filed a
writ appeal namely W.A.No.4371-4405/2010 which was
allowed by a division bench of this Court on 13.06.2002
and the order passed by the learned Single Judge was
set aside and the matter was remitted to the learned
Single Judge to decide the issue afresh. The Supreme
Court in SLP(Civil) Nos.32963-97/2012 by an order
dated 09.11.2012 set aside all the observations made by
the division bench and affirmed the order of remand
made by the division bench. In pursuance of order of
remand, the learned Single Judge, by an order dated
06.03.2013 decided the writ petition and dismissed the
same.
7. The appellant No.1 in W.A.Nos.16566-570/11
challenged the land acquisition proceeding in
W.P.No.3049/1994, wherein interim order was granted
by learned Single Judge of this court protecting the
possession of the appellant No.1 in the said writ appeal.
It is the case of the appellants that in view of the
promise held out by the State Government to re-convey
the lands to them, the appellants withdrew the petition
with liberty to approach this court again in case,
occasion if so arises. The State Government by an order
dated 29.06.1996 directed re-conveyance of the land to
the appellants. Thereafter, the Society filed a writ
petition viz., W.P.No.23139/1996, in which the order of
re-conveyance of land in question was challenged. The
aforesaid writ petition was allowed by the learned Single
Judge of this court by an order dated 15.11.1996.
8. The appellants challenged the aforesaid order
in W.A.No.9821/1996, which was allowed by a division
bench of this court by an order dated 14.12.1996 and
the order of learned Single Judge dated 15.11.1996 was
set aside and the matter was remitted to the learned
Single Judge. The appellants filed another writ petition
viz., W.P.No.4913/1996, which was dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches by a learned Single Judge of
this court by an order dated 24.02.1997. The aforesaid
order was affirmed by division bench of this court in
W.A.No.2574/1996. In pursuance of the order of
remand, the learned Single Judge by an order dated
13.10.1999 remitted the matter to the State
Government for fresh consideration. The Society
challenged the aforesaid order in a writ appeal viz.,
W.A.No.2499/2000, which was allowed by a division
bench of this court by an order dated 22.08.2000 and
the order passed by the learned Single Judge was set
aside. The Government of Karnataka therefore,
withdrew the order of re-conveyance dated 10.05.1999,
which was challenged by the appellants in
W.P.No.27925/2000, which was dismissed by learned
Single Judge by an order dated 29.07.2002. However, a
direction was issued to the Society to allot site
measuring 40x60 feet to each of the appellants free of
cost. The aforesaid order was subject matter of
challenge in W.A.No.4919/2002 by the Society, which
was allowed by a division bench of this court by an order
dated 24.08.2005. The appellants thereupon challenged
the validity of the land acquisition proceedings on the
ground that the same was vitiated by fraud by
employing middlemen / agents to influence the
Government for acquiring the land and there was no
prior approval under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act. The
aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge by an order dated 04/05.07.2011 on the
ground of delay and laches. Some of the appellants filed
writ petition viz., W.P.No.1998-2003/2010 & other
connected matters; The said writ petitions were
dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated
06.03.2013. In the aforesaid factual background, these
appeals have been filed.
9. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant in
W.A.No.2514/2013 submitted that the vendor of the
appellant was owner of land measuring 28 1/2 guntas of
land of Sy.No.7/1. The appellant vide registered sale
deed dated 17.06.1986 purchased the aforesaid land
and continued in possession. However, in last week of
April, 2011, office bearers of the Society made an
attempt to interfere with the possession of the appellant
and tried to dispossess him from the lands in question.
Thereupon, the appellant made enquiries and learnt
about the acquisition proceeding. It is submitted that
the proceeding for acquisition of the land is tainted with
illegality as neither any scheme existed nor the same
has been approved by the State Government. It is also
urged that the award dated 31.01.1989 has been made
after a period of 2 years 4 months and 5 days from the
date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is
further submitted that in view of mandate contained in
Section 11A of the 1894 Act, the proceeding for
acquisition of land has lapsed.
10. It is also urged that GVK Rao committee
report indicates gross irregularities committed by the
Society. It is also urged that no notice was issued
neither to the vendor of the appellant nor to the
appellant for handing over the possession under Section
16(2) of the Act and compensation has also not been
paid to the appellant or his vendor. Therefore, under
Section 24(2) of the Act, the proceeding for acquisition
of the Act, 2013 has lapsed. In support of aforesaid
submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the
Supreme Court in 'H.M.T. House Building Co-
operative Society v. Syed Khader & Ors', AIR 1995
SC 2244. It is also pointed out that the appellant has
constructed five buildings on the land in question. It is
also submitted that the action of the respondent in
dispossessing the appellant in the year 2011 from the
land in question and after demolishing the super
structure is per se arbitrary, more so, when the
appellant was dispossessed after filing of the writ
petition. It is also submitted that an application was filed
before the learned Single Judge on 19.03.2012 for
restoration of the status quo ante. However, the learned
Single Judge has not decided the application. In support
of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed to
the decision in 'Rajashekar & Ors. Vs Trinity House
Building Co-operative Society & Ors.', AIR 2016 SC
4329. learned counsel for appellant in
W.A.No.2941/2013 has adopted the submissions made
on behalf of learned Senior counsel for the appellant in
W.A.No.2514/2013.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in
W.A.No.4317/2013 submitted that the appellant is the
owner of land measuring 14 guntas of Sy.No.17/1B.
While adopting the submissions of learned Senior
counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.2514/2013, it is
submitted that no notice of the acquisition proceedings
was given to the appellant. It is also urged that the
name of the appellant has neither been mentioned in the
Notification under Section 4(1) nor in declaration issued
under Section 6(1) of the Act and the proceeding for
acquisition of the land is vitiated in law.
12. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant in
W.A.No.5630/2013 while adopting the submissions
made by learned Senior counsel for the appellants in
W.A.No.2514/2013 submitted that the appellant had not
filed any previous writ petition before this court and
while inviting the attention of this court to copy of
sketch of layout plan, it is pointed out that the land of
the appellant is not contiguous to the parcel of land
which has been acquired and neither any notice of the
acquisition proceeding was issued to the appellant nor
the possession has been taken from him. It is also
submitted that the facts of this case are similar to the
case in H.M.T. House Building Cooperative Society. It is
also pointed out that appellant has filed I.A.No.1/15
seeking declaration that the proceedings for acquisition
of the land have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act and appropriate orders be passed in the
aforesaid Act.
13. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants in
W.P.Nos.16566-570/2011 submitted that none of the
appellants except appellant No.1 had challenged the
land acquisition proceeding and question of delay and
laches is not relevant in a case where the validity of the
land acquisition proceeding is challenged on the ground
of fraud. It is further submitted that in the instant case,
the Society had employed middlemen / agents to
influence the Government to acquire the land and there
was neither any scheme nor any approval by the State
Government under Section 3 (f)(vi) of the Land
Acquisition Act. It is further submitted that in view of
the large scale fraud committed by the Society, the
State Government had appointed GVK Rao committee
to enquire into the allegations against the Society and in
the audit report it was found that a sum of Rs.6.86
Crores paid to Vellalu Construction for acquisition of the
land in question by the State Government, which
amounts to influencing the Government for acquisition
of the land. It is further submitted that since, no housing
scheme as mandated under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act
has been approved by the Government, therefore, no
sanctity can be attached to the acquisition proceeding. It
is also pointed out that the Society on 20.01.2005 sold
10 acres of acquired land in favour of SDG Housing
Private Limited, a real estate company for a
consideration of Rs.10.50 Crores and the aforesaid
company in turn sold 10 acres of land for a
consideration of Rs.160.50 Crores on 11.01.2012.
14. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid
transaction clearly indicates that the acquisition was not
for any public purpose but for dabbling in real estate
deals at the cost of poor farmers. It is also argued that
acquisition of the land in question cannot be made under
Section 4 & 6 of the Act and has to be made under Rule
4 of Land Acquisition (Company Rules), failing which the
acquisition would be illegal. In support of aforesaid
submissions, learned Senior counsel has placed reliance
on decisions in 'UTTAR PRADESH POWER
CORPORATION LIMITED VS. RAJESH KUMAR AND
OTHERS', (2012) 7 SCC 1, 'H.M.T.HOUSE BUILDING
COOPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. SYED KHADER AND
OTHERS', (1995) 2 SCC 677, 'VYALIKAVAL HOUSE
BUILDING COOP SOCIETY BY ITS SECRETARY VS.
V.CHANDRAPPA AND OTHERS', (2007) 9 SCC 304,
'G.JAYARAM REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND OTHERS', ILR 2005 KAR 1963, 'MRS.BEHROZ
RAMYAR BATHA VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER', ILR 1991 KAR 3556, 'JASWANT SINGH
VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA', AIR 1992 P & H 295,
'GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVANTS COOPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AGRA VS. SRI.WAHAB
UDDIN AND OTHERS', (1981) 2 SCC 352,
'ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX
DEPARTMENT, WORKS CONTRACT AND LEASING,
KOTA VS. SHUKLA AND BROTHERS', (2010) 4 SCC
785, 'HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI VS. THE
COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUSITION, PUNE AND ORS.,
2009 VOL.111(1) BOM. L.R. 0016.
15. Learned counsel for appellant Nos.1 and 2 in
W.A.No.16566/2011 has submitted written submissions
and has submitted that no prior approval of the scheme
under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act has been obtained. It is
further submitted that the amount awarded by way of
compensation under consent award has not been
deposited with the State Government and therefore, the
acquisition proceeding is vitiated. It is also urged that
the land has been acquired in flagrant violation of the
procedure prescribed under the Act. It is also submitted
that the proceeding for acquisition of the land is tainted
by fraud.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants in
W.A.No.17016/2011, W.A.No.504/2012 and
W.A.No.23/2012 submitted that appellants were not
parties in any of the previous proceedings namely writ
petitions and writ appeal and in the aforesaid
proceedings, no conclusive finding was recorded that
Society has not indulged in fraud. It is further
submitted that all the previous proceedings were
dismissed either for lack of proper pleadings / evidence
or on the ground that the matter was pending before the
State Government. It is further submitted that the issue
of res judicata does not apply to the proceeding initiated
by the appellants. It is contended that Society had
made a proposal for acquisition of 66.05 acres only of
Sy.No.26 to 39, which was increased to 171.37 acres
due to the influence of middle men namely M/s.Vellalu
Enterprises which was hired at the cost of Rs.3 Crores.
It is also urged that no report is in existence with regard
to satisfaction recorded by the State Government under
Rule 4 of the Karnataka Land Acquisition (Company)
Rules, 1973. It is also submitted that proceeding for
acquisition was tainted with fraud, as at the instance of
the middle men, the area of acquisition was enhanced
without any authority of law which is evident from the
GVK Rao report.
17. It is urged that once fraud is established, the
question of delay and laches in challenge to the land
acquisition proceedings is not relevant. It is also urged
that Society neither submitted any scheme nor the same
was approved as mandated under Section 3(f)(vi) of the
Act. It is pointed out that previous enquiry as
contemplated under Section 40 of the Act was also not
conducted. It is contended that delay is not the criteria
in deciding a challenge to the fraudulent acquisition of
land. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has
been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in
'HMT HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY Vs. SYED
KHADAR' 1995(2) SCC 677, 'V.PURUSHOTTAM RAO
Vs. UNION OF INDIA' (2001) 10 SCC 305, 'ISWAR
DUTT Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR', 2005
AIR SCW 3578, 'VYALIKAVAL HOUSING SOCIETY
Vs. CHANDRAPPA', AIR 2007 SC 1151, 'M/s.
ROYAL ORCHIDS Vs. JAYARAMA REDDY', (2011)
11 SCALE 239, 'BANGALORE CITY CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY Vs. STATE', AIR 2012 SC 1395.
18. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for
the Society submitted that writ petitions were dismissed
by the learned Single Judge on merits after
consideration of various contentions advanced by
learned counsel for the appellant as well as on the
ground of delay and laches. It is further submitted that
the contentions raised by the appellants in the writ
petitions as well as in this appeals have already been
adjudicated by various division benches of this court and
a fresh challenge to the land acquisition proceeding
suffers from delay and laches. Our attention has also
been invited to several judgments rendered by various
benches of this court in respect of the same Notifications
and it is pointed out that validity of land acquisition
proceeding ha already been upheld.
