Karnataka Police Employees House vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6006 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

           WRIT PETITION No.26054 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA POLICE EMPLOYEES HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
3RD CROSS, NETAJI NAGAR
HALANA HALLI, T.N.PURA ROAD
MYSURU - 570 028
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI NANJUNDE GOWDA.
                                               ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI MAYANNA B.L., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
       J L B ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1
    (PHYSICAL HEARING);
    SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL
    HEARING))
                               2



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 7.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE
ANN-L.

     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 16.11.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :-
                             ORDER

The petitioner/Karnataka Police Employees House

Building Co-operative Society ('the Society for short) is before

this Court calling in question a notice dated 7-03-2015 issued

by the 2nd respondent/Mysore Urban Development Authority

('MUDA' for short) directing payment of Rs.3,37,74,476/- to

MUDA by the petitioner.

2. Sans details, facts germane for consideration of the lis

are as follows:-

The petitioner is a House Building Co-operative Society

registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative

Societies Act, 1959. With the object of providing housing sites to

its members, the Society represented to the Government on

6.03.2006 requesting it to convey land in Sy.No.54 measuring 1

acre 32 guntas and Sy.No.68/1 measuring 6 acres 07 guntas

which came within the precincts and control of MUDA. This land

was acquired by MUDA by issuance of a preliminary notification

on 15-7-1997 and a final notification on 18-01-2002. MUDA

also had taken possession of the said land after issuance of final

notification. Therefore, the land that the petitioners sought for

the purpose of allotting sites to its members was the land

belonging to MUDA. There were correspondences between

Government and MUDA on the request made by the Society. On

17-01-2007 MUDA also communicated to Government that the

land which the Society sought was convenient for the formation

of a layout.

3. The aforesaid communications generated the beginning

of the transfer of land to the hands of the Society from MUDA.

Based upon the communication of MUDA dated 17.01.2007,

aforesaid land had to be delivered in favour of the Society after

collecting entire award amount that was paid to the land owners

by MUDA. In turn MUDA on 19-09-2007 informed the Society

that in terms of Government's communication the land was

handed over to the Society and the Society was also directed to

pay the amount of Rs.30,02,760/- which was the compensation

that was paid by MUDA to the land owners in the year 1997.

Pursuant to the said demand, the Society deposited the amount

as demanded, after which, MUDA passed an order directing

handing over of possession of the aforesaid land to the Society

acknowledging receipt of amount demanded. On 07.11.2007 the

Society was handed over physical possession of the land along

with sketch of the land.

4. After all the necessities came about, MUDA also

executed a registered sale deed in favour of the Society on

1.03.2008. On transfer of the land to the Society, the land

owners in Sy.No.68/1 measuring 06 acres and 07 guntas filed a

writ petition in W.P.Nos.1393-1397 of 2009 before this Court

seeking to set aside the order dated 17-07-2007 which was

Government's communication to MUDA to transfer the land to

the Society. This Court by its order dated 02-09-2010 dismissed

the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners therein to

approach MUDA for any other benefit including the benefit of

allotment of sites. The finding in the writ petition became final

as the land owners did not challenge the same any further.

Between 14-09-2009 and 20-12-2011 the Deputy Commissioner

on application being made by the Society passed an order

permitting conversion of land from agriculture to non-

agricultural purposes and the revenue entries and other

municipal entries were made in favour of the Society.

5. After the approvals and conversion, a layout plan was

also submitted by the Society which was approved by MUDA. In

terms of the approval of plan a layout was formed and sites were

allotted to the members of the Society. On 28-06-2013 MUDA

also released all the sites in favour of the Society and on several

dates in the year 2013-14 the Society executed registered sale

deeds in respect of the allottee members of the Society. It

appears that sites were registered at the rate of Rs.208.35 per

sq.ft., including development costs incurred for formation of the

layout. Therefore, formation of sites, allotment of sites,

registration of sale deed in favour of members of the Society were

all over by the year 2014.

6. Things standing thus, MUDA issues the impugned

notice to the Society demanding a sum of Rs.3,37,74,476/- on

the ground that the land losers had approached the reference

Court seeking enhancement of compensation and the reference

Court has enhanced the compensation pursuant to which

warrants were issued in the execution petition and the MUDA

had deposited entire amount determined by the reference Court

which was sought to be executed. The Society replied to MUDA

seeking all documents to furnish a suitable reply and there

being no response from the hands of MUDA, the

petitioner/Society has knocked the doors of this Court

challenging the notice dated 7.03.2015 which demanded the

aforesaid amount.

