Karnataka High Court
Chanabasanagouda Polis Patil @ vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.4470/2019 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. CHANABASANAGOUDA POLIS PATIL @
NINGANAGOUDA HOSAMANI,
(EARLIER CALLED AS CHANABASANAGOUDA HOSAMANI
OR C.A. HOSAMANI),
S/O. ADIVEPPAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT "ARITE", NO.15,
1ST CROSS, 10TH "A" MAIN,
INDIRANAGAR, 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 038.
2. SMT. VINUTHA H.,
W/O. JAGADISH CHANDRA,
D/O. C.M. HUGAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.50, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
POSTAL COLONY, SANJAY NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 094.
3. SMT. LEELAVATHI P.,
W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4, SURVEY NO.11,
KODIGEHALLI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 092.
4. SOMASHEKAR
S/O. KRISHNOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.8, SURVEY NO.11,
KODIGEHALLI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 092.
5. B. SRIDHAR
S/O. BAPU RAO,
2
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3703, 13TH CROSS,
GAYATHRI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 021.
6. SMT. KAVITHA G.S.
W/O. B. SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3703, 13TH CROSS,
GAYATHRI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 021.
7. DR. (SMT.) JAYASHRI
D/O. GAVISIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.88, 5TH CROSS,
PIPELINE ROAD, MSR NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 054.
8. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O. H. VEERAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.18, SURVEY NO.11,
KODIGEHALLI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 092.
9. M.R. SRINIVAS
S/O. M. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.20, SURVEY NO.11,
KODIGEHALLI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 092.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK,
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER,
3
AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. NTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS NTI EMPLOYEES'
HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.),
NO.84, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS,
'SUN SMILE', SERPENTINE ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
4. THE COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
5. SRI. S. SHIVASWAM
AGED ABOUT 50 YRS,
S/O. SOMBAIAH,
R/AT NO.99, 6TH 'B' CROSS,
MARUTHI LAYOUT,
VIRUPAKSHAPURA KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 097.
6. SRI. A.M. MANOHAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. MR. A.N. MAHADEVA REDDY,
R/AT NO.3, SURYA RESIDENCY,
63 & 64 BALAJI LAYOUT,
6TH CROSS, KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
7. SRI. ANAND KARMAKOR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VIJAY KARMOKAR,
R/AT NO.3/11, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
MCP LAYOUT, SAHAKARNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
8. SRI. PALESH KARMOKAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O. MR. L.H. KARMOKAR,
R/AT NO.3, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
AMCP LAYOUT, SAHAKARNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
9. MRS. BASANTHI RANI PAUL,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
4
W/O. MR. R.N. PAUL,
R/AT NO.76, 2ND CROSS,
DINNUR AJJAPPA BLOCK,
R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.C.BALARAJ, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI.R.V.JAYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R3,
SRI.G.LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADV. FOR R4
SMT.S.SUSHEELA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT.Y.DHANALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R9)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS PER THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 04.01.1985 AT ANNEXURE-
G AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 25.09.1986 AT
ANNEXURE-H INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO SY.NO.11 OF
KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE
NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE, MEASURING 1 ACRE 28 GUNTAS
HAS STOOD LAPSED IN VIEW OF SECTION 27(2) OF THE RIGHT
TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND
ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT,
2013.
THIS W.P. IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON
23.07.2021 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
5
ORDER
In this petition, petitioners have sought for the
following reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ of appropriate nature to
declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated as
per the preliminary notification dated 04.01.1985 at
Annexure-G and the final notification dated
25.09.1986 at Annexure-H, in so far as it relates to
Survey No.11 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore
measuring 1 acre 28 guntas has stood lapsed in
view of Section 27(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013;
or in the alternative
ii. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the
notification dated 25.09.1986 at Annexure-H in so
far as it relate to Survey No.11 of Kodigehalli
Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore measuring 1 acre 28 guntas.
iii. Pass such other order as deemed fit
by this Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of the
case, in the ends of justice."