19. Learned Senior counsel for the Society in
W.A.Nos.17016/2011, 16566/2011, 23/2011 and
50/2012 submitted that the challenge to the acquisition
proceedings on the ground of fraud is unsustainable in
law and same has to be made within reasonable time. It
is further submitted that no particulars of fraud have
been pleaded by the appellants in the writ petition. In
support of aforesaid submission, learned Senior counsel
for the Society has placed reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in 'STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS
VS. D.R.LAXMI & OTHERS', (1996) 6 SCC 445 AND
'JOINT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT &
ANOTHER VS. D.NARASING RAO AND OTHERS',
(2015) 3 SCC 695. It is also submitted that the
contentions raised by the appellants in the writ petitions
as well as in appeals regarding involvement of
middlemen, change of the name of the Society, plea
regarding commission of fraud by the Society and
regarding non approval of scheme under Section 3(f)(vi)
of the Act, have been dealt with by various decisions
rendered by the learned Single Judges as well as
division benches of this court. In this connection, our
attention has been invited by the learned Senior counsel
to various orders passed by this court. It is submitted
that the issues raised by the appellants in these
proceedings with regard to validity of the land
acquisition proceeding are barred by principles of
resjudicata and the writ petition suffers from inordinate
delay and laches as the same were filed after a period of
25 years from the date of passing of the award. It is
also urged that liberty was granted only to husband of
appellant No.2 in W.A.No.16566/2011 by division bench
of this court vide order dated 24.03.1998 in
W.A.No.8181/1996 and after a period of 8 years, the
appellant No.2 submitted a representation to the State
Government along with all other appellants to whom,
such a liberty was not granted. Therefore, the State
Government by a well considered order rejected the
representation submitted by the appellants on
07.11.2008. It is also pointed out that no justifiable
reasons have been assigned by the petitioners for
approaching this court by filing a writ petition after a
period of 24 years after the conclusion of the
proceedings under the Act.
20. It is also pointed out that the order passed by
the learned Single Judge has already been upheld by a
division bench of this court vide order dated 23.03.2016
passed in W.A.No.16454/2011. It is fairly pointed out
that against the order passed by division bench a special
leave petition is pending before the Supreme Court.
Learned Senior counsel for the Society in
W.A.No.251/2013, 2914/2013, 4317/2013 and
5630/2013 have reiterated the same submissions and
has pointed out that the Government has handed over
the possession of the lands in question to the Society
and the Society has alienated the lands in question after
obtaining permission of the State Government . It is
further submitted that layout has already been formed
and approximately 5000 sites have been allotted to third
parties. Therefore, interference at this point of time at
the instance of the appellants is not called for and the
writ petitions have rightly been dismissed by learned
Single Judge.
21. Learned Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 and 3 has adopted the submissions
made by learned Senior counsel for the society and has
submitted that the order passed by the learned Single
Judge does not call for any interference.
22. Learned Senior counsel for respondent No.6
viz., Antevorta Developers Private Limited submitted
that the appellants despites knowledge of purchase of
land by respondent No.6 itself while seeking the relief
against the aforesaid respondent have neither impleaded
the aforesaid respondent nor his vendor. It is further
submitted that respondent No.6 had moved an
application for impleadment in W.A.No.16566/2011,
which was allowed by this court. It is also submitted that
in none of the remaining appeals, respondent No.6 has
been impleaded as respondent and therefore, the
proceedings initiated by the appellants are liable to be
dismissed on the ground of non joinder of necessary
parties. Our attention has also been invited to various
orders, which has been passed by the learned Single
Judges and division benches of this court and it is
submitted that the issues raised by the appellants have
already been adjudicated by various benches of this
court and therefore, the writ petitions have rightly been
held to be barred by principles of res judicata by the
learned Single Judge.
23. It is contended that the proceedings initiated
by the appellants suffer from inordinate delay and laches
and therefore, the writ petitions have rightly been
dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground
that the same suffered from inordinate delay and laches.
It is contended that respondent No.6 is a bonafide
purchaser for a valuable consideration and is in
possession of the property, which has been sold to it. It
is also urged that the issues involved in these appeals
have been decided by a division bench of this court vide
order dated 23.03.2016 passed in W.A.No.16454/2011
and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which
has been impugned in these appeals dated 4/5.07.2011
has already been upheld. It is also pointed out that the
aforesaid order passed by the division bench of this
court has attained finality. Our attention has also been
invited to the photographs available on record in support
of the contention that the land, which was purchased by
respondent No.6 has been developed after obtaining
permission from various statutory authorities and the
land is being used for residential purposes and 6 towers
out of 9 towers which were planned have already been
constructed and third party interests in respect of
residential units have been created in favour of several
persons who are residing in the land in question.
24. Mr.Reuben Jacob, learned counsel appearing
for SBG Housing Private Limited has adopted the
submissions made by learned Senior counsel for
respondent No.6.
25. We have considered the submissions made
on both sides and have perused the records. The issues
which arise for consideration in this batch of appeals are
as follows:
(i) Whether challenge to land acquisition
proceeding is barred by constructive
res judicata and res judicata?
(ii) Whether the writ petitions filed by the
appellants suffer from delay and
laches?
(iii) Whether the sale of land made by the
Society in favour of M/s SBG Co. Ltd.
vitiates the land acquisition
proceeding?
(iv) Whether the appellants have
suppressed material facts in the writ
petitions before the learned single
judge?
(v) Whether proceeding for acquisition of
land have lapsed under Section 24(2)
of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013?
26. We shall now proceed to deal with the issues
ad seriatim.
I. Whether challenge to land acquisition
proceeding is barred by constructive res judicata
and res judicata?
A. Two principles namely (i) that finality should attach
to binding decisions of Courts and (ii) that individuals
should not be vexed twice over the same kind of
litigation, have been held to form the foundation of the
general rule of res judicata. The issue whether
principles of res judicata apply to writ proceeding is no
longer res integra and has been answered in affirmative
by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
'DARYAO V. STATE OF U.P' AIR 1961 SC 1457,
'VIRUDHUNAGAR STEEL ROLLING MILLS LTD V.
GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS' AIR 1968 SC 1196 AND
'SHANKAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
V. M. PRABHAKAR AND OTHERS', (2011) 5 SCC
607. Similarly, the principles of constructive res judicata
have been made applicable to writ proceedings [See:
'DIRECT RECRUIT CLASS II ENGINEERING
OFFICERS' ASSOCATION V. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA' (1990) 2 SCC 715, 'S. NAGARAJ
(DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS V. B. R. VASUDEVA
MURTHY AND OTHERS' (2010) 3 SCC 353, 'M.
NAGBHUSHANA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA', (2011)
3 SCC 408 and 'UNION OF INDIA V. S.P.SHARMA'
(2014) 6 SCC 351]. The Supreme Court in 'STATE OF
KARNATAKA V. ALL INDIA MANUFACTURER'S
ORGANISATION', AIR 2006 SC 1846, has held that
decision rendered in a public interest litigation has a
binding effect as long as litigants act bonafide, as
judgment in such a case binds the public at large and
bars any member of the public from raising any
connected issue or an issue which has been raised and
should have been raised on an earlier occasion by way
of public interest. [See: 'KANTARU RAJEEVARU V.
