Karnataka High Court

S C Gokarna vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2022

Bench: R Devdaspresided Byrdj

                            -1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

           THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

 WRIT PETITION NO.25877 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) C/W
 WRIT PETITION NO.24533 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) C/W
 WRIT PETITION NO.24535 OF 2017 (KLR-LG) C/W
 WRIT PETITION NO.25896 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) C/W
 WRIT PETITION NO.26163 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) C/W
 WRIT PETITION NO.26244 OF 2017 (KLR-LG) C/W
 WRIT PETITION NO.26756 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) C/W
 WRIT PETITION NO.27340 OF 2017 (KLR RR/SUR)
 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.29059 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)
  C/W WRIT PETITION NO.50426 OF 2019 (KLR-LG)


IN W.P. NO.25877 OF 2017

BETWEEN

1.   SMT N REVATHI
     W/O M V RAMASWAMY RAJU
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     RESIDING AT NO 551,
     KOTHANUR DINNE,
     J P NAGAR 8TH STAGE,
     UTTARAHALLIL HOBLI,
     BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
     BANGALORE - 560078

2.   SMT N REKHA
     D/O NAGARAJU
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
     RESIDING AT NO 25/1,
                               -2-


      KOTHANUR DINNE,
      J P NAGAR 8TH STAGE,
      UTTARAHALLIL HOBLI,
      BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
      BANGALORE - 560078

3.    SRI N DAMODHARA
      S/O T NARASIMHULU
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
      RESIDING AT NO 14,
      SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSS ROAD,
      BENDRE NAGAR,
      BANGALORE - 560070

4.    SRI M CHANDRASHEKAR
      S/O LATE N MUNISWAMY,
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
      RESIDING AT NO 140/2,
      MANJUNATH ROAD, 2ND BLOCK,
      T R NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560028
                                           ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B S RADHANANDAN , ADVOCATE)


AND

1.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
      BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION
      K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560009

2.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
      M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001
      REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.5.2017 PASSED BY R-1 ON HIS FILE AT ANNEX-A; GRANT COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.

IN WRIT PETITION NO.24533 OF 2017

BETWEEN

S C GOKARNA S/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA S N AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.006, RAHEJA CHAMBERS, MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR;

SRI. B.R. SRIVATSA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT D.C.COMPOUND, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009.

4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009.

5. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., 3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

6. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

7. SMT. LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATARAJU R/AT NO.7, 1ST CROSS, 8TH MAIN PUTTENAHALLI PALYA, 7TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;

SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6;

SRI. G MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R7)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 108-K OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT ON THE FILE OF THE R-3 VIDE ANENX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.26.05.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-B AND ETC.,

IN W.P. NO.24535 OF 2017

BETWEEN

C MUNIREDDY S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.2, NEXT TO GOVT HOSPITAL,

ARAKERE, IIM POST BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 076 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.K.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR;

SRI. CHANDRAKANTH PATIL K, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT D.C.COMPOUND, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009.

4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

5. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., 3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

6. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

R6 SERVED; SRI. H.L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;

SRI. G. MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R7)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEX-A, PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 108-K OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT BY THE R-3 AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD.26.5.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-B AND ETC.

IN W.P. NO.25896 OF 2017

BETWEEN

SOBHA LIMITED (FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT "SOBHA", NO.51/5, SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD (ORR) DEVERABESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST BANGALORE 560 103.

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. MRS. V. PADMAVATHI ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAITHRA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR;

SRI. KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001.

2. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER BANGLAORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION 2ND FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVANA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009

3. TAHASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH T ALUK, KANDAYA BHAVANA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009

4. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., 3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

6. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SUO-MOTU PROCEEDING INITIATING BY R-2 ON 8.2.2017 IN CASE / PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 136(2) OF THE

KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (ANNEX-A) AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS THEREON AND ETC.

IN W. P. NO.26163 OF 2017

BETWEEN

1. SRI DR SATISH GOVINDAIAH S/O.G.GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.657, 3RD BLOCK, 5TH CROSS, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034.

