Karnataka High Court

Smt Swetha N Munireddy vs State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2021

Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

 WRIT PETITION NO.8607 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SWETHA N. MUNIREDDY
W/O SRI S SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O NO.7, 3RD MAIN, 9TH CROSS
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
HOYSALA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 016.
                                      ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. AMSHITH HEGDE H. S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY ITS SECRETARY
     DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
     AND COMMERCE
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BANGALORE-560 001.

2.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     KIADB, NO.14/3
     2ND FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
     BANGALORE-560 001.

3.   THE CHAIRMAN KIADB
     NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR
                             2



     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
     BANGALORE - 560 001.

4.   M/S HARSHA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED
     NO.11, PARK ROAD
     SHIVAJINAGR
     BANGALORE-560 051.
     BY IT'S PROPRIETOR C K BALJEE
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. H.C. KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R-1
    SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3
    SRI. K. ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH    NOTIFICATION    AT    ANNEXURE-A    DATED
07.08.2003 ANNEXURE-B DATED 8.2.2000 & ANNEXURE-C
DATED 12.12.2002 ISSUED UNDER SEC.3(1), 1(3), 28(1)
UNDER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD ACT, 1966 IN 7 GUNTAS OF PETITIONER LAND IN
SY.NO.14, KEMPAPURA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.12.2021, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking

for quashing notification dated 7th August 2003 vide

Annexure-A and notification dated 8th February 2000

vide Annexure-B and notification dated 12th December

2002 vide Annexure-C, in respect of Sy.No.14

measuring 7 guntas situated at Kempapura Village,

Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the

daughter of N.Munireddy and Smt.Sarojamma. The

father of the petitioner had acquired 1 acre 34 guntas

of land in Sy.No.14 of Kempapura Village.

Respondent No.2 issued a notification under Section

28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development

Act, 1966 ('the KIAD Act' for short) on 08.02.2000,

proposing to acquire the land in question. However,

the said acquisition proceedings were not proceeded

further. Again on 12.12.2002, yet another notification

came to be issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD

Act. In the said notification, the petitioner's land was

proposed to be acquired to an extent of 7 guntas in

Sy.No.14 of Kempapura Village and another 25 guntas

of land in the same Village, in all 33 guntas. One

Ramachandrappa filed his objections on 15.03.2003,

before respondent No.2. The respondent No.2

overruled the objections and issued a notification

under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act on 07.08.2003.

The said Ramachandrappa preferred a writ petition

challenging the acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.

42465/2003. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

dismissed the writ petition vide order dated

29.03.2007. Thereafter, the said Ramachandrappa

preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.854/2007. The

Division Bench allowed the writ appeal by order dated

02.11.2012 and quashed the acquisition proceedings.

Respondent No.4 filed a review petition in

R.P.No.5/2003 seeking for clarification. The Division

Bench on 16.09.2013, passed an order clarifying that

the acquisition notifications are quashed only in

respect of the land of petitioner therein. The present

petitioner, on the strength of the order passed in the

aforesaid writ appeal, has filed this writ petition

seeking for quashing the notifications.

3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed statement of

objections admitting about the initiation of acquisition

proceedings and also contended that the acquisition

proceedings are initiated in accordance with law. It is

further contended that the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the

writ petition is filed after a lapse of about 10 years. It

is further contended that the respondent No.2 handed

over the possession of the property to respondent

No.3. The respondent No.3 in turn has allotted the

said property in favour of respondent No.4. Hence, on

these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Respondent No.4 filed statement of

objections contending that the petitioner has no locus

standi to institute the present proceedings as she is

neither owner nor occupier nor occupant nor khatedar

of the said property and further contended that the

present proceedings has been initiated after delay of

nearly 15 years. Hence on the ground of delay and

laches the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is

further contended that the petitioner has suppressed

the fact that she has not obtained any relief in the

legal proceedings instituted by her. It is further

contended that the respondent No.3 executed a lease

-cum-sale agreement in favour of respondent No.4 on

09.05.2011. It is further contended that the

petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.26958/2012 for the

relief of partition and separate possession. In the said

suit, the petitioner has claimed compensation amount

pending with respondent No.2 in respect of the land in

question. The petitioner was well aware about the

acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.2.

Hence on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ

petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

learned counsel for respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that this Court in W.A.No.854/2007 quashed the very

same notifications in respect of the land of the

petitioner therein. The petitioner herein stands on the

same footing. He further submits that the land of the

petitioner was acquired under the same notification.