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSN.' (2020) 2 SCC 1].
The Supreme Court in 'UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
CO. LTD. V. RAJENDRA SINGH' (2002) 3 SCC 581,
held that fraud and justice never dwell together.
Although fraud vitiates all proceeding, however, where
grounds of fraud had been adjudicated in an earlier
round of litigation, raising the same ground in
subsequent proceeding amounts to malicious
prosecution and same is not permissible in law. [See:
'MEGHAMALA AND OTHERS V. G. NARSIMHA
REDDY AND OTHERS', (2010) 8 SCC 383].
B. In the backdrop of aforesaid settled legal principles
with regard to constructive res judicata and res judicata,
we may advert to the facts in hand. Validity of
Notifications dated 04.01.1985 and 25.09.1986 issued
under Section 4(1) and Section 6(1) of the Act, as well
as the award notice dated 10/20.08.1992 was
challenged in a bunch of writ petitions namely writ
petition No.37086/1995, writ petition No.27255/1992,
writ petition No.45047/1995, Writ petition
No.4938/1996, writ petition No.5775/1996 and Writ
petition No.5795/1996. In the aforesaid writ petitions,
issues with regard to involvement of the middlemen and
change of name of Society were raised. The said writ
petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge by an
order dated 16.07.1996. It was held as under:
11. Sri.Sathyanarayana, appearing
for the petitioners in W.P.No.4983/96
contended that the acquisition in the result
of colourable exercise of power as it is
made at the instance of a middleman. The
other counsel appearing for the petitioners
in other petition also challenged the
acquisition proceedings on the above said
ground. In order to examine the
correctness or otherwise of the said
statement the petitioners must show that
they have approached this court within a
reasonable time under Art.226 of the
Constitution. As stated earlier the
preliminary Notification is issued on
04.01.85 and the final Notification is issued
on 22.09.86 the award is signed by the
Land Acquisition Officer on 01.07.1988 and
approved by the State Government on
28.01.1989. Thereafter, possession was
taken on 27.03.1992 by the Government
and the Government in turn handed over
the possession to the 4th respondent
Society on 05.11.1992. In the statement of
objections filed by the 4th respondent it is
stated that after taking possession of the
land the Society has formed layout by
spending considerable amount of money
and allotted the sites in favour of the
members of the Society. This shows that
the Society has developed the property and
thereafter allotted the sites in favour of its
members. The persons who are the
allottees of the sites have not been
impleaded as party to the proceedings in
these petitions. If the acquisition impugned
is declared as vitiated virtually it affects the
rights of the third parties who are not
parties to these petitions. Therefore, I am
of the view that the petitioners who filed
writ petitions in the year 1992 and 1995
that is about five or six years after the
acquisition cannot be said that they have
approached the court within a reasonable
time. Sri.Satyanarayana, contended that
the acquisition of land is on account of the
fraud and is result of colourable exercise of
power. When such being the case any delay
in approaching this court cannot be
construed as unreasonable delay in order to
throw out the writ petitions filed by the
petitioners. The petitioners in
W.P.No.37086/95 and 4938/96 contended
that the petitioners are still in possession of
their lands and no sites have been formed
on their lands. It is very difficult to believe
this submission in view of the fact that the
Notification has been issued under Section
16(2) of the Act. Section 16(2) as amended
by the State Act, reads as follows:
"The fact of such taking possession
may be notified by the Deputy
Commissioner in the office gazette and
such Notification shall be evidence of such
fact."
In the instant case, Notification under
Section 16(2) of the Act, has been issue
don 27.03.1991 and this is conclusive proof
of taking possession from the land owners,
therefore, it is difficult to believe the
statement made by the petitioners in the
above said writ petitions.
15. Sri.Vivek, learned counsel
submitted that after the issuance of the
preliminary Notification the name of the 4th
respondent - Society has been changed by
the Society itself and the subsequent
Notification issued under Section 6(1) of
the Act is not in respect of the Society for
which 4(1) Notification was issued earlier.
Mere change of the name of the Society.
The change of name is in accordance with
the bye laws of the society and it will alter
the status of the society. Therefore, even
though there is a change of name of the
society the subsequent under Section 6(1)
of the Act is for the benefit of the society.
C. The aforesaid order was subject matter of
challenge at the instance of the petitioners in
W.P.No.5795/1996, in which plea with regard to
commission of fraud on the basis of judgment of the
Supreme Court in 'HMT HOUSE BUILDING
COOPERATIVE SOCIETY V. SYED KHADER AND
OTHERS', AIR 1995 SC 2244 was taken. The
aforesaid contention was repelled by a Division Bench of
this Court by an order dated 13.02.1998. The relevant
extract of the order reads as under:
No ground is made out to interfere
with the order of the learned Single Judge
who has dismissed the petition not only on
the ground of delay and laches, but also on
merits finding that the pleas raised by the
appellants were without any substance. The
owners of the land were proved to have
been issued with notices under Section 4 of
the land acquisition Act and the award
passed within the statutory period. The
plea regarding commission of fraud appears
to be an after thought and carved out only
to file a petition after the pronouncement of
the judgment by the Supreme Court in HMT
House Building Co-operative Society vs.
Syed Khader and Others (AIR 1995 SC
2244). The learned Single Judge also rightly
held that as third party rights of about 5000
persons are likely to be affected by
interference at the belated stage the
petition was not maintainable.
There is no illegality or error of
jurisdiction in the impugned order requiring
our interference.
D. The order passed by the learned Single Judge
dated 16.07.1996 was challenged by the petitioners of
W.P.37086/1996 and W.P.No.5775/1996 in
W.A.No.8181/1996 along with W.A.Nos.7633-44/1996.
A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
24.03.1998 upheld the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and it was held as follows:
5. It is settled position of law that,
fraud has to be pleaded with full details and
particulars and also indicating the time and
the circumstances under which such came
to the knowledge of the person pleading
such fraud. The averments made in para
22-C referred to herein are apparently
vague and ambiguous and without
particulars. The submissions made at the
Bar were never sought to be pleaded even
by amendment. Fraud being a question of
fact was required to be pleaded offering the
other side an opportunity to reply the
same. In the absence of pleaded fraud, the
court could not adjudicate pleas raised with
respect to it. We have not been pursuant to
accept the plea regarding the commission
of fraud on the basis of averments made in
para 22-C and to take different view than
the one which we have taken while
disposing of the writ appeal No.8216/96.