2. Heard Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Sri.A.C.Balaraj, learned AGA for respondent
Nos.1 and 2, Sri.R.V.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for
respondent No.3, Sri.G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel
for respondent No.4 and Smt.Susheela, learned senior
counsel for respondents 5 to 9 and perused the material on
record.
3. The various contentions urged in the petition are
as follows:-
(i) The petitioners have contended that the subject
land bearing Sy.No.11 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas of
Kodigehali village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk, was purchased by petitioner No.1 vide registered
sale deed dated 10.08.1983. The 1st petitioner formed the
residential layout in the said land comprising of residential
sites and petitioners 2 to 9 are the purchasers in respect of
the some of the sites. It is contended that most of the
petitioners have put up construction, obtained electricity
and are paying taxes.
(ii) It is contended that on 04.01.1985, a preliminary
notification was issued by the BDA notifying various lands
for acquisition for the benefits of the 3rd respondent - NTI
Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., (for short ' the society')
for the purpose of providing housing sites to its employees;
on 25.09.1986, a final notification to an extent of 210 acres
including the subject land was issued. In this context, it is
contended that the names of petitioners 2 to 9 and other
purchasers was not contained in the final notification.
(iii) Petitioner No.1 has challenged the final
notification in W.P.No.292/1987 which was dismissed by
this Court vide order dated 11.10.1993. It is contended that
subsequently, several properties were excluded from
acquisition proceedings and the subject land being a
isolated piece of property or island which could not be
develop along with the remaining part of the layout,
petitioner No.1 once again approached this Court in
W.P.No.12784/2002 challenging the final notification in
respect of the subject land. In the said petition, it was
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he may be
permitted to withdraw the petition reserving liberty in favour
of petitioner No.1 to approach the Government for
denotification of the subject land. The submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner was placed on record by
this Court which dismissed the petition as withdrawn vide
final order dated 24.06.2002. It is contended that though
the petitioner approached the State Government seeking
denotification, the State Government did not take any steps
in this regard.
(iv) The petitioners have further contended that
though the mahazar and other documents suggest that
possession was taken, in reality, the said documents were
only paper work and possession of the subject land were
never taken by the BDA.
(v) It is contended that litigations referred to in
paragraph-9 of the petition, petitioner No.1 came to know
that one Prabhavathi B. Chandapur had claimed under a
fabricated power of attorney said to have been executed by
petitioner No.1 and had approached this Court in
proceedings challenging the acquisition notifications in
respect of the subject land which were dismissed right up to
the Apex Court in SLP No.702/2014. It is contended that
since the said proceedings where the outcome of
impersonation and fraudulent document, the said
proceedings are not binding upon the petitioners.
(vi) Petitioners contended that petitioner No.1 filed
one more petition in W.P.No.23389/2011, in which his
name was shown as Channabasanagouda @
Ninganagouda Hosamani @ Polis Patil. The said petition
was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court
vide order dated 15.06.2012 on the ground that there were
discrepancies in the name of the petitioner and on account
of the earlier round of litigation, aggrieved by the same,
petitioner No.1 has filed the writ appeal in
W.A.No.1993/2013 which was dismissed as withdrawn in
view of the submission made by petitioner No.1 that liberty
may be granted in his favour to obtain a declaration before
the civil court about his identity. It is contended that
pursuant to the said liberty granted by this Court, petitioner
No.1 filed the suit in O.S.No.622/2017 for declaration of his
identity. By judgment and decree dated 22.09.2018, the
suit was decreed in favour of petitioner No.1.
(vii) Petitioners have contended that no award notice
was issued to them, copy of the same was not furnished
and award amount was not paid / deposited by the
respondents and possession was not taken from the
petitioners; however, 3rd respondent - society have
clandestinely included the subject land, the layout plan
issued by the 4th respondent-BDA. It is further contended
that since the necessary ingredients of Section 24(2) of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for
short 'the said Act of 2013') having not been complied with,
the acquisition proceedings have lapsed and the same
have been challenged in the present petition. It is further
contended that the earlier proceedings and transaction on
behalf of petitioner No.1 having been vitiated by fraud and
identity of petitioner No.1 and since the said Act of 2013
have come into force in the interregnum, there is no delay
or latches in filing the present petition.