7. Heard Sri B.L.Mayanna, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional

Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri

T.P.Vivekiananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the Government indicated to MUDA to hand over

the land for formation of layout by the Society clearly indicating

that whatever compensation has been paid by MUDA shall be

recovered from the Society. As on that date Rs.30,02,760/- was

the compensation that was paid to the land owners and the

petitioner/Society had paid the same to MUDA. Sale deeds were

executed in favour of the Society noticing the consideration and

no other claim. Therefore, it forms a concluded contract between

MUDA and the Society. No where MUDA or the Government had

indicated that the petitioner will have to bear the compensation

in the event it is enhanced. Plea of estoppels against MUDA is

put forth by the Society and would seek that the notice dated

7.03.2015 be quashed.

9. On the other hand, Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned

counsel representing MUDA would submit that the petitioner

was aware that the land losers had filed writ petition challenging

transfer of land to the Society and had sought enhanced

compensation before the reference Court. Since the Society knew

and is the beneficiary of such acquisition, the Society will have

to pay enhanced compensation which MUDA had paid in terms

of the order passed by the reference Court.

10. Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.

Prathima Honnapura would also toe the lines of MUDA and

submits that it is the Society which is a private Society who has

to pay the enhanced compensation for the land losers and

neither the Government nor MUDA can be saddled with such

payment.

11. In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that MUDA had defaulted before

reference Court, they never appeared to contest compensation

that was awarded by the reference Court or took the matter any

further and would submit that the petitioner was never made

aware of any of the pending proceedings nor was party to any of

the proceedings before any judicial or quasi judicial fora.

12. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record and the original file pertaining to

the subject lis both maintained by MUDA and the State

Government.

13. The aforementioned dates, events and subsequent

facts are not in dispute and are, therefore, not reiterated. It is

necessary to notice as to how the Society came in possession of

the land in which layout is formed and sites are distributed to

its Members. It is not in dispute that MUDA had acquired the

property for public purpose. The Society submits a

representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 06-03-2006

seeking allotment of land from the hands of MUDA for formation

of layout for allotment to its Members. The representation to the

Hon'ble Chief Minister dated 06-03-2006 reads as follows;

"ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀgÀÄuÁ ºÉÆç½ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54 ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.68/1 ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.218 MlÄÖ 12 JPÀgÉ 1 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ PÉÆqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄ£À«.

F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzÀ ¥ÀlÖAvÉ vÀªÀÄä°è ©£Àß«¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀªÀÅ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀgÀÄuÁ ºÉÆç½ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.53 jAzÀ 89 gÀªÀgÉUÉ 99 JPÀgÉ 5 1/2 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ §qÁªÀuÉ ¤«Äð¸À®Ä Rjâ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. DzÀgÉ F ªÀÄzÉå ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54 gÀ°è 1 JPÀgÉ 32 UÀÄAmÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.68/1 gÀ 6 JPÀgÉ 3 UÀÄAmÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.218gÀ°è 4 JPÀgÉ 6 UÀÄAmÉ MlÄÖ 12 JPÀgÉ 1 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢Ã£À PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArzÉ. DzÀgÉ F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA¨sÀAzÀ ¥ÀlÖ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀzÀ F d«Ää£À ªÀÄzÀåzÀ°è EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖPÉÆlÖ°è. £ÁªÀÅ §qÁªÀuÉ ¤«Äð¸À®Ä C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢Ã£À ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ d«ÄãÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ JPÀgÉ MAzÀPÉÌ 2,50,000 gÀÆUÀ¼ÀAvÉ, ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¥ÀÆwð ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀªÀÅ ¥ÀªÀw¸À®Ä §zÀÝgÁVgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À°è EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ §qÁªÀuÉ ¤«Äð¸À®Ä ¸ÁzÀåªÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ®Ä ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ DzÉñÀ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀªÀÅ ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÀÛzÉ.

ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ.

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸À»/-

(£ÀAdÄAqÉÃUËqÀ) PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð."

