Smt. Krishnamma vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 5882 Kant

                            -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                        BEFORE

        THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS


     WRIT PETITION NO.40102 OF 2016 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

1.   SMT. KRISHNAMMA
     WIFE OF LATE MUNIYALLAPPA,
     SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

1(a). SMT. M. GOWRAMMA
      D/O LATE KRISHNAMMA
      W/O LATE ASHOK
      AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
      R/AT 1ST CROSS, EJIPURA,
      MINES ROAD
      CHIKKATHAYAPPA COMPOUND
      VIVEKANAGAR (POST)
      BENGALURU-560047

1(b). SMT. M. RATHNAMMA
      D/O LATE KRISHNAMMA
      W/O LATE SRINIVAS
      AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
      R/AT NO.58, SRIRAMAPURA
      OPPOSITE MARAMMA DEVI TEMPLE
      JAKKUR (POST), YELAHANKA HOBLI
      BENGALURU-560064

1(c). SMT. LALITHAMMA
      D/O LATE KRISHNAMMA
                            -2-


     W/O VENKATAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
     R/AT 1ST CROSS, 1ST CROSS ROAD
     R.B. MANSION, KUVEMPU NAGAR
     HOSKOTE TOWN 562114

2.   SRI. M. GOPAL
     SON OF LATE MUNIYELLAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR,
     KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
     R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR POST,
     BENGALURU-560 094.

3.   SRI. M. RAJU @ AJANNA
     SON OF LATE MUNIYELLAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 48 YERS,
     RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR,
     KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
     R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYANAGARA POST,
     BENGALURU-560 094.

4.   SRI. M. RAVINDRA
     SON OF LATE MUNIYELLAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR,
     KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
     R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR POST,
     BENGALURU-560 094.

5.   SMT. JAYAMMA
     WIFE OF LATE CHIKKAMUNIYELLAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR,
     KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
     R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR POST,
     BENGALURU-560 094.
                            -3-


6.   SRI. C. MUNIRAJU
     SON OF LATE CHIKKAMUNIYELLAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR,
     KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
     R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR POST,
     BENGALURU-560 094.

7.   SRI. C. MANJUNATH
     SON OF LATE CHIKKAMUNIYELLAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR,
     KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
     R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR POST,
     BENGALURU-560 094.

8.   SMT. GOWRAMMA
     WIFE OF LATE JUNJAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR,
     KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
     R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR POST,
     BENGALURU-560 094.

9.   SRI. J. VENKATESH
     SON OF LATE JUNJAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR,
     KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
     R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR POST,
     BENGALURU-560 094.

10 . SRI. J. MANJUNATH
     SON OF LATE JUNJAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR,
     KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
     R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR POST,
     BENGALURU-560 094.
                            -4-



11 . SRI. J. MUNIKRISHNA
     SON OF LATE JUNJAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR,
     KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
     R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR POST,
     BENGALURU-560 094.
                                          ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHIDANANDA P, ADVOCATE)

AND

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

2.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      BENGALURU DISTRICT,
      K.G. ROAD,
      BENGALURU-560 009.

3.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      III FLOOR, V.V. TOWER,
      DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
      BENGALURU-560 001.

4.    M/S. NTI EMPLOYEES HOUSING
      CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
      (NAME CHANGED TO
      M/S. NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
      HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.)
      G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS SOCIETY APARTMENTS,
      NO.51,9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
      RMV EXTENSION,
                               -5-


     BENGALURU-560 080,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRIDHAR N HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
    SRI. SURESH S LOKRE, SR. COUNSEL A/W
    SRI. SHRAVAN S LOKRE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE
THAT THE ENTIRE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED BY
R-1 TO 3 UNDER PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 04.01.1985 AT ANNX-D AND FINAL
NOTIFICATION DATED 23.09.1986 AT ANNEX-E STANDS LAPSED
IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND IS SO FAR AS
THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AND ETC.


     THIS   WRIT   PETITION     HAVING    BEEN     HEARD   AND
RESERVED    ON     07.08.2023       AND   COMING     ON    FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The petitioners, claiming to be owners of three pieces

of land measuring 9 guntas each are before this Court

seeking a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings

initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter

referred to as the 'LA Act' for short) have stood lapsed,

insofar as the petition schedule properties are concerned

and for other relief.

2. Preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the

Act, was issued on 04.01.1985 and final notification under

Section 6(1) of the Act, was issued on 25.09.1986. It is the

contention of the petitioners that a suit for partition was

filed amongst the family members in O.S.No.417/1985

before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and in terms of the

compromise decree drawn by the Civil Court, on

17.04.1985, Sri Muniyellappa, Sri Chikkamuniyellappa and

Sri Junjappa were allotted 9 guntas of land each in

Sy.No.62/2 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli,

Bangalore. The petitioners claim through the said three

persons. It is admitted by the petitioners herein that they

had earlier filed W.P.Nos.9673-9675/2011 and 23467/2011

seeking to quash the acquisition notifications and the award

dated 28.01.1989 and 31.01.1989. They had also

challenged the notifications dated 12/15.04.1991 and

04/06.11.1992 issued under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act.

However, it is the contention of the petitioners that after

the new Act viz., The Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act,

2013' for short) was enacted and provision was made in

Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, deeming certain acquisition

proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, as

lapsed, the petitioners are before this Court seeking such

declaration in terms of the prayer made in the writ petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that

the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 24 of

Act, 2013, are fully attracted in the present case. It is

contended that although the acquisition proceedings were

initiated in the year 1985 and notification under Section

16(2) of the L.A Act was issued on 18.04.1991 and

17.12.1992, nevertheless, actual physical possession of the

lands belonging to the petitioners were never taken. The

petitioners continue to be in physical possession of 27

guntas of land in Sy.No.62/2. It is contended that no

material is available on record to show that physical

possession was actually taken in terms of the law laid down

by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of

Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and

Others (2020) 8 SCC 129. It is contended that no

panchanama was drawn to show that physical possession of

the lands in question were taken.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would

further contend that the original records which are placed

before this Court do not evidence the fact that notice before

passing the award and notice calling upon the petitioners to

receive the compensation were either issued or served on

the petitioners. Learned Counsel submits that although

award notice dated 31.05.1991 is found in the original

records, calling upon Sri Muniyellappa, Sri

Chikkamuniyellappa and Sri Junjappa, to receive the

compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer (for short 'SLAO') nevertheless, no material is

available on record to show that such notice was served on

such persons. Once again, attention of this Court is drawn

to the decision in Indore Development Authority (supra)

and it is submitted that the Apex Court has held that unless

the award amount is deposited into the Treasury in the

name of the persons in whose favour the award is drawn, it

cannot be concluded that the award amount has been

deposited in accordance with law. It is submitted that

although the learned Additional Government Advocate has

furnished the original records showing the deposits made

into the Treasury at the hands of the SLAO, nevertheless, it

does not disclose the fact that the award amount in respect

of each of the claimants viz., Sri Muniyellappa, Sri

Chikkamuniyellappa and Sri Junjappa were deposited in

accordance with law. In that view of the matter, it is

submitted that since the petitioners have established that

neither possession is taken nor award amount is paid to the

petitioners, this is a clear case of declaring the acquisition

proceedings deemed to have lapsed, in terms of Section

24(2) of the Act, 2013.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri Suresh

S.Lokre, appearing for the fourth respondent-NTI

Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., submits that

a total extent of 184 acres 1 gunta of lands were acquired

for the benefit of the fourth respondent-Society. Award

was passed in the year 1989, more particularly in respect of

the lands in question on 31.01.1989 and possession was

taken on 18.04.1991 and 17.12.1992 and to evidence the

said fact, a notification was published in the Official Gazette

in terms of the State amendment viz., sub-section (2) of

Section 16 of the Act. The fourth respondent-Society

proceeded to secure necessary permission and sanctioned

layout plan at the hands of the Planning Authority and

thereafter, formed the layout and distributed sites to the

members of the Society. That being the position, it would

be impermissible for the petitioners to contend that

possession of 27 guntas of land are not taken or that layout

has not been formed on the land in question. Learned

Senior Counsel would submit that although it may be true

that a portion of the land in question may appear to be

vacant, nevertheless, on facts it has been clarified that a

portion of the lands in question has been earmarked as

'park' and the same is fenced. Therefore, the petitioners

cannot be permitted to contend that the lands in question

are not developed. The work of developing a park on the

land in question could not be completed in view of the

pendency of this writ petition. The learned Senior Counsel

would therefore submit that since award is passed,

possession is taken and the scheme has been implemented,

the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013,

are not attracted in the present case.