(viii) Petitioners have contended that the impugned
notifications deserve to be quashed as having lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the said Act of 2013; that possession of
the subject land have not been taken and compensation
has not been paid; that the subject land is an island and
isolated piece of property which is incapable of being
acquired. Putting forth these contentions, petitioners have
filed the present petition.
4. As stated supra, respondent No.3 is the Society
and respondent No.4 is the BDA. Respondents 5 to 9 who
have got themselves impleaded as allottees / purchasers of
sites from 3rd respondent - Society, for whose benefit the
subject land was acquired.
5. The 3rd respondent-Society has filed its statement
of objections and have contested the present petition by
denying the various allegations and claims made by the
petitioners. It is contended that pursuant to the preliminary
notification dated 03.01.1985 and final notification dated
25.09.1986, the SLAO passed an award on 15.09.1995,
since there was an interim order passed in
W.P.No.292/1987 filed by petitioner No.1 till the said
petition was disposed of on 11.10.1993 by this Court.
Pursuant to passing of an award on 14.09.1995, the award
amount was deposited by the 4th respondent with the SLAO
and notice in this regard was issued to petitioner No.1 on
28.09.1995. Subsequently, actual possession of the land
was taken on 05.02.2002 and notification under Section
16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued and
published on 13.06.2002. It is therefore contended that the
petitioners do not have any right, title, interest or
possession over any portion of the subject land and that the
same is liable to be dismissed.
Respondent No.3 has also contended that apart from
the fact that the petitioners have suppressed the material
fact and document in relation to the earlier proceedings, the
said proceedings are sufficient to indicate that the present
petition is liable to be dismissed; the said proceedings
cannot be made the basis for the petitioners to re-agitate all
their contentions which are barred by res judicata and
constructive res judicata. The petition is also barred by
inordinate delay and latches and the present petition is
nothing but an abuse of process of law and this Court. It is
further contended that the said Act of 2013 is not applicable
to acquisition proceedings initiated by the BDA and at any
rate, none of the ingredients of Section 24(2) of the said
Act of 2013 are applicable to the subject land and / or the
subject acquisition proceedings. The subject land was
handed over to the 3rd respondent - Society on 25.10.2003
and the society have allotted and hold the sites which is
formed in the subject land in favour of its members. It is
therefore contended that there is no merit in the petition
and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. The respondents 5 to 9 who are allottees of sites
from 3rd respondent - society have also filed their
statement of objections and have contested the petition by
denying the various contentions and claim put forth by the
petitioner. Even these respondents have reiterated the
various averments made by 3 rd respondent - society in the
statement of objections. After referring to all the earlier
round of litigations, these respondents submit that apart
from the fact that Section 24(2) of the said Act of 2013 was
not applicable, it is contended that the petitioners are guilty
of abuse of process of law and court and the petitioners, in
particular petitioners 2 to 9 do not have locus standi to file
the present petition. It is also contended that paragraph-17
of the statement of objections that the impugned
notifications have been upheld by this Court and confirmed
by the Apex Court in the proceedings instituted by one
Smt.Nanjamma and on this ground also, the present
petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is
also contended that the petitioners are guilty of suppression
of material fact and indulging in repeated frivolous
litigations which are liable to be dismissed. It is therefore
contended by respondents 5 to 9 also that there is no merit
in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions.