Pursuant to the said representation, a tippani was generated by the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister for examination of records for handing over 12 acres and 01 gunta of land to the Society. The tippani reads as follows:

"n¥ÀàtÂ

²æà £ÀAdÄqÉÃUËqÀ r.J¸ï.¦ (¤ªÀÈvÀÛ), PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀȺÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤. ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ WÀlPÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÄèPÀÄ ªÀgÀÄuÁ ºÉÆç½ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54, 68/1, 218 MlÄÖ 12 JPÀgÉ 1 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©r¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃj ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¸À°è¹zÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ.

¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRå ªÀÄAwæAiÀĪÀjAzÀ DzÉò¸À®ànÖzÉÝãÉ.

¸À»/-

(J£ï.gÁªÀÄPÀȵÀß) ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀĪÀgÀ D¥ÀÛ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð."

Pursuant to and in furtherance of documents, a communication

is issued to MUDA by the Secretary, Urban Development

Department for examination and release of 12 acres 01 gunta of

land in Sy.Nos. 68/1 and 218 of Lalithadripura Village, Varuna

Hobli, Mysore Taluk for formation of layout in favour of the

Society. The correspondences between MUDA and the State

took place pursuant to the request of the Society. The

aforementioned communications resulted in the Society

accepting any condition that would be incorporated with regard

to the compensation that is paid for handing over of the land as

was sought. The communication dated 09-02-2007 from the

Society to the Urban Development Department reads as follows:

"«µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀȺÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤.

ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.¸ÀA.54, 68 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 218 gÀ°è MlÄÖ 12.01 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.

***** F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¥ÀlÖAvÉ vÀªÀÄä°è ©£Àß«¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀAWÀªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ 17.06.2006 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRå ªÀÄAwæUÀ½UÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹ CzÀgÀ°è F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀÄUÀ¼À MlÄÖ 12.01 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ DzÉò¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjzÉݪÀÅ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ«ÄõÀ£Àgï ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ FUÉÎ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ £ÀªÀÄä §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CdªÀiÁ¬Ä¹ ªÀÄrzÁUÀ £ÁªÀÅ PÉýzÀ d«Ää£À ¥ÉÊQ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.218 gÀ°è 4.01 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ §¸ï r¥ÉÆà ¤ªÀiÁðtPÁÌV Rjâ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. G½PÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 68/1 gÀ 8.6 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ ¸ÀAWÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.22 gÀ 3.11 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 28/39 JgÀqÀÄ JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ PÉÆlÖ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ.

DzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÉ FVgÀĪÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¸À®¢zÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä §qÀªÀuÉAiÀÄ d«Ää£À ªÀÄzÀåzÀ°ègÀĪÀ 12 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉýzɪÀÅ. DzÀÝjAzÀ vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¸ÀĪÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzÀåªÁUÀÄ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁ£ÀĨsÀÆw¬ÄAzÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54 gÀ 1.38 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.68/1 gÀ 6.08 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54 gÀ 1.38 JPÀgÉ d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀAWÀªÀÅ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ zÀgÀzÀAvÉ 4,87,500.00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÉÊvÀ¤UÉ F »AzÉAiÉÄà PÉÆlÄÖ PÀgÁgÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArvÉÛêÉ. G½PÉ 68/1 gÀ 6.08 JPÀgÉ d«ÄäUÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ gÉÊvÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä §zÀÝgÁVgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß

¸ÀºÁ£ÀĨsÀÆw¬ÄAzÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ 8.06 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀ®Ä DzÉò¸À¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹

¸À»/-

PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀȺÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ WÀlPÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ."

A perusal at the communication from the Society to the Urban

Development Department clearly indicates that MUDA was not

completely in favour of handing over of land to the Society. It is

noticed that the Society requests the Government to consider its

claim sympathetically and would also be bound by the

compensation that was granted to the land losers. The objection

of MUDA which was noticed in the communication dated

09-02-2007 was on 17-01-2007 which reads as follows:

"¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ E¯ÁSÉ «PÁ¸À ¸ËzsÀ qÁ:©.Dgï.CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgï «Ã¢ü ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 001.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀȺÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤.

ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54, 68/1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 218 gÀ°è MlÄÖ 12- 01 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ .

G¯ÉèÃR: ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå £ÀJE/124/ªÉÄÊC¥Áæ/2006 ¢£ÁAPÀ 17-06-2006.