6. There is no merit in the appeals
which are accordingly dismissed. It is
however observed that, the dismissal of
these appeals would not prevent the
appellants from bringing to the notice of the
concerned authorities the detailed facts and
circumstances with respect to commission
of alleged fraud and if such plea is raised,
the saps is expected to be disposed of in
accordance with law applicable in the case.
E. The validity of the land acquisition proceeding
was also challenged in a public interest litigation namely
in W.P. No. 24386/1999 in which a Division Bench of
this Court considered the report submitted by G.V.K.
Rao Committee, and issue with regard to involvement of
middlemen was considered and it was held as follows:
Appearing for the petitioner
Mr.Nagamohandas strenuously argued that
the acquisition of the land in question by
the impugned Notification was not in public
interest. He urged that the society having
engaged the services of a middle man, any
acquisition proceedings initiated or
concluded at the instance of such an agent
were illegal, hence liable to be quashed. It
was contended that the previous writ
petitions filed by the land owners and the
Association had not raised the said plea,
which could, according to the learned
counsel be urged in the present writ
petition filed in public interest. There is in
our opinion, no merit in that contention. We
say so for three precise reasons. In the first
place, the land owners for whose benefit
the writ petition purports to have been filed
having themselves questioned the validity
of the acquisition proceedings, a second
petition for the very same relief in the garb
of a petition in public interest cannot be
nullified in the garb of a petition in public
interest cannot be maintained. If a party
has himself filed a petition and secured a
verdict from the court, the effect of any
such verdict cannot be nullified in the garb
of another petition purporting to have been
filed in public interest. There is no gain
said that what the party could not himself
do cannot be done by a friend or proxy on
his behalf. Secondly because, even if such a
petition could be said to be maintainable,
the same is hopelessly barred by
unexplained delay and laches. The
Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, it is noteworthy, was issued
as early as on 4th of January 1985. The
final declaration came on 22nd of
September 1986 whereas the award
determining compensation was made on 1s
to July, 1988 and approved by the
Government on 28th of January, 1989. The
possession of the land in question was
taken over by the Government on 27th of
March, 1992 and handed over to the
respondent society on 5th of November ,
1992. The entire process having thus
concluded, a challenge to the validity of the
same years later would on the face of it be
wholly frivolous and an abuse of the
process of this court. That is especially so
when the society has not only developed
the area but made allotment of sites to the
eligible members and transferred title sites
to the eligible members and transferred
title to them. None of these allottees being
parties to these proceedings, it is difficult to
see how any interference with the
acquisition proceedings could be justified at
this distant point of time in the name of
public interest.
Thirdly because, the ground on which
the petitioner seeks intervention was in fact
taken by the land owners and rejected. It is
evident form a reading of the order of this
courting W.P.No.37086/1995 and
connected matters dated 16th of July 1996
that fraud and colourble exercise of power
in the matter of initiation of the acquisition
proceedings was specifically raised as a
ground of challenge. The contention did not
however find favour with this court nor was
the appellate court impressed by the same.
The contention was in fact held to be an
after though and unsupported by any
specific pleading or material to support the
same. In that view therefore, the exercise
of power by the authorities on account of
the involvement of a middle man must fail
not only because a similar plea had already
been raised before this court and rejected
but because there is no material
whatsoever to show whether the agent
appointed by the society had in fact
influenced the land acquisition proceedings
let alone in a martial manner so as to
render the proceedings illegal.
F. The issues pertaining to approval of scheme under
section 3(f)(vi) of the Act, the non applicability of
decisions rendered in HMT HOUSE BUILDING
COOPERATIVE SOCIETY as well as issues pertaining to
res judicata and delay and laches were considered by
another Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.1480/2006 and it was held as under:
28. We have already held above that
acquisition proceedings have been upheld
in the earlier writ petition before this court
in W.P.No.37086/95 and also Public
Interest Litigation Petition in
W.P.No.24386/99 disposed of on
29.09.2000 and wherefore, it is also
indisputable that unless the petitioner is
able to prove that respondent No.3 -
society has committed fraud, the delay and
laches on the part of the petitioner is to be
explained as it is well settled that the
petitioner having accepted the acquisition
proceedings and received compensation,
cannot challenge acquisition proceedings
after a lapse of 19 years from the date of
final Notification. Unless he is able to prove
that respondent No.3 has committed a
fraud or that the sale made by respondent
No.3 in favour of respondent No.4 would
initiate the acquisition proceedings and
render the same invalid. What is contended
by the appellant in W.A.No.1480/2006 by
the learned Senior counsel appearing for
the appellant is that no approval under
Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act was granted for
acquisition proceedings and wherefore, the
entire acquisition proceeding is vitiated. We
have already stated that acquisition
proceedings has been challenged before
this courting W.P.No.37086/1995 and
W.P.No.24386/99 and all contentions which
could be raised in the said writ petition
cannot be agitated in the present writ
appeals. Even otherwise, it is clear from the
perusal of the intimation sent by the
Government i.e., letter dated 12.10.1982
wherein, the respondent No.3 - Society has
been permitted to initiate the acquisition
proceedings. It is well settled that no
particular form of approval is necessary for
approval of the scheme submitted by
respondent No.3 - Society for initiation of
acquisition proceedings and in view of the
said letter dated 12.10.1982, it is clear that
the same can be construed as approval for
initiating acquisition proceedings, wherein
sanction is accorded to initiate the land
acquisition proceedings in favour of the
employees of N.T.I. Employees Housing
Co-operative Society Ltd., respondent No.3-
Society herein under normal rules.
34. What is connected by the writ
petitioner-appellant in the present case is
that sale of the property measuring 10
acres in respect of respondent No.3 -
Society would vitiate the acquisition
proceedings. It is clear from perusal of the
decision and principles laidd own in case of
(H.M.T. HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY VS. SYED KHADER AND OTHERS
(AIR 1995 SC 2244) that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court having regard to the fact
that an agreement had been entered into
between the Society and M/s S.R.
Constructions, held that the only land in
respect of which M/s S.R. Constructions
entered into an agreement of sale should
be the subject matter of the acquisition and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
exercise of power under Section 3(f)(6) of
the act and the provisions of the Act is
vitiated and it has been clearly held in para
8 of the said decision that exercise of
statutory power under Section 4(1) and
6(1) of the Act is not based on objective
consideration of the materials, on the basis
of which the appropriate Government could
have formed an opinion that the lands of
the writ petitioners were required for public
purpose and because of that it was
necessary to acquire the same. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court also observed that the fact
that Society had entered into an agreement
wit the middlemen and exorbitant amount
was paid to M/s S.R. constructions in the
said case, who was an estate agent and as
per the agreement, the said estate agent -
M/s S.R. Constructions deposited the
amount required for acquisition proceedings
and the possession of the lands in respect
of the said estate agent - M/s S.R.