He further submits that because of her family

difficulties, she is intending to sell her property, but

due to acquisition, the petitioner is losing her rights on

the property under reference. He prays to extend the

same benefit to the petitioner, granted in

W.A.No.854/2007. Hence, on these grounds, prays to

allow the writ petition.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the preliminary

notification was issued on 08.02.2000, proposing to

acquire 4 acres 15 guntas of land in Kempapura

Village. The respondent No.2 could not proceed

further. Again on 12.12.2002, issued a preliminary

notification notifying the petitioner's land to an extent

of 7 guntas in Sy.No.14. The final notification was

issued on 07.08.2003. The petitioner filed a suit in

O.S.No.26958/2012 seeking for the relief of

compensation in respect of property in question. The

petitioner was well aware about the acquisition

proceedings. The petitioner has filed this writ petition

after lapse of 14 years from the date of initiation of

acquisition proceedings. He further submits that on

the ground of delay and laches, the writ petition is

liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits

that the KIADB has issued a preliminary notification.

Pursuant to the preliminary notification, a final

notification was issued and a general award came to

be passed on 21.12.2005. He further submits that

KIADB has executed a lease cum sale agreement in

favour of respondent No.4 on 09.05.2011, and the

respondent No.4 is in possession of the land in

question. He further submits that the writ petition is

filed after lapse of more than 14 years from the date

of preliminary notification. He further submits that

the relief obtained by Ramachandrappa by

approaching this Court, cannot be the basis for the

petitioner, who has belatedly filed this writ petition, to

take the benefit of earlier relief provided. In order to

buttress his argument he has placed reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

V.Chandrasekaran & Ors. Vs. The Administrative

Officer & Ors., reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133.

Hence, on these grounds he prays to dismiss the writ

petition.

9. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

10. The petitioner claims to be the owner of

land bearing Sy.No.14 of Kempapura Village. The

respondent No.2 issued a preliminary notification on

12.12.2002. One Ramachandrappa filed objections on

15.03.2003. The respondent No.2 overruled the

objections filed by said Ramachandrappa and

thereafter proceeded to issue final notification on

07.08.2003. The petitioner received notice on

27.10.2003, calling upon the petitioner to submit the

documents of title to claim compensation under the

consent award. The said Ramachandrappa being

aggrieved by the preliminary and final notifications

issued by respondent No.2, filed a writ petition in

W.P.No.42465/2003, immediately after issuance of

final notification dated 07.08.2003, i.e., before

passing the General Award. The said

Ramachandrappa approached this Court within a

reasonable time. During the pendency of said writ

petition filed by Ramachandrappa, the Special Deputy

Commissioner approved the General Award on

21.12.2005. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

dismissed the writ petition vide order dated

29.03.2007. The said Ramachandrappa, being

aggrieved by the order passed in the aforesaid writ

petition, preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.854/2007.

The Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ

appeal vide order dated 02.11.2012 and quashed the

notifications. The respondent No.4 filed a review

petition in R.P.No.5/2013 seeking for clarification.

The Division Bench vide order dated 16.09.2013,

clarified that the notifications are quashed only to an

extent of 7 guntas in Sy.No.3/1 situated at Yamalur

Village and further clarified that the remaining extent

of land which was not the subject-matter of

acquisition remains in tact and is not quashed. The

petitioner on the basis of the order passed in the

aforesaid writ appeal, filed this writ petition on

12.02.2016. Thus the writ petition is filed after a

lapse of more than 14 years from the date of

preliminary notification and 11 years from the date of

approval of General Award. The petitioner has not

explained the reason for filing the writ petition at a

belated stage. The High Court while exercising

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is an instance of exercise of jurisdiction in

equity and before considering the writ petition on

merits, the delay and laches would have to be

adverted to, while exercising the powers under the

equity jurisdiction having regard to the salutary

doctrine. I am of the view that in the absence of

there being any explanation whatsoever for belated

filing of this writ petition, and there being no good

reason explaining the delay, this writ petition is liable

to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In

this context, the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue

regarding delay and as to how a Court of equity

exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India cannot extend its hand to such a

person who approaches the Court after several years

can be relied upon, in the case of STATE OF ORISSA VS.

MAMTA MOHANTY, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1332, has

held that consideration of an application where delay

and laches could be attributed against a person who

approaches in a writ petition is discussed by stating

that though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to

the writ jurisdiction, however doctrine of limitation

being based on public policy, the principles enshrined

therein are applicable and the writ petition could be

dismissed at the initial stage on the ground of delay

and laches. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

SHANKARA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., VS. M.PRABHAKAR

& ORS., reported in 2011 AIR SCW 3033, at para-53

has given a relevant consideration in determining

whether delay and laches in approaching the writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

which reads as under:

"53. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. They are: (1) there is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts. (2) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged

by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsehwere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the Statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay."

11. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of SWARNA LATHA & ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA &

ORS., reported in 2010 (4) SCC 532, has refused to

quash the acquisition proceedings on the ground of

delay as the litigants who dare to abuse the process of

the Court in disregard of the law of limitation, delay

and laches should not be encouraged. The Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD,

CHENNAI VS. N.MEIYAPPAN & ORS., reported in 2010 AIR

SCW 7130, the acquisition case was challenged 10

years after the notifications were issued. The Hon'ble

Apex Court held that the High Courts should not have