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ²æà £ÀAdÄAqÉÃUËqÀ, PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀȺÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤. ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ WÀlPÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀgÀÄuÁ ºÉÆç½ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54, 68/1, 218 gÀ MlÄÖ 12- 01 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©r¹PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRå ªÀÄAwæUÀ½UÉ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£À« §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54, 68/1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 218 gÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®°vÁ¢æ£ÀUÀgÀ MAzÀ£Éà ºÀAvÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉUÁV ¨sÀƸÁé¢Ã£À¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.68/1 ºÁUÀÆ 218 gÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ¨sÀÆ«Ä ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 54 gÀ 1- 38 JPÀgÉ d«Ää£À ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀÄ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¯ÉÃOmï £ÀPÉëAiÀÄAvÉ PɼÀPÀAqÀ GzÉÝñÀUÀ½UÉ «ÄøÀ°nÖªÉ.

          PÀæ.¸ÀA.             ¸ÀªÉð          «¹ÛÃtð            «ÄøÀ°nÖgÀĪÀ
                               £ÀA.           J. UÀÄA.          GzÉÝñÀ
          1                    54             1- 38             ªÀ¸Àw
          2                    68/1           6- 08             ªÀ¸Àw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
                                                                GzÁå£ÀªÀ£À
          3                    218            4- 21             §¸ï r¥ÉÆÃ

¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ §qÁªÀuÉUÁV ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹zÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 54gÀ°è 1- 38 JPÀgÉ ºÁUÀÆ 68/1 gÀ°è 6-08 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀå ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.218gÀ 4- 21 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.218 gÀ 4.21 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ EzÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉUÉ ®UÀvÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÄà ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀªÀgÀÄ w½¹gÀĪÀAvÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ §qÁªÀuɬÄAzÀ 1 Q.«ÄÃ. zÀÆgÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. F §UÉÎ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹zÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß CªÀ¯ÉÆÃQ¸À§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.68/1 gÀ 6-08 JPÀgÉ ºÁUÀÆ 54 gÀ°è 1- 38 JPÀgÉ ¥ÉÆðøï E¯ÁSÁ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉUÉ ®UÀvÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥Éưøï

£ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå £ÀCE/428/JAL©/98 ¢£ÁAPÀ 25- 09- 2000 gÀAvÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.28/39 gÀ 2- 00 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß 'r' £ÉÆÃn¦PÉõÀ£ï ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï d«ÄãÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.22 gÀ 3- 11 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 22 gÀ 3- 11 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 28/39 gÀ 2- 00 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ªÀ»¹PÉÆqÀĪÀ µÀgÀwÛ£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è 6- 08 JPÀgÉ ºÁUÀÆ 54gÀ°è 1- 38 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ»wUÁV EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹ ¸À°è¹zÉ."

All these communications resulted in the Secretary to the Home

Department again issuing a tippani on 11-04-2007 to grant the

land as was indicated. The second tippani dated 11-04-2007

reads as follows:

"n¥ÀàtÂ

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀȺÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤., ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ WÀlPÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ½UÉ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ ªÉÄð£À ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼À µÀgÁªÀ£ÀÄß F ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ.

¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ°è PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀAvÉ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÀgÀÄuÁ ºÉÆç½, ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54, 67:1, 68:1, 72 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.218 UÀ¼À°è MlÄÖ 20.25 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀȺÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤., ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ WÀlPÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼À CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ½AzÀ ¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÝãÉ.

¸À»/-

(r.«.¥Àæ¸Ázï) ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀĪÀgÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð."

This resulted in the communication dated 17-07-2007 for

transfer of land totally 08 acres and 02 guntas though the

request of the Society was more and what was ultimately

transferred was 08 acres and 02 guntas by communication

dated 17-07-2007.

14. A perusal at the original file indicates that respective

Departments have approved the request of the Society and

placed the file before the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Hon'ble

Chief Minister has concurred with the approval granted by the

respective Departments. Thus, the land that was acquired by

MUDA for public purpose was transferred on the direction of

Government to the Society. Therefore, the Society becomes the

beneficiary of such acquisition by MUDA. MUDA has only acted

as per the directions of Government in transferring the aforesaid

land to the Society.

15. The land owners who had lost their land pursuant to

the acquisition in the year 2002 filed Writ Petition Nos.1393-

1397 of 2009, the moment sale deed was executed in favour of

the Society, contending that the land was acquired for the

benefit of MUDA and is now transferred to the benefit of the

Society, Therefore, it was illegal and at the same breath the land

owners had filed petition before the reference Court. This Court

while noticing judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

JASWANT SINGH dismissed the writ petition with liberty to

approach the respondents seeking benefit of allotment of sites.