Constructions had agreement of sale which
was the subject matter of acquisition and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the
Notification issued under Section4(1) and
6(1) of the Act as mala fide and that the
entire proceedings is vitiated and restored
the land to the land owners but the said
decision is not helpful to the writ petitioner
in the present case in W.A.No.1480/2006
and there is no merit in the contention of
the learned Senior counsel that the facts of
the case is covered by the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
G. Some of the land owners had challenged the land
acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.21863/2011
(NANJAMMA V. PRL. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS), which was dismissed by
the learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.07.2011.
The said order was set aside by a Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.16360/2011, which was allowed by a
Division Bench of this Court by an order dated
31.03.2016 solely on the ground that acquisition has
lapsed under Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. However, the aforesaid order
was set aside by the Supreme Court vide order dated
06.07.2017 in Civil Appeal No.8593/2017 [ANTEVORTA
DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD. V. PRL. SECRETARY TO
THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA & ORS.] and Civil Appeal
No.8594/2017 (NTI v. NANJAMMA) and it was held
that challenge to the land acquisition proceedings suffers
from delay and laches. It was held as under:
5. While the question of lapsing of the
acquisition proceedings is one facet of the
case, the long delay in approaching the writ
Court i.e. about 25 years against the
acquisition made in the year 1985 is
another relevant aspect of the matter. It is
our considered view that taking into
account the long period of delay, the High
Court ought not to have chosen to exercise
its writ jurisdiction particularly when the
grant of relief to the writ petitioner -
respondent (Nanjamma) would have
worked adversely to the interests of the
appellant, an innocent and bona fide
purchaser.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we
interfere with the order of the High
Court and allow these appeals leaving the
respondent - writ petitioner (the owner)
with the remedy of availing all legal options
for recovery of just compensation payable
to her for the impugned acquisition, if such
compensation has not been paid till date.
H. It is pertinent to note that validity of the order
dated 04/05.07.2011 has already been upheld by a
division bench of this court vide order dated 23.03.2016
passed in W.A.No.16454/2011 and all the contentions
urged in the appeals have been repelled. The relevant
extract of the order reads as under:
15. Mr.Dwarakanath submits that
the housing society has engaged a
middleman and therefore it is enough to
hold that the entire acquisition proceedings
was vitiated by fraud and colourable
exercise of power.
16. We have gone through the
statement of the general secretary of the
housing society. Our understanding of the
matter is that the housing society has
appointed an agency / manager, as there
were a large number of members in the
housing society and to facilitate delivery of
possession of the sites formed in the layout
by the housing society. There was no
indication whatsoever to show that here
was exchange of money for the purpose of
proposal of the acquisition.
17. Mr.Dwarakanath submits that
initially the beneficiary for which the
Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act
issued was National Tuberculosis Institute
Housing Building Co-operative Society , but
on the date of issuance of Notification
under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, the name
of the beneficiary was changed to National
Technological Institutions Employees House
Building Co-operative Society. Thus, the
acquisition is bad.
18. The change of nomenclature of
the beneficiary cannot cause any hindrance
in the acquisition process. The beneficiaries
are the employees of the organization and
they wanted to form a layout for the
purpose of their housing. Therefore, the
acquisition proceedings, in our view, cannot
be lapsed due to change in the
nomenclature of the beneficiary.
19. Mr.Dwarakanath further submits
that for the purpose of acquisition, a three-
man committee was constituted and in
spite of an adverse report submitted by the
committee against the fourth respondent
housing society, the Notification under
Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued.
Therefore, the acquisition is bad.
20. We believe that all these points
are no longer available to the appellants -
writ petitioners, as earlier there were writ
petitions being writ petition Nos.14493 and
14498 of 1993, challenging the very
notifications issued under Section 4 and 6
of the 1894 Act and the said writ petitions
were rejected by judgment and order dated
January 11, 1999.
Therefore, a public interest litigation
was filed in the year 1999, challenging eth
acquisition. That was also rejected.
21. there was an appeal against the
judgment and order dated January 11,
1999 in W.A.No.4602 of 1999, which was
also dismissed by judgment and order
dated June 28, 2020.
22. In the circumstances, these
subsequent writ petitions challenging the
very same Notifications filed in the year
2011, were rightly held to be not
maintainable. In writ proceedings,
assuming for the sake of arguments, the
principle of res judicata as indicated in
Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 is not applicable, the principle akin to
that is certainly applicable.
It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid decision
has attained finality and binds the parties.
I. Thus, it is evident that validity of land
acquisition proceeding has been upheld and the grounds
pertaining to fraud, involvement of middlemen, change
of name of the Society, applicability of decisions in HMT
HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY non
approval of scheme under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act,
have been negatived by various benches of this court. It
is pertinent to note that issues pertaining to res judicata
and delay and laches have also been adjudicated by
division bench of this Court vide order passed in
W.A.No.1480/2006. The appellants cannot be permitted
to raise the issue with regard to applicability of the
decision of the Supreme Court in VYALI KAVAL HOUSE
BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY supra on the
principles of constructive res judicata. The Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal Nos.8593/2017 and 8594/2017 has
repelled the challenge to the land acquisition
proceedings on the ground of delay and laches and in
view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
Nos. 8593/2017 and 8594/2017, the issues raised in
these appeals cannot be entertained. It is also
noteworthy that judgment of the learned Single Judge
which is impugned before us, has already been affirmed
by a division bench of this court in W.A.No.16454/2011
and the said decision has attained finality. Thus, it is
evident that challenge to the land acquisition proceeding
is barred by principles of constructive res judicata as
well as res judicata. The doctrine contained in maxim
"boni judicis est lites dirimere, ne lis ex lite onitur, et interest
reipulicate ut sint fines litium" which casts a duty upon the
Court to bring litigation to an end or to atleast ensure
that if possible no further litigation arises from the cases
pending before the Court in accordance with law, would
be applicable with greater emphasis where the judgment
of the Court has attained finality before the highest
Court. Therefore, all other Courts should decide similar
cases, particularly covered cases, expeditiously and in
consonance with the law of precedents [See: 'SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER V. KARIGOWDA AND
OTHERS', (2010) 5 SCC 708 AND 'PRIYA GUPTA V.