2. SMT.DR.CHITHRA RAMU W/O.DR.SATISH GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.657, 3RD BLOCK, 5TH CROSS, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034.

3. SRI SHRIDHAR HEGDE S/O.ANANTH G HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.S-1, 2ND FLOOR, NO.114, HAVYAKA APARTMENTS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, ANUGRAHA LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BILEKALLI, BANGALORE-560076.

4. SRI SRINIVASAPPA S/O.LATE. ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.19, 6TH C CROSS, GOURAVNAGAR, J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

5. SRI NIRANJAN SHETTY S/O.LATE M.B.SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.702, SEA-NYMPH, GREEN FIELDS, A.B.NAIR ROAD, JUHU, MUMBAI-400049.

6. DR K V KIRAN S/O.K.N.VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT ELITE PROMENADE, FLAT NO.B6-803, PUTTENAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

7. DR SHILPA KIRAN W/O.DR.K.V.KIRAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT ELITE PROMENADE, FLAT NO.B6-803, PUTTENAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

8. SRI SUBBA REDDY S/O.LATE. P.V.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.303, MAHAVEER CLASSIC, 1ST MAIN, SHEYADRI EXTENSION, PANDURANGA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560076.

...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANANTHA NAGARAJ K, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560009.

3. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560009.

4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ...RESPONDETNS (BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.5.2017 PASSED BY R-1 ON HIS FILE IN LND/RA(S)18/2016-17 AT ANNEX-G AND COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.,

IN W. P. NO.26244 OF 2017

BETWEEN

1. SRI. BALAJI K S/O K KRUSHNAMARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.41, 5TH TEMPLE STREET, 13TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGLORE-560 003

2. SRI K SINIVASMURTHY S/O KRUSHNAMARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.41, 5TH TEMPLE STREET, 13TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560 003 2(a) SMT. RASHMI R S W/O LATE K. SRINIVASMURTHY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

2(b) MASTER RAKSHITH S/O LATE K. SRINIVASMURTHY AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. RASHMI R.S

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.41, 5TH TEMPLE STREET 13TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560003.

...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PAPEGOWDA B, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD.BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KANDHAYA BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR,K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.5.2017 AT ANENX-A PASSED BY R-3 AND DIRECT RESPONDENT TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE REVENUE DOCUMENTS AND ETC.

IN W. P. NO.26756 OF 2017 BETWEEN SRI A M RAMARAJU S/O LATE A S MUNISWAMY RAJU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A NO 143, 15TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR, 4TH T BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560041

a) PREMA A.R., W/O LATE A.M.RAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

b) GAYATHRI A.R., D/O LATE A.M.RAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

c) SHRUTHI A.R., D/O LATE A.M. RAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.536, 10TH MAIN, JAYANAGARA 5TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 041.

...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R PATEL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 09

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDYA BHAVAN K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 09

4. THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDYA BHAVAN K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 09

5. THE BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD 3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 27 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Page No.12 retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 18.04.2022

6. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 01

7. SRI. ANTONY HENRY G S/O R. GNANA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NO.F-2, PEARL NEST APARTMENT NO.80, ANTHONY NICHOLAS STREET ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU-560025

8. SRI. PUSHPAKARAN S/O KUTTAPPAN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O NO.9, 3RD FLOOR, SANJEEVA SADAN, MUNIREDDY LAYOUT PANATHUR ROAD, KADABEESANAHALLI BENGALURU-560103

9. SMT. NAGARATHNA W/O K.S. VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O NO.175, 5TH CROSS MARUTHINAGAR, AEROHALLI CROSS, VISHWANIDAM POST BENGALURU-560091.

