Karnataka High Court
Sri B M Nagarajappa vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2022
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.26758 OF 2015 (LB-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.26760 OF 2015 (LB-RES)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.26758 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HONNASHETTAPPA
S/O. DODDASHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT KUVEMPUNAGAR,
CHANNARAYAPATNA,
HASSAN DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 573 116.
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
2. SMT. S.T. RATHNA
W/O. SRI. HONNASHETTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT KUVEMPUNAGAR,
CHANNARAYAPATNA,
HASSSAN DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 573 116.
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
3. SMT. H. GEETHA
W/O. SRI. R.S. MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.18, VIJAYANAGARA,
2
4 STAGE, 1 PHASE,
TH ST
MYSORE - 570 017.
4. SRI. M. HEMANTHA
S/O. SRI. MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/T NO.18, VIJAYANAGARA,
4 STAGE, 1 PHASE,
TH ST
MYSORE - 570 017.
5. M. CHAITHRA
D/O. SRI. MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT NO.18, VIJAYANAGARA,
4 STAGE, 1 PHASE,
TH ST
MYSORE - 570 017. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAYANNA B.L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HOLENARASIPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT
PIN - 573 116.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.R.NITHYANANDA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI M KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-2 TO ISSUE OR CHANGE KHATA IN RESPECT OF MUNICIPAL
3
KHATA NO.4780/4477 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING
SY NO.275/4A SITUATED AT DAKSHINA NALA GRAMA,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, MEASURING 0.18 GUNTAS IN THE
NAME OF THE PETITIONERS RESPECTFULLY, AS PER THE
APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS DTD 5.9.2012 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J BASED ON PARTITION DEED DTD.21.8.2012 VIDE
ANNEX-H AND LETTER DATED 21.08.2014 BEARING
NO.BOOSWAJI.09/95-96 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN, VIDE
ANNEXURE-Q.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.26760 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
SRI B M NAGARAJAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT KUVEMPUNAGAR,
CHANNARAYAPATNA,
HASSAN DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 573 116. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAYANNA B.L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE CHIEF OFFICER,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HOLENARASIPURA,
4
HASSAN DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 573 116. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.R.NITHYANANDA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI M KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-2 TO TRANSFER THE MUNICIPAL KHATA NO.4899/4566/C IN
RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SY NO.268/3 SITUATED
AT DAKSHINA NALA GRAMA, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
MEASURING 400 SQ.FTS. IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER, AS
PER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD31.10.2012
VIDE ANNEXURE-J AS PER THE SALE DEED AT ANN-H AND
LETTER DTD 21.08.2014 BEARING NO.BOOSWAJI.09/95-96
ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN
DIVISION, HASSAN, VIDE ANNEXURE-P.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners in W.P.No.26758/2015 are the owners of
the land bearing Sy.No.275/4A and petitioner in
W.P.No.26760/2015 is the owner of the land bearing
Sy.No.268/3 measuring 0.18 acres and 0.04 acres respectively,
both situated at Dakshina Nala Grama, Holenarasipura Taluk.
2. These lands in question among other lands were
notified and acquired for the purpose of Urban development of
Dakshina Nala Grama, Holenarasipura Taluk.
3. Petitioner No.1 (for convenience referred to as
Honnashettappa) in W.P.No.26758/2015 challenged the
acquisition of the lands in question before this Court in
W.P.No.33199/1997 and other connected petitions which came
to be dismissed on 25.11.1998.
4. The Government of Karnataka issued the notification
under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short
"Act") de-notifying the acquisition of lands in question and other
lands. Pursuant to the issuance of notification, the office bearers
of TMC and others challenged the said notification in
W.P.No.32570/2000 which came to be dismissed by this Court
vide order dated 1.3.2002. Being aggrieved by the said order,
SLP came to be filed before the Apex Court and the said SLP
came to be disposed of in view of the submission made by the
Government that they would withdraw the notification issued
under Section 48(1) of the Act.
5. The Government of Karnataka in view of the
undertaking given before the Apex Court, withdrew the
notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act against which,
Honnashettappa filed W.P.No.19088/2007 and also other owners
filed connected petitions before this Court, wherein, the learned
Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions by order dated
15.10.2008. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ
petitions, Honnashettappa and others filed W.A.No.1806/2008
and other connected appeals before the Division Bench. The
Division Bench set aside the order dated 15.10.2008 passed by
the learned Single Judge and also the notification issued by the
Government of Karnataka withdrawing the notification issued
under Section 48(1) of the Act.
7. However, the Government of Karnataka was directed
to reconsider the proceedings at the stage prior to exercise of
the power contemplated under Section 48(1) of the Act and pass
an order clarifying whether the possession of the acquired lands
have been taken or not and if the possession of the said lands
were not taken as on the date of issuance of notification under
Section 48(1) of the Act, the de-notification order issued under
Section 48(1) of the Act stands revived.
8. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in
W.A.No.1862/2008 and other appeals, the Principle Secretary,
Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka ( hereinafter
referred to as "Principal Secretary"), passed an order holding
that the possession of the lands in question have not been taken
and in view of the said order, the de-notification order passed
under Section 48(1) of LA Act stood revived and as such the
lands in question were withdrawn from acquisition. The order
passed by Principal Secretary in respect of the lands in question
has attained finality.
9. The Principal Secretary in his order has stated that
some of the lands which were notified and acquired, possession
was taken as on the date of issuance of the notification under
section 48(1) of the Act resulting in confirming the order passed
withdrawing the notification issued under Section 48(1) of LA
Act. Taking exception to the same , the owners filed
W.P.Nos.34297 and 37898-37902/2012 and other connected
petitions challenging the order passed by the Principal Secretary.
The learned Single Judge by order dated 28.03.2014 quashed
the order passed by the Principal Secretary and further revived
the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act. Being
aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the
respondent No.2-Town Municipal Council, Holenarasipura, has
filed writ appeals in W.A.Nos.1238-1244/2014 and other
connected appeals which are pending consideration and the
Division Bench has stayed the operation of the order passed by
the learned Single Judge reviving the notification issued under
Section 48(1) of the Act.
10. Petitioners in the light of the order passed by the
Principal Secretary, stating that the possession of the lands in
question have not been taken as on the date of issuance of the
notification under Section 48(1) of the Act and further reviving
the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the LA Act, have
submitted an application with the respondent No.2-Town
Municipal Council to register the katha of the lands in question in
their favour. The Respondent No.2 having not acted on the said
applications , these writ petitions are filed.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that in the light of the order passed by the Principal
Secretary and also the notification issued under Section 48(1) of
the Act, denotifying the lands in question, the respondent No.2-
Town Municipal Council is under an obligation to register the
katha in respect of lands in question in favour of the petitioners.
12. Mr.M. Keshava Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2-Town Municipal Council submits that the order
passed by the Principal Secretary was set aside in its entirety
and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is the subject
matter of writ appeals filed by the respondent No.2-Town
Municipal Council are pending consideration and as such the
request of the petitioners for registering the katha in their
favour in respect of the lands in question cannot be considered
till the disposal of the writ appeals.
13. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the respondent-State would reiterate the submission made
by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
14. I have examined the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties.
15. It is undisputed fact that in pursuance of the order
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1862/2008
and other connected appeals, the Principal Secretary,
reconsidered the matter afresh and passed an order holding that
the possession of the lands in question were not taken as on the
date of issuance of notification under Section 48(1) of the Act
and as such the notification issued under Section 48(1) of LA Act
denotiifying the lands from acquisition stands revived. However,
in the said order, it was held that the possession of some of the
lands were taken prior to issuance of notification under Section
48(1) of the Act and it was further held that the order passed
withdrawing the notification issued u/s 48(1) of LA Act in respect
of lands, the possession of which were taken prior to issuance of
the said notification is confirmed .
16. Owners of the said lands filed the writ petitions
before this Court challenging the order passed by the Principal
Secretary confirming the order of withdrawal of notification
issued u/s 48(1) of Act. The learned Single Judge, after hearing
the parties quashed the order passed by the Principal Secretary,
and held that the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act stands revived.
17. However, challenge to the order passed by the
Principal Secretary was by the owners of the lands only with
respect to the lands which were held that the possession of
which were taken prior to the issuance of notification under
Section 48(1) of the Act and not in respect of the possession of
lands in question which were not taken as on the date of
issuance of notification under Section 48(1) of the Act. Hence,
the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the order
passed by the Principal Secretary is only confined to the extent
of holding that the possession of the lands which were taken
prior to issuance of the notification under Section 48(1) of the
Act.
18. Petitioners were not parties to the said writ petitions
and as such it cannot be said that the order passed in favour of
the petitioners is also quashed. Petitioners have acquired a right
under the order passed by the Principal Secretary and as such
the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the order
cannot be said to be binding on the petitioners and is not a
judgment in rem as contended by the learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.2.
19. The Respondent No.2 having accepted the order
passed by the Principal Secretary reviving the notification issued
under Section 48(1) of LA Act in respect of lands in question are
under an obligation to register the Khata in favour of the
Petitioners and cannot deny the same under the guise that the
order passed by Principal Secretary is quashed in its entirety and
the legality of the said order is the subject matter of writ appeals
which are pending consideration. It also pertinent to state that
the notification issued under Section 48(1) of LA Act in respect of
lands in question was revived by virtue of order passed by
Principal Secretary and not by the order passed by the learned
single judge .
Accordingly, I pass the following:
Order
Writ petitions are allowed . The respondent No.2 is
directed to register the khatha in favour of the petitioners in
respect of the lands in question subject to the condition that the
petitioners satisfy other requirements of law. The said exercise
shall be concluded within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HR
