Smt Huchamma vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 10179 Kant

                           -1-


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                        PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

          THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI

         WRIT APPEAL NO. 1201 OF 2021 (LA-RES)

  BETWEEN:
  SMT. HUCHAMMA
  W/O LATE M.H. JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN,
  NO.294, 5TH MAIN,
  K.H.B. COLONY,
  BASAVESHWARA NAGARA,
  BANGALORE - 560 079.
                                       ... APPELLANT
  (BY SRI MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

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

  2.     SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
         V.V. TOWER, 3RD FLOOR,
         DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
         BANGALORE - 560 001

  3.     PANCHAJANYA VIDYAPEETA
         WELFARE TRUST,
         DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF
         TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS,
         JNANABHARTHI
                         -2-


     MALLATHAHALLI
     BANGALORE - 560 076,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
                                    ... RESPONDENTS

(SRI J.SATHISH KUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
 ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2
 SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/
 RESPONDENT No.3)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 25.08.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.32714/2013 (LA-RES) AND
CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY
THE APPELLANT IN W.P.NO.32714/2013 (LA-RES).

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:


                   JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Madhukar M.Deshpande, learned

counsel for the appellant, Sri J.Sathish Kumar,

learned Additional Government Advocate for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Harish H.V., learned

counsel for respondent No.3.

2. This intra-Court appeal has been filed against

the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the learned

Single Judge in Writ Petition No.32714/2013 by

which, the writ petition preferred by the appellant

has been dismissed.

3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that the appellant claims to be the

wife of one late Sri M.H.Jayaprakash Narayan, who

was the owner of the land measuring 5 acres 10

guntas bearing Sy.No.28/1 situated at Mallathalli

Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North

Taluk. The aforesaid land was required for the

purpose of establishment of Dr.Ambedkar Institute

of Technology. Accordingly, the proceedings under

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred

to as 'the Act', for short) were initiated and a

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued

on 11.06.1992. Thereafter, a declaration under

Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 11.11.1993.

4. An award was passed on 25.04.1996. The

dispute between the claimants with regard to

disbursement of compensation was adjudicated in

the proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act

by an order dated 08.06.2009. The appellant,

admittedly, was not a party in the said proceedings.

The appellant filed a writ petition on 22.07.2013 in

which, a challenge was made to the validity of the

land acquisition proceedings. The learned Single

Judge, by an order dated 25.08.2021, inter alia, held

that the original owner during his lifetime did not

make challenge to the validity of the land acquisition

proceedings. It was further held that the challenge

to the land acquisition proceedings is belated

inasmuch as, the same has been made after a period

of 17 years from the date of the award. In the

aforesaid facts and background, this appeal has

been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the learned Single Judge ought to have

appreciated that the directions contained in the

order dated 03.11.2015 passed by the learned Single

Judge have not been complied with and the land

belonging to the appellant can only be acquired in

accordance with law. It is also urged that neither any

compensation has been made in respect of the land

acquired nor the possession of the land in question

has been taken.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for

respondent No.3 submitted that the original owner of

the land did not challenge the validity of the

acquisition proceedings during his lifetime. It is also

pointed out that the order dated 08.06.2009 by

which, the right to receive compensation in respect

of the property in question was adjudicated and the

appellant was neither a party to the aforesaid

proceedings nor has challenged the aforesaid order

passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

7. We have considered the rival submissions made

on both sides and have perused the record. It is a

well settled legal proposition that right to hold

property may not be a fundamental right, but it is

still a constitutional right under Article 300-A as well

as human right. [See:'STATE OF BIHAR & ORS VS.

PROJECT UCHCHA VIDYA, SIKSHAK AND OTHERS',

2006(2) SCC 545 as well as 'HARI KRISHNA MANDIR

TRUST VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA', (2020) 9 SCC

356].

8. It is equally well settled in law that when there

is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and

when all the steps are taken in the acquisition

proceedings, which have become final, the Court

should be loath to quash the notifications. It has

further been held that though this Court has

discretionary powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, but the said powers have to be

exercised taking into account all relevant factors into

pragmatic consideration. It has further been held

that when the award has been passed and the

possession is taken, the Court should not exercise

its power to quash the award which is a material

factor to be taken into consideration before

exercising the powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. [See: 'MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO. PVT.

LTD & ORS.', (1996) 11 SCC 501, 'MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. SHAH

HYDER BEIG & ORS.', (2000) 2 SCC 48, 'SWAIKA

PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF

RAJASTHAN AND ORS.', AIR 2008 SC 1494 and

'JASVEER SIGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH AND ORS.', (2017) 6 SCC 787]. The

principle on which the Court refuses relief on the

ground of delay and laches is that the rights accrued

to others by delay in filing the petition should not be

disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation

for the delay. [See: 'SHANKAR COOPERATIVE

SOCIETY LTD. VS. M.PRABHARKAR AND OTHERS',

(2011) AIR SCW 3033].

9. We may advert to the facts of the case on hand.

In the instant case, the preliminary notification was

issued on 11.06.1992 whereas, the declaration

under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on

11.11.1993. An award was passed on 25.04.1996.

The writ petition has been filed after an inordinate

delay of 17 years for which no explanation has been

offered. The writ petition suffers from inordinate and

unexplained delay of 17 years and therefore, has

rightly not been entertained by the learned Single

Judge.

10. It is pertinent to note that the original owner of

the land namely, Sri M.H.Jayaprakash Narayan did

not raise any challenge to the land acquisition

proceedings during his lifetime. It is also noteworthy

that by the order dated 08.06.2009, the Land

Acquisition Officer determined the entitlement to

receive the compensation. The appellant is neither a

party in the aforesaid proceedings nor has

challenged the said order.

For the abovementioned reasons, we do not find

any ground to interfere with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails

and is hereby dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending

interlocutory application does not survive for

consideration and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AHB