STATE OF CHATTISGARH' (2012) 7 SCC 433]. The
aforesaid doctrine has to be applied to the facts of these
cases. There is an eminent need for consistency in the
view of coordinate benches on the same issue, which
has been laid down by the Supreme Court in 'SHANTHI
CONDUCTORS (P.) LTD. VS. ASSAM SEB' (2016) 15
SCC 14 and it has been held that subsequent bench
would follow the earlier coordinate bench except in
compelling circumstances such as where the order of
earlier bench can said to be per incuriam. In the instant
case, the various judgments rendered by benches of this
court cannot be said to be per incuriam and in the facts
and circumstances of the case, we do not find any
ground to differ with the view taken by various benches
of this court. The decision of Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.8593/2017 and 8594/2017 dated 06.07.2017
in which the challenge to this very land acquisition
proceedings has been repelled by the Supreme Court on
the ground of delay and laches binds us. For the
aforementioned reasons, it is held that writ petitions
filed by the appellants have been rightly held to be
barred on the principles of constructive res judicata and
res judicata by the learned single judge. Thus, first issue
is answered in the affirmative.
II. Whether the writ petitions filed by the
appellants suffer from delay and laches?
A. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take
advert to well settled principles with regard to delay and
laches. It is trite law that when there is an inordinate
delay in filing a writ petition challenging the acquisition
proceedings and where all steps taken in acquisition
proceeding have become final, the court should
circumspect in quashing the Notification. The
discretionary jurisdiction while dealing with land
acquisition proceedings in a writ petition which suffers
from inordinate delay and laches has to be exercised
with great circumspection. [See:'MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO. PVT.
LTD. & ORS. (1996) 11 SCC 501, 'MUNICIPAL
COUNCIL, AHMEDNAGAR & ANR. VS. SHAH HYDER
BEIG & ORS., (2000) 2 SCC 48, 'SWAIKA
PROPERTIES PVT. LTD AND ORS. VS. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN AND ORS.', AIR 2008 SC 1494,
'JASVEER SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH AND ORS', 2017 (6) SCC 787, KHATOON
VS. STATE OF U.P.', (2018) 14 SCC 346].
B. In backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal
prepositions, the following relevant dates may be
noticed.
Notification under
04.01.1985
Section 4(1) of the Act
Declaration under
25.09.1986
Section 6(1) of the Act
General award in
respect of 68 acres
31.01.1989
and 36 guntas of land
on
consent award in
respect of 111 acres 28.04.1989
and 33 guntas of land
Notifications under 12/15.04.1991
Section 16(2) of the and
Act 4/5.11.1992
possession of the
lands measuring 173
acres and 29 guntas 05.11.1992.
was handed over to
the Society
Writ petition Nos. Delay
W.P. Nos.16289-16298/2008 19 years
W.P.Nos.15607-611/2008 19 years
W.P. Nos.16238/2009 & 17107- 20 years
110/2009
W.P.Nos.1999-2002 & 2004- 21 years
2032/2010
W.P.No.16797/2011 22 years
W.P.No.3292/2012 23 years
W.P.Nos.2976-80/2011 22 years
C. Thus, it is evident that writ petitions have been
filed in the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012
after an inordinate delay of 19 years, 20 years, 21
years, 22 years and 23 years respectively, for which no
explanation has been offered. It is well settled in law
that fraud vitiates every proceeding. However, even in a
case of fraud, challenge to the proceeding has to be
made within reasonable time from the date of detection
or discovery of fraud. [SEE: STATE OF RAJASTHAN
AND OTHERS VS D.R. LAXMI AND OTHERS (1996)
6 SCC 445 and JOINT COLLECTOR RANGAREDDY
DISTRICT AND ANOTHER VS D NARSING RAO
(2015) 3 SCC 695]. In the instant case, the pleadings
in the writ petition are conspicuously silent with regard
to the alleged date of detection or discovery of fraud.
Thus, there has been an inordinate and unexplained
delay in filing the writ petitions and all steps taken in the
proceedings for acquisition of land have become final.
The possession of the land in question has been taken
and the same has been handed over to the Society and
the land in question has been developed and third party
rights have also been created. The appellants have
miserably failed to explain the inordinate delay in
approaching this court. The writ petitions, therefore,
suffer from inordinate delay and laches. The learned
Single Judge has therefore rightly held that the writ
petitions suffer from delay and laches. We, concur with
the aforesaid finding of the learned Single Judge.
III. Whether the sale of land made by the Society
in favour of M/s SBG Co. Ltd. vitiates the land
acquisition proceeding?
A. The Society had sought the permission the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies to sell the land
measuring 10 acres. The permission was granted by the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies by an order dated
21.12.2004 subject to terms and conditions mentioned
therein. In pursuance of the aforesaid permission, the
land measuring 10 acres was sold by the Society to M/s
SBG Housing Pvt Ltd vide sale deed dated 20.01.2005
after inviting tenders for a consideration of Rs.10.5
crores. The aforesaid sale consideration has been
utilized by the Society for payment of demands made by
Bangalore Development Authority and Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Limited as well as for
development of the Layout. The State Government had
issued a notice dated 02.08.2006 to aforesaid M/s SBG
Housing Pvt Ltd on the ground that the sale made in its
favour was not in accordance with law. The Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore was directed to cancel the
mutation and RTC extracts in respect of land purchased
by M/s SBG Housing Pvt Ltd. The aforesaid order was
challenged in writ petition and the learned Single Judge
by an order dated 31.05.2007 quashed the notice dated
02.08.2006 issued to M/s SBG Housing Pvt Ltd. The
order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the
State Government in WA No.2204/2007 which was
dismissed along with WA No.1480/2006 by an order
dated 18.03.2010. The State Government did not
challenge the order passed by the division bench of this
court in WA No.2204/2007. Thus, the sale in favour of
M/s SBG Housing Pvt Ltd has been upheld by a division
bench of this court and the State Government has
accepted the aforesaid position.