10. SMT. REVATHI W/O A RAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O NO.3084, 9TH CROSS GAYTHRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560021

11. MR. HUSEN S/O BABA SAHEB AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

R/O NO.16051, 7TH CROSS 1ST STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT BENGALURU-560078

12. SMT. T. SHARADA BAI W/O LATE P. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/O NO.50, 4TH CROSS, VANNARPET LAYOUT VIVEKNAGAR POST BENGALURU-560047

13. SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O LATE S.C.NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O NO.56, P.F.LAYOUT VIJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560040

14. SMT. B. USHA BAI W/O T.R.JAGANATHA RAO AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O NO.20/1, SRI SAI KRUPA 1ST FLOOR, 10TH MAIN ROAD 4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560096 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;

SRI. H.L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;

SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R9)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SEC. 108-K OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT IN CASE NO. LND RA (S) 18/16-17 ON THE FILE OF THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-P AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.5.2017 PASSED BY R-3 IN APPEAL NO. LND . RA(S) 18/16-17 AT ANNEX-Q AND ETC.

IN W. P. NO.27340 OF 2017

BETWEEN

SRI. N. SHASHANK KUMAR S/O. C. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUSHEELA NARAYANA NILAYA, ADJACENT TO MEENAKSHI TEMPLE, 13TH KM, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076.

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

5. THE BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., 3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;

SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 26.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER DTD 26-5-2017 ISSUED BY R-3.

IN W. P. NO.29059 OF 2017

BETWEEN

1. SMT CHIKKAMMA W/O LATE MUNEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

2. SRI JUNJAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS

2(a) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE JUNJAPPA AGED 40 YEARS

2(b) SMT. SAROJA D/O LATE JUNJAPPA AGED 27 YEARS

2(c) MADHU J S/O LATE JUNJAPPA AGED 23 YEARS

2(d) KUM. SANGEETHA D/O LATE JUNJAPPA AGED 22 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.86, SARJAPURA, THINDLU ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562107

3. SRI LAGUMESHA S/O LATE MUNEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

4. SRI MANJUNATHA S/O LATE MUNEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

5. SRI MARAPPA S/O LATE MUNEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

6. SMT THOPAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

7. SMT LAKSHMI D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

8. SRI LAGUMESHA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

9. SMT BHAGYA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

10. SMT SHOBHA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

11. SMT MANJULA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KOTHANURU VILLAGE, KOTHANURU DINNE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 078 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GANESH T, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 009

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDHAYA BHAVANA K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI. B. VINAYAKA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD26.5.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-3 AND DIRECT THE R-3 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN PLACE OF DECEASED MARA THE GRAND

FATHER OF PETITIONERS IN THE REVENUE DOCUMENTS AND ETC.

IN W. P. NO.50426 OF 2019

BETWEEN

A RAVINDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE RADHAMMA AMRUTHA RAO NO.44, KOTTHANUOORU DINNE J P NAGAR, 8TH PHASE OPP D S MAX APARTMENT ROAD, BANGALROE-560 076 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. DAYANANDA PATIL S M, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MS BUILDING -560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT D.C. COMPOUND BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009

4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009

5. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD 3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

6. THE LAND QCQUISITION OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;

SRI. H.L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-3 IN APPEAL DATED 26.05.2017 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE ENTRIES IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.87/3 AS IT WAS PRIOR TO PASSING OF IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

All these writ petitions were clubbed together and

disposed of by this common order since, the grievance of all

these petitioners is directed against the orders passed by the

Assistant Commissioner and thereafter the Deputy

Commissioner, invoking the powers conferred under Section

136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act', for short) or Rule 108K of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to

as 'the Rules', for short).

2. Learned Senior Counsels Sri. Ashok Haranahalli,

Sri.G.Krishnamurthy and learned Counsels

Sri.B.S.Radhanandan, Sri.Chandrakanth Patil K,

Sri.Kempegowda, Sri.Anantha Nagaraj K, Sri.Papegowda B,

Sri.Ganesh T, Sri.Dayananda Patil S M and Smt.Akkamahadevi

Hiremath, appearing for the petitioners have submitted that

the respondent-Assistant Commissioner has either invoked

the provisions of Section 136(2) of the Act initiating suo motu

proceedings to delete the names of the petitioners from the

land revenue records or have invoked the powers conferred

under Rule 108K of the Rules to cancel the orders of grant

made decades ago. It is also submitted that in an earlier

round of litigation where some of the lands were notified for

acquisition by the State Government for the benefit of

Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as

'the BDA, for short), similar proceedings were initiated by the

then Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and

some of these petitioners had approached this Court

challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

3. On an earlier occasion when some of these lands

were notified for acquisition, the name of the State

Government was shown in the notification. Therefore, some of

these petitioners approached this Court challenging the

acquisition notification since they claimed to be the owners of

the property and their names were not shown in the

notification and on the other hand, the name of the State

Government was reflected in the acquisition notification.