6. Learned AGA has furnished the original records, at

the asking of this Court. While pointing out to the original

records, the learned AGA submits that the records clearly

indicate that award was passed in respect of Sy.No.62/2 on

31.01.1989 and the compensation amount have been

deposited in the Treasury. An award notice dated

31.05.1991 was issued to Sri Muniyellappa, Sri

Chikkamuniyellappa and Sri Junjappa calling upon them to

receive the compensation amount. This would clearly meet

the requirements, even in terms of the law laid down in

Indore Development Authority (supra).

7. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners,

learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent-Society,

learned AGA for the respondent-State, Deputy

Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer and

perused the petition papers. This Court has also looked into

the original records furnished at the hands of the learned

AGA.

8. It should be noticed that this writ petition was filed

on 25.07.2016 and the grounds have been prepared based

on the decision of the Apex Court in Pune Municipal

Corporation and Another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal

Solanki and Another (2014) 3 SCC 183. Heavy reliance

is sought to be placed on the said decision, wherein it was

held that deposit of the award amount in the Government

Treasury would not amount to payment of compensation,

unless it is paid to the interested person or deposited with

the reference court. However, since the decision in Pune

Municipal Corporation was reconsidered in Indore

Development Authority (supra) by a Constitutional Bench

and it was held that Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, carves

out an exception to Section 24(1)(b), where two negative

conditions have been prescribed, therefore, even if one

condition is satisfied, there is no lapse and such an

interpretation logically flows from the 1894 Act read with

the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. In that view

of the matter, it is clear from the records, that an award

notice dated 31.05.1991 was issued by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer, calling upon Sri Muniyellappa, Sri

Chikkamuniyellappa and Sri Junjappa to receive the

compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer. It can therefore be presumed that since the

claimants did not receive the compensation, the award

amounts are found deposited in the State Treasury.

Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners, even in

respect of the award amount not being paid to the

petitioners, cannot be accepted. Moreover, notifications

dated 18.04.1991 and 17.12.1992 have been issued and

gazetted in compliance of the State amendment viz., sub-

section (2) of Section 16 of the Act, which would evidence

the factum of taking possession in accordance with law.

Therefore, on both counts, the writ petition should fail.

9. More importantly, the acquisition proceedings were

initiated for the benefit of the 4th respondent-society and its

members. The layout has been formed and a

Relinquishment Deed dated 31.05.2008 was executed by

the 4th respondent-society in favour of Bangalore

Development Authority, relinquishing the roads, parks,

open spaces, and civil amenity sites in favour of Bangalore

Development Authority. Of course, a Rectification Deed

dated 18.12.2009 was also executed by the 4th respondent-

society, since some structures were found in some of the

areas that were earlier relinquished in favour of BDA, as a

consequence of which alternative vacant lands were handed

over. These actions and documents would clearly evidence

the fact that the purpose for which the lands were acquired

have been fulfilled and the lands in question cannot be

restored in favour of the petitioners.

10. Further, as noticed earlier, the petitioners had

earlier filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition

notifications, the award and notification issued under

Section 16(2) and the said writ petitions were dismissed.

This writ petition is filed to avail the benefits flowing from

the provisions contained in the Act, 2013, more particularly,

Section 24(2). In this regard, it has to be noticed that the

Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, in Indore

Development Authority (supra) clearly held that Section

24 of Act, 2013, cannot be used to revive dead and stale

claims and concluded cases. The provisions of Section 24

do not invalidate the judgments and orders of the court,

where the rights and claims are lost and negatived. There

is no revival of the barred claims by operation of law. Thus,

stale and dead claims cannot be permitted to be canvassed

on the pretext of enactment of Section 24.

11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the

considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ

petition. However, since it is found on verification of the

original records that the award amount has been deposited

in the State Treasury, the petitioners are free to seek

disbursal of the award amount, in accordance with law.

12. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

All the original records shall be handed over to the

learned AGA forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JT/DL