8. The material on record disclose that it is the
specific contention urged by the petitioners that petitioner
No.1 had acquired the suit schedule property under a
registered sale deed dated 10.08.1983 and formed the
layout in the same and sold some of the sites in favour of
petitioners 2 to 9 during the period 31.03.1995 to
04.08.2014. Meanwhile, the subject land was notified for
acquisition vide preliminary notification dated 03.01.1985
and final notification dated 22.09.1986; since there were
litigations including W.P.No.292/1987 challenging the said
notifications till the same were disposed of on 11.10.1993,
the award was passed on 14.09.1995, pursuant to which,
possession was taken by the SLAO on 05.02.2002 followed
by a notification dated 13.06.2002 issued under Section
16(2) of the L.A.Act; thereafter, the subject land was
handed over to the possession of 3 rd Respondent - Society
on 25.10.2003, pursuant to which, sites have been sold /
allotted in favour of its members including respondents 5 to
9. It is therefore clear that petitioners 2 to 9 herein claimed
to be the purchasers of portions of the subject land after
issuance of preliminary and final notifications dated
03.01.1985 and 22.09.1986 respectively; It follows there
from that petitioners 2 to 9 being subsequent purchasers do
not have locus standi to challenge the preliminary and final
notifications, which were undisputedly issued prior to them
purchasing their respective portions as stated supra and
consequently, the claim and contention of petitioners 2 to 9
is not maintainable and liable to be rejected, since the said
sale deeds in favour of petitioners 2 to 9 after issuance of
the aforesaid notifications are null and void as held by the
Apex Court in the case of Shivkumar & another vs.
Union of India & others - (2019) 10 SCC 229.
9. The main contention urged on behalf of the
petitioners is that possession of the subject land was not
taken by the respondents 1 to 4 who had also not
deposited / paid the award amount and consequently, since
the twin / two-fold requirement contemplated in Section
24(2) of the said Act of 2013 had not been satisfied, the
entire acquisition proceedings should lapse. This
contention urged by the petitioners regarding lapsing of the
acquisition under Section 24(2) of the said Act of 2013, it is
clearly misconceived and devoid of merit in view of the well
settled position of law that the said Act of 2013, in
particular, Section 24(2) is not applicable to acquisition
under the BDA Act, as held by the Division Bench of this
Court in the cases of (i) L.Rama Reddy vs. State of
Karnataka & Others - W.A.No.1415/2016 Dated
01.12.2020; (ii) BDA & Another vs. Vishwanatha Reddy
& Others - W.A.No.9476/2016 Dated 02.03.2021 and (iii)
BDA vs. L.Chandrashekar - W.A.No.946/2016 Dated
30.06.2021.
10. Under these circumstances, it is clear that since
Section 24(2) of the said Act of 2013 is not applicable to the
acquisition of the subject land under the BDA Act, the
primary / main contention / ground of attack to the
impugned notifications is clearly devoid of merit and the
same is liable to be rejected.
11. The material on record also discloses that the
award amount was deposited and possession of the
subject land was taken over by the BDA and handed over
to the 3rd respondent No.3 - society, who has in turn
allotted / sold the same in favour of its members / allotees,
who are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Even in
the earlier rounds of litigation instituted by petitioner No.1,
this Court has recorded its findings that the petitioner No.1
was not in possession or enjoyment of the subject land and
that the BDA and the society are in possession and
enjoyment of the same. Viewed from this angle also, the
contention urged by the petitioners that they are in
possession and enjoyment of subject land and that they are
entitled to challenge the notifications is clearly baseless,
devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.
12. The material on record also indicates that
petitioner No.1 herein is repeatedly indulging in litigation
before this Court challenging the impugned preliminary and
final notification. The details of the said cases, wherein
petitioner had challenged the impugned notifications are as
under:-
(a) W.P.No.292/1987 dismissed on 11.10.1993;
(b) W.P.No.12784/2002 dismissed as withdrawn by
this Court on 24.06.2002 reserving liberty in favour of
petitioner No.1 to approach the State Government for
denotification; this conduct of petitioner No.1 also indicates
that he estopped from challenging the impugned
notifications.
(c) W.P.No.12758/2008 dismissed on 14.06.2011;
review petition in R.P.No.470/2011 dismissed on
09.12.2011; writ appeal in W.A.No.56/2012 dismissed on
10.09.2013; SLP No.702/2014 dismissed by the Apex
Court on 04.11.2015.