The relevant observations in the order passed by the learned

single Judge is as under:

"4. Admittedly, on 15-07-1997 Sy.No.68/1 was notified in the preliminary notification as per Annexure- A. The final notification was issued on 18-01-2002 as per Annexure-B. It is further admitted that under a notification dated 20-10-2005 as per Annexure-O, the possession of the lands had been taken. Further, the petitioners admit that they have received the compensation and are agitating for higher compensation. At this stage, the present writ petition is filed contending that there is diversion of the land use and the first respondent has enriched by selling the same. Identical issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES v. JASWANT SINGH AND OTHERS -

(2003) 1 SCC 335 wherein it is held as under:

"9. Looking to the facts of the present case and conduct of respondents 1-5, the High Court

was not at all justified in ignoring the delay and laches and granting relief to them. As already noticed, respondents 1-5 approached the High Court by filing writ petition almost after a period of 17 years after finalization of the acquisition proceedings. They accepted the compensation amount as per the award and sought for enhancement of the compensation amount without challenging the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6. Having sought for enhancement of compensation only, they filed writ petition even three years after the appeals were disposed of by the High Court in the matter of enhancement of compensation. There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions. Merely because full enhanced compensation amount was not paid to the respondents, that itself was not a ground to condone the delay and laches in filing the writ petition. In our view, the High Court was also not right in ordering restoration of land to the respondents on the ground that the land acquired was not used for which it had been acquired. It is a well settled position in law that after passing the award and taking possession under Section 16 of the Act, the acquired land vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Even if the land is not used for the purpose for which it is acquired, the landowner does not get any right to ask for revesting the land in him and to ask for restitution of the possession..."

5. In view of law declared by the Supreme Court the petitioners are not entitled to question the impugned order at Annexure-G and the sale deed at Annexure-L. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY AND OTHERS V. BANGALORE

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OHTERS - (2010) 7 SCC 129 contend that the petitioners are entitled for certain benefits for allotment of certain plots. If that is so, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the respondents seeking benefit of allotment of certain sites as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case. If such a representation is given, then the respondents to consider the same in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court."

That ended the claim of land owners with regard to acquisition

proceedings. In the interregnum. the land is also converted for

residential purpose by order of the Deputy Commissioner and

sites were formed and distributed to the allotees of the Society.

16. The issue that springs after allotment of sites is to be

noticed in the case at hand. The landowners had filed petitions

before the reference Court. The reference Court enhanced the

amount of compensation to be paid to the land acquired. The

enhanced amount that was paid by MUDA to the landowners is

as follows:

"ªÀiÁ£Àå 4£Éà C¢üPÀ »jAiÀÄ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ J¯ïJ¹ £ÀA.546/2006 eÁj ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå:731/2010 gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è 3-03 JPÀgÉ d«Ää£À ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ gÀÆ.57,063/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è oÉêÀt ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä F PÀÆqÀ ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï ¨gÉÆÃqï ZÉPï £ÀA.600296 ¢£ÁAPÀ:15.12.2020 gÀ£ÀÄß F PÀÆqÀ ®UÀwÛ¹ ¸À°è¹zÉ.

EzÀĪÀgÉ«UÀÆ F ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹ ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 100 gÀµÀÄÖ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ oÉêÀt EqÀ®VgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

     PÀæ.¸ÀA.        ZÉPï ¸ÀASÉå                         ¢£ÁAPÀ                         ªÉÆvÀÛ
         1                584457                       19.12.2011                      1179000
         2                825142                       28.08.2012                     1693024
         3                302262                       05.04.2013                      1508848
         4                325467                       18.12.2013                        899183
         5                336225                       07.08.2014                       1310631
         6                916904                       04.05.2016                     2321634
         7                950745                       19.10.2017                     2243060
         8                 673125                      17.07.2019                     3000000
         9                600296                       15.12.2020                     5057063
                                                               MlÄÖ                  19212446

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ vÀgÀÄvÁÛ, ¸ÀzÀj ZÉPï ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ §UÉÎ ¹éÃPÀÈwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ gÀ¹Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¹PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃjPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛ, ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀÆtð ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉƽ¹ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjzÉ."