During the course of those proceedings, at the instance of the

BDA, which was the acquiring body then, the Deputy

Commissioner initiated proceedings. The Deputy

Commissioner found favour with the petitioners by noticing

that the petitioners were the owners of the lands in question

and their names were reflected in the land revenue records.

Therefore, it was held that the notification not reflecting the

names of the owners of the land did not depict the correct

position. Nevertheless, this Court noticed that some of the

portions of the lands were alienated subsequent to the

acquisition notifications and therefore, the challenge raised to

the notifications were negative and the writ petitions were

dismissed. The aggrieved petitioners approached the Hon'ble

Division Bench and the Hon'ble Division Bench ultimately

decided the case in favour of the land owners, while holding

that the notifications were issued by the State Government

without showing the names of the owners of sub-divisions.

The preliminary and final notifications were set aside by the

Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 07.01.2005 in

W.P.Nos.4899-4902/1998. It is therefore the contention of

the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners that the issue

has already been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The

learned Senior Counsels would also submit that it is clear from

the previous proceedings that the subsequent proceedings

initiated once again at the hands of the revenue authorities,

consequent to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the

respondent-State Government for the benefit of the

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) under the

provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act,

1966, should also be held arbitrary, illegal and without any

authority of law.

4. In another set of case, however, after the

subsequent land acquisition notification being issued for the

benefit of BMRCL, the Assistant Commissioner has invoked the

powers conferred under Rule 108K of the Rules, for

cancellation of the grant made in favour of the land owners.

The impugned orders have been passed canceling the grant

which were made decades ago. It is also the contention of the

learned Counsel Sri.B.S.Radhanandan that the name of his

client i.e., the petitioner in W.P.No.25877/2017 is not even

reflected in the impugned orders. It is therefore contended

that even when no notice is served on the petitioner and no

opportunity is given to the petitioner, no specific orders are

passed in respect of the land in question, the authorities have

highhandedly entered the property and demolished the

compound walls of the layout. There are also individual sites

owners in that case.

5. In many of these cases, impleading applications are

filed at the hands of such individual site owners and other

persons who lay claim to ownership over portions of the land

and therefore, they have sought for impleadment in these

proceedings. All the impleading applications pending

consideration of these writ petitions are formally allowed.

Learned Counsels for the petitioners are directed to carry out

amendment in the cause title accordingly.

6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in

some of these proceedings, original suits have been filed and

in some of the cases competent civil Courts have decided the

rights of the parties regarding ownership.

7. Learned Senior Counsels and other learned Counsels

for the petitioners have also brought to the notice of this

Court that several other writ petitions or proceedings are

initiated by some of the petitioners herein, challenging the

Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

8. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels, other

learned Counsels for the petitioners, learned Counsels for the

impleading applicants, learned Additional Government

Advocate for the respondent-authorities and having perused

the petition papers this Court finds that although the

proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities be it , the

Assistant Commissioner and thereafter, the Deputy

Commissioner, invoking suo motu powers conferred under

Section 136(2), thereafter Section 136(3) of the Act or under

Rule 108K of the Rules, have been questioned in these writ

proceedings. By virtue of the impugned orders passed by the

authorities, the names of the land owners are either sought to

be deleted from the land revenue records or the orders of

grant made years ago have been set aside. The orders have

been passed on the premise that these are government lands.

It is necessary to notice that in the impugned orders what

have been set aside is the entries made in the revenue

records or cancellation of the original grant orders.