B. The issue with regard to the validity of the sale
was also urged in WA No.1480/2006 which was
dismissed by an order dated 18.03.2010 and it was held
as under:
The only other contention which required to
be considered has to whether the sale of land
by the respondent No.3-Society in favour of
respondent No.4 is valid. According to the
petitioner, the said sale would vitiate the entire
acquisition proceedings. As the registrar of co-
operative society who permitted the sale of land
by the respondent No.3 in favour of the
respondent No.4 had no jurisdiction to permit
such sale and permission ought to have been
taken by the Government but permission has
been granted by the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies with an object of public purpose for
which lands are acquired in exercise of the
powers. It is well settled that question as to
whether the sale made by respondent No.3 in
favour of the respondent No.4 under the
impugned sale deed is valid or not has to be
decided by the Government and not by this
court in the writ appeal. In fact, a proceeding
had been initiated before the Government
challenging the sale made by the 3rd
respondent in favour of respondent No.4 and to
set aside the acquisition made on behalf of the
respondent No.3 - Society and the Principal
Secretary to Government, Revenue Department
by an order dated 11.7.2008 rejected the
prayer of the owners of the land to set aside the
acquisition and to direct hand over the lands to
the owners. Being aggrieved by the same
W.P.No.15607-15611/2008 have been filed and
the said proceeding passed during the pendency
of these writ petitions is pending consideration
and validity of the sale deed and effect of the
same on the acquisition and validity of the sale
deed and effect of the same on the acquisition
has to be considered in the said writ petitions
and hence. We do not intend to go into the said
question in the present appeal as the same are
pending consideration before this Court in
W.P.Nos.15607-15611/2008 wherein, the order
passed by the Government, which is a
competent authority, about the validity of the
same and validity of the acquisition proceeding
has been pending for consideration.
Accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in
Writ Appeal No.1480/2006.
C. The aforesaid order was challenged in SLP
No.14072-14076/2011 before the Supreme Court, which
was withdrawn and subsequently, the order dated
18.03.2010 passed by division bench of this court
attained finality. The order passed by the Supreme
Court in SLP No.14072-14076/2011 reads as under:
After arguing the case for some time, learned
counsel for the petitioner made a request that
his client may be permitted to withdraw the
special leave petitions with liberty to seek
intervention in the pending matter.
The request of the learned counsel is accepted
and the special leave petitions are dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer
made.
D. Thus, the issue pertaining to sale of land
measuring 10 acres by the Society has also been
adjudicated. In any case, the transaction in question
took place several years after the land was allotted to
the Society. Once the possession the land in question
was taken from the land owners, the land vested in the
State Government absolutely and was transferred to the
Society. Therefore, the appellants cannot be permitted
to agitate the aforesaid issue in these proceedings and
in any case, the same does not have the effect of
vitiating the land acquisition proceedings which
otherwise have attained finality on account of the
decision of the Supreme Court dated 06.07.2017 passed
in Civil Appeal No.8593/2017 and 8594/2017. In ROYAL
ORCHID HOTELS LTD AND ANR VS G JAYARAM
REDDY AND OTHER (2011) 10 SCC 608 Supreme
Court has held that when the writ petition was filed after
the land which was acquired for public purpose was
transferred to private persons the High Court was
justified in setting aside the acquisition. However, in the
facts of the present case, even the aforesaid issue is not
open to be agitated in these proceedings as the same is
barred on the principles of constructive res judicata, res
judicata as well as delay and laches. It is also pertinent
to note that the proceeding for the acquisition of land
has attained finality and successive challenges to the
same have been repelled by various benches of this
court and the Supreme Court. Therefore, the aforesaid
decision in ROYAL ORDCHIDS supra is not applicable to
the obtaining factual matrix of these cases. Thus, the
aforesaid issue is answered in the negative and findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid
issue are affirmed.
IV. Whether the appellants are guilty of
suppression of material facts?
A. It is a fundamental principle of law that a person
invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India must approach the Court
with clean hands and should not conceal material facts.
It has further been held that there is necessity to save
judicial process from becoming abuse to subvert justice.
The need to approach the Court with clean hands is all
the more necessary as Law is not a game of chess
[SEE:'RAMJAS FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA',
1993 SUPP (2) SCC 20, 'RAJKUMAR SANI VS.
STATE OF U.P.', (2007) 10 SCC 635, 'MANOHARLAL
VS. UGRASEN', (2010) 11 SCC 557, AND
'AMARSINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA', (2011) 7 SCC
69].
B. It is pertinent to note that liberty was granted to the
husband of petitioner No.2 in WP No.15607-611/2008 to
approach the State Government with regard to their
grievance. However, none of the appellants have stated
in their writ petitions that liberty was restricted to
appellants in WA No.8181/1996 and 7633-34/1996
which was disposed of on 24.03.1998. Some of the
appellants who have received the compensation and are
parties to the consent awards have not stated the said
facts in their writ petitions. The appellants have also
suppressed the fact that the possession of the land in
question has been taken from them. Thus, the finding
recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appellants
are guilty of suppression of material facts is affirmed. V.
(V.) Whether proceeding for acquisition of land
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013?
A. The aforesaid issue need not detain us. It is
relevant to note that a division bench of this Court by an
order dated 31.03.2016 passed in W.A.No.16360/2011
(NANJAMMA VS. PRL. SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS) had
quashed the land acquisition proceedings on the ground
that the same has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act. The aforesaid order was set aside by
Supreme Court by order dated 06.07.2017 passed in
Civil Appeal No.8593/2017 [ANTEVORTA
DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD. V. PRL. SECRETARY TO
THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA & ORS.] and Civil Appeal
No.8594/2017 (NTI Vs. NANJAMMA) and it was held
that the challenge to the land acquisition proceeding
suffers from delay and laches and liberty was granted to
the owners of the land to avail of all legal options for
recovery of just compensation.
B. In view of aforesaid decision of the Supreme
Court, the issue whether the land acquisition
proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act cannot be examined in this proceeding.
Accordingly, the issue No.V is answered.
27. Before parting, it is apposite to take note of
submission made by learned Senior counsel for the
appellant in W.A.No.2514/2013 that learned Single
Judge ought to have dealt with the interlocutory
application dated 19.03.2012 filed for seeking the relief
of restoration of status quo ante. It is pertinent to note
that learned Single Judge has held that the challenge to
the acquisition proceedings suffers from delay and
laches and therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed
in limine. Therefore, it was not necessary for the
learned Single Judge to pass an order on the
interlocutory application. In any case, the pending
interlocutory application does not survive after decision
of the writ petition. As far as I.A.No.1/2015 filed by the
appellant in W.A.No.5630/2013 is concerned, in which
prayer has been sought for quashing of the land
acquisition proceeding on the ground that the same
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the
same also deserves to be dismissed for the reasons
assigned by us while dealing with issue No.V. It is made
clear that land bearing Sy.No.69/7 situated at Village
Kodigehalli to the extent of 14 guntas is not subject
matter of these appeals.
In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any
merit in these appeals. The same fail and are hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