The amount determined by the reference Court was sought to be

executed and accordingly warrant of execution was issued

against MUDA by the executing Court. It is at that point of time

MUDA issued the communication to the Society, impugned

herein. The communication reads as follows:

"w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ «µÀAiÀÄ: ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀgÀÄuÁ ºÉÆç½ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.54 gÀ°è 1-32 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 68/1 gÀ°è 6-07 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:£ÀCE.124 ªÉÄÊC¥Áæ.2006

¢£ÁAPÀ:17-7-2007.

2. F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ YÁÐ¥À£À ¸ÀªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå.¢£ÁAPÀ:4-10-2007.

0=0=0 ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è 6-07 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À.£ÀA.54 gÀ°è 1-32 JPÀgÉ MlÄÖ 7 JPÀgÉ 39 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃR (1) gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸À.£ÀA.UÀ¼À°è£À ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß «vÀj¹zÀÝ°è ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀȺÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ, ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀjAzÀ ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ F G¯ÉèÃR (2) gÀ F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ YÁÐ¥À£ÀzÀ jÃvÁå 30,02,760-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¹zÉ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀAvÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀUÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è£À 6-07 JPÀgÉ d«ÄäUÉ 15,51,840-00 gÀÆUÀ½UÉ CªÁqïð ¤tð¬Ä¹ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è£À d«ÄäUÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀAvÉ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ CªÁqïð ªÉƧ®V£À §UÉÎ ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÁÌV ªÀiÁ£Àå 4£Éà C¥ÀgÀ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà C¥ÀgÀ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

4£Éà C¥ÀgÀ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ J¯ï.J.¹.£ÀA.546/2006 EPïì.£ÀA.731/2010 gÀAvÉ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è 3-03 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æà £ÀgÀ¸ÀAiÀÄå ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï wªÉÄäÃUËqÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ªÁgÉAmï ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ªÁgÉAmï£ÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:18-8-2014 gÀªÀjUÉ MlÄÖ 65,97,929-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ oÉêÀt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

1£Éà C¥ÀgÀ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ J¯ï.J.¹.£ÀA.531/2006 EPïì.£ÀA.171/2011 gÀAvÉ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è 3-04 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æà aPÀÌwªÉÄäÃUËqÀ ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï wªÉÄäÃUËqÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ªÁgÉAmï ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ªÁgÉAmï£ÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:3-6-2013 gÀªÀjUÉ MlÄÖ 87,28,387-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ oÉêÀt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¸À.£ÀA.68/1gÀ°è MlÄÖ 6-07 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄäUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀ¢AzÀ 15,51,840-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ MlÄÖ 1,53,26,316-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®PÉÌ oÉêÀt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. CAzÀgÉ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è FUÁUÀ¯Éà 1,37,74,476-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ oÉêÀt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è 6-07 JPÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ oÉêÀt ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ 1,37,74,476-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ CAwªÀĪÁV E£ÀÆß EvÀåxÀðªÁUÀ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤jÃQë¹ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀ CAzÁdÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2,00,00,000-00 gÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ MlÄÖ 3,37,74,476 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ªÉƧ®UÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ¯Éà ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀAvÉAiÀÄÆ ºÁUÀÆ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¥ÀÄ£À: ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj ªÉƧ®UÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀAvÉAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ w½¹zÉ. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ «¼ÀA§ ªÀiÁqÀzÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÉƧ®UÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä w½¹zÉ."

The communication/notice is issued to the Society at the time

when the executing Court had issued the warrant of execution.

17. Identical claims with regard to chosen landowners were

satisfied by MUDA pursuant to the direction of this Court.

Therefore, MUDA was left with no choice but to pay the

compensation that was determined by the reference Court. The

issue is who should bear enhanced compensation. There are

three protagonists in the subject lis viz., Government, MUDA

and the Society. Government directs MUDA to allot the land it

acquired for itself i.e., public purpose to be handed over to the

Society. Out of the three protagonists, MUDA has only been a

communicator between the State and the Society. Though

MUDA acquired the land for public purpose, on its own volition

it has not handed over the land to the Society. The aforesaid

extracted communications emanated from the Society seeking

transfer of land for formation of layout which resulted in the

Government directing MUDA to transfer and MUDA transferring

the lands for the benefit of the Society. The communication

dated 17-07-2007 of the Government pursuant to which land

were transferred is germane to be noticed and is extracted

hereunder for the purpose of ready reference:

"«µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀȺÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.54, 68/1gÀ°è£À MlÄÖ 8 JPÀgÉ 2 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå.J¯ïPÀÆå /(4)/¹Dgï/47/04- 05, ¢£ÁAPÀ:17.1.2007.