(d) W.P.No.23389/2011 dismissed by this Court on
15.06.2012; writ appeal in W.A.No.1993/2013 also
dismissed on 15.06.2016;
13. The aforesaid undisputed earlier rounds of
litigation clearly indicate that petitioner No.1's challenge to
the impugned notifications was rejected by this Court and
confirmed by the Apex Court on multiple occasion; all
grounds and contentions urged by the 1st petitioner for the
purpose of challenging the impugned notifications have
been negatived; findings have been recorded that
possession of the subject land have been taken over by the
BDA and handed over to the 3rd respondent - society;
petitioner No.1 accepted the validity, legality and
correctness of the impugned notifications and requested
this Court to dismiss W.P.No.12784/2002 with liberty to
approach the State Government for denotification. The
aforesaid facts and circumstances and earlier round of
litigation as well as the conduct of petitioner No.1 clearly
establishes that he is guilty of abuse of process of court
and law, which has been recorded and highlighted on more
than one occasion by this Court. This Court which has
categorically held that the tendency of the petitioner No.1 in
filing the repeated writ petitions on one pretext or the other
should be nipped in the bud.
14. The earlier rounds of litigations and conduct of
petitioner No.1 in requesting this Court reserving liberty in
his favour to approach the State Government for
denotification of the subject land is sufficient to establish
that all the claims and contentions put forth in the present
petition are barred by the principles of res judicata and
constructive res judicata as well as by the principles of
estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment and waiver. It is
also relevant to state that all details and documents in
relation to the earlier rounds of litigation have been
deliberately and intentionally suppressed by the petitioners,
in particular, petitioner No.1 in the present petition which is
also a point to the fact that the petitioner No.1 has not
come to the Court with clean hands. Under these
circumstances, none of the grounds urged in the present
petition merit any consideration and the same are liable to
be rejected.
15. Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioner
No.1 that the earlier round of litigation in
W.P.No.12758/2008 was filed by Smt.Prabhavati B.
Chandapur fraudulently claiming to be his GPA Holder and
consequently, any order made in the said litigation right up
to the Apex Court are not binding upon petitioner No.1 is
concerned, it is relevant to state that even this contention
have been negatived by this Court in W.P.No.23389/2011.
So also, the appeal in W.A.No.1993/2013 was dismissed
as withdrawn on 15.06.2015 on the basis of a submission
of the learned counsel for petitioner No.1 that he would
obtain a declaration in the civil court about his identity.
Though, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance
upon the aforesaid order dated 15.06.2016 in order to
contend that subsequently, petitioner No.1 obtained a
declaration before the civil court regarding his identity on
22.09.2018 in O.S.No.622/2017, neither the said judgment
and decree nor the circumstances urged by the petitioner
No.1 can have the effect of nullifying the orders passed
against the petitioner No.1 in the earlier rounds of litigation,
which have attained finality and become conclusive and
binding upon him. In fact, the contention that liberty was
reserved by this Court in W.A.No.1993/2013, is wholly
misconceived; a perusal of the said order, will indicate that
all that this Court have done is to place on record the
prayers / requests made by the learned counsel for
petitioner No.1 and has proceeded to dismiss the writ
appeal as withdrawn.
16. A perusal of the said order makes it amply clear
that the same cannot be treated or conclude as having
reserved any liberty in favour of petitioner No.1 and
consequently, the said order in W.A.No.1993/2013 cannot
be relied upon by petitioner No.1 in support of his case. In
this context, it is necessary to state that despite repeatedly
and unsuccessfully challenging the impugned notification,
petitioner No.1 is attempting to circumvent all the earlier
orders passed against him with malafide intention and
ulterior motive which cannot be countenanced by this Court
in the present petition. Under these circumstances, even
this contention urged by the petitioners is liable to be
rejected.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the
material on record obtaining in the instant case, I do not
find any merit in this petition and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. No
costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
Srl.