Nevertheless, the foundation for initiation of proceedings,

whether it is under Section 136(2) or under Rule 108K of the

Rules, is that these lands belong to the State Government.

9. This Court has been noticing and has expressed its

anguish in several of its judgments passed recently that if the

claim is that these lands are government lands, then the

request for initiation of action should have come from the

State Government. The revenue authorities are not State

Government. They are not even custodians of the government

lands. On the other hand, the revenue authorities be it, the

Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioners have

been passing orders invoking the suo motu power conferred

under Section 136 of the Act or Rule 108K of the Rules and

thereafter, revisional orders are passed under Section 136(3)

of the Act, without there being any request made by the

Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department.

10. It is by now well settled that the revenue authorities

have no power to decide the title of the properties. The same

has been reiterated by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of

Smt.Jayamma and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

Represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue

and Others - 2020(1) KLR 213 (FB). If at all there is a

dispute regarding title, it should be decided only by a

competent civil court. Noticing these aspects, this Court in

the case of Sri.Ramanjinappa Vs. State of Karnataka and

Others, in W.P.No.2241/2022 decided on 03.02.2022,

while setting aside the impugned orders passed by the

Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners, directed

the acquiring body through the Special Land Acquisition

Officer (SLAO) to refer the dispute of title to the Reference

Court in terms of Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act')

11. This Court has also passed several orders setting

aside such orders passed by the revenue authorities, who had

cancelled the orders of grant made several years ago. This

Court relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

in MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN /VS./ FATMABAI

IBRAHIM - (1997) 6 SCC 71, and in JOINT COLLECTOR

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT /VS./ D.NARSING RAO AND

OTHERS - (2015) 3 SCC 695, where it was held that even

where limitation is not prescribed and suo-motu powers are

invoked for setting aside an order, the same should be done

within reasonable time.

12. Having considered the cases before this Court and

having observed the similarity of these cases, this Court is of

the considered opinion that since there is a dispute raised

regarding the title of the property, the matter requires to be

referred to the Reference Court in terms of Sections 30 and

31 of the LA Act. If the State Government is of the opinion

that these are not Government lands, then the State

Government shall appear before the Reference Court and say

so.

13. On the other hand, if the State Government has

collected any material to contest the title, it shall be entitled

to do so before the Reference Court. This Court also noticed

that there are some impleading applications filed in some of

the writ petitions in these matters. Those impleading

applicants are either claiming as individual site owners or

have laid separate claims in respect of portion of the property.

Nevertheless, all the disputed questions of title are required to

be decided by the competent civil court, in the reference

under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act. Opportunity should

be given to all the persons who lay claim to the title of the

properties in question.

14. In some of the cases, another ground of attack is

that the Award should have been passed under the Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, where the land

owners would have a better deal. Some of the petitioners may

have sought for enhancement of the compensation by

initiating appropriate proceedings. Therefore, if such

proceedings have already been initiated at the hands of the

petitioners, the same shall continue with the rights of such

parties not being affected by the order passed by this Court

while referring the matter under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA

Act for deciding the title of the properties for apportionment of

the compensation amount.

15. In W.P.No.29059/2017, the petitioners and

respondent No.4 have filed a compromise petition. The

petitioners have agreed that compensation amount can be

released in favour of respondent No.4. A copy of the

compromise petition shall also be filed before the Reference

Court and Reference Court shall take note of the same.

16. Needless to observe that if a competent civil court

has decided the rights between the parties, the same may be

placed before the Reference Court and the Reference Court

will have to take note of such declaration already having been

made by the competent civil court.

17. For the reasons stated above, this Court proceeds to

pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petitions are allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned orders in these matters

passed by the Assistant Commissioners

and Deputy Commissioners which have

gone against the petitioners herein are

quashed and set aside.

(iii) The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

KIADB, is hereby directed to refer the

dispute under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA

Act, to Reference Court. During the course

of these proceedings, in terms of the

directions issued by this Court the

compensation amount is said to have been

decided before this Court. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer is also permitted to

withdraw the compensation amount

deposited before this Court and redeposit

the same before the Reference Court.