****

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀȺÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀ¸Àw GzÉÝñÀPÉÌ PÉÆÃgÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ ¸À.£ÀA.54 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è£À MlÄÖ 8 JPÀgÉ 02 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃrzÉ.

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸À.£ÀA.UÀ¼À°è£À ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß «vÀj¹zÀÝ°è ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀȺÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjAzÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÌÉ ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÝãÉ."

(Emphasis added)

The condition that is imposed in the communication which led

to the transfer of land measuring 08 acres and 02 guntas to the

Society clearly mentions that compensation that is granted by

MUDA to the landowners will have to be borne by the Society.

18. Pursuant to this communication a sum Rs.30/- lakhs

was also paid by the Society to MUDA which MUDA claims to be

the compensation that was granted to the landowners. Right of

landowners to seek enhanced compensation was always live. It

is not a cause that stood extinguished once the land was

acquired by MUDA. These proceedings with regard to

enhancement of compensation were pending adjudication even

when the land was transferred to the Society. The Society cannot

be seen ignorant or contend that it was never aware of the

proceedings before the reference Court.

19. In the writ petition filed by the landowners the moment

land was transferred to the Society, this Court dismissed the

claim of the landowners on the ground that after having received

the compensation and having filed cases for enhancement of

compensation, it would not lie with the land losers to seek a

claim for retaining the land or seeking de-notification of the

land. Therefore, on these two glaring circumstances and the

condition that was stipulated in the communication dated

17-07-2007 clearly indicating that compensation is to be paid by

the beneficiary i.e., the Society, the compensation, is trite,

would include enhancement of compensation as it is the land

owner to get adequate compensation for loss of his land.

20. Though the sale deed subsequently executed did not

contain any clause with regard to payment of any other amount,

it would not enure to the benefit of the Society to contend that it

is a concluded contract between MUDA and the Society and no

further claim can be made. The communication dated

17-07-2007, on the strength of which the Society had formed the

layout was always a privy to the fact that the landowners have

sought enhanced compensation before the reference Court. It

was open to the Society to have impleaded itself into those

proceedings before the reference Court. This is more so, as the

land that was acquired for public purpose was handed over for a

private purpose of formation of layout.

21. As long as the beneficiaries of formation of layout or its

Members hold the property, they are bound to comply with the

payment of enhanced compensation as the landowners having

exercised their statutory right have been granted enhancement

in compensation. It is not the case of the petitioners that the

issue of compensation to the landowners sprang after the land

was transferred. The issue was at large by the landowners

seeking enhancement in compensation. This is in fact noticed in

the writ petition that was dismissed on the ground that land

owners have sought enhancement in compensation.

22. To put it in simple terms, the Society and its Members

are the present beneficiaries of acquisition of land though not

acquired for its purpose and layout is formed by the Society for

the benefit of its Members. Therefore, on a coalesce of all the

aforesaid communications and in the peculiar facts of this case,

in my considered view, neither the State nor MUDA have to bear

the enhanced compensation but only the beneficiary i.e., the

Society.

23. The judgments are relied upon by the learned counsel

for the petitioner to contend that it is a concluded contract and

what is found in the agreement cannot now be turned around.

The case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. BOGHARA

POLYFAB PRIVATE LIMITED - (2009) 1 SCC 267 was

interpreting the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996. The issues that fell before the Court were concerning

jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal to arbitrate upon certain

dispute and the interpretation of contract that was subject

matter of such arbitration. The said judgment is not applicable

to the fact situation. The other judgment relied on in the case of

SHRI SURENDRA NAYAK vs. A.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI - ILR

2016 KAR 4162 also would not lend any support to the

petitioner as it was a dispute between the landlord and the

tenant and estoppel was pleaded and considered. The said plea

of estoppel which the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to

draw support from, would not be applicable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

24. It is not on MUDA's own volition that the land is

transferred but it is on the directions of the State Government

and repeated requests by the Society. Therefore, the Society is

bound by the communication dated 17-07-2007 on the strength

of which the entire formation of layout took place. The Society

being the beneficiary of such acquisition will have to bear not

only the compensation that was granted at the time when it took

over the land, but the enhanced compensation that was awarded

to the land owners.

25. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the

Writ Petition and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE bkp CT:MJ