Karnataka High Court
Muniyamma vs State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2023
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.9007 OF 2012(LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. MUNIYAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED
2. M RAJU
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
3. RADHA
W/O LATE NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
SL NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.19,
SRINIVAGILU A K COLONY, 1ST CROSS,
VIVEKNAGAR POST, BANGALORE-47.
4. BOLAMMA,
W/O LATE MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED
5. CHANDRAPPA,
S/O LATE MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
6. SHOBA
D/O LATE MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
2
7. SUSHEELA
D/O LATE MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
SL NO.4 TO 7 ARE R/O SRINIVAGILU,
A K COLONY, VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 047.
8. SUBBANNA
S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA @ KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
9. MUNISWAMY,
S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA @ KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
10. MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA @ KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
SL NO.8 TO 10 ARE R/O SRINIVAGILU,
A K COLONY, VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 047.
11. ERAMMA,
W/O LATE KAVERAPPA @ RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
12. MUNIYAPPA,
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA @ RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
13. THAYAMMA
D/O LATE KAVERAPPA @ RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
14. RATHNAMMA,
D/O LATE KAVERAPPA @ RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
3
15. VENKATARAJU,
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA @ RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
16. GOPALA,
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA @ RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
17. NAGARATHNA,
D/O LATE KAVERAPPA @ RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
18. VENKATESH,
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA @ RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
19. NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA @ RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
20. SUSHEELA
W/O SOMESH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
21. MANJULA,
W/O NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
SL NO.11 TO 21 ARE
RESIDENTS OF SRINIVAGILU,
NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE,
VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 047.
22. RAMESH,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.18, SRINIVAGILU,
A K COLONY, 1ST CROSS,
VIVEKNAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 047.
4
23. MUNIAKKAYYAMMA,
W/O LATE MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
24. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
S/O LATE MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
SL NO.23 & 24 ARE R/AT NO.17,
SRINIVAGILU,A K COLONY, 1ST CROSS,
VIVEKNAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 047.
25. GULLAMMA,,
W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
26. JAGADISH,
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
SL NO.25 & 26 ARE RESIDING AT NO.16,
SRINIVAGILU, A K COLONY, 1ST CROSS,
VIVEKNAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 047.
LEGAL HEIRS/SUCCESSORS OF LAND IN
SY.NO.3 & 8 OF SRINIVAGILU AMANIKERE VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
27. M RAJU
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
28. CHANDRAPPA M ,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
29. RAMASWAMY M,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
30. RENUKA M,
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
5
31. SRIDHAR M,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
SL NO.27 TO 31 ARE R/AT NO.56,
SRINIVAGILU,A K COLONY,
NEAR KAVERAMMA TEMPLE,
VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 047.
32. A RAKAPPA,
S/O LATE ABBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
33. R GOPINATH,
S/O RAKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
34. R ASHWATHA
S/O RAKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
35. R RAJASHEKAR
S/O RAKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
36. R MANJUNATH
S/O RAKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
SL NO.32 TO 36 ARE R/AT NO.45,
SRINIVAGILU, A K COLONY,
NEAR KAVERAMMA TEMPLE,
VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 047.
37. Y KANTHAPPA
S/O LATE YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
38. Y RAMESH,
S/O LATE YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
6
SL NO.37 & 38 ARE R/AT NO.45,
SRINIVAGILU, A K COLONY,
NEAR KAVERAMMA TEMPLE,
VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 047.
39. CHKKATHAYAMMA,
W/O LATE PULLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CALIMED.
40. S P YALLAPPA
S/O LATE PULLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
41. VENKATAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
42. NARAYANAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
43. AKKAYAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
SL NO.39 TO 43 ARE R/AT NO.51,
SRINIVAGILU, A K COLONY,
NEAR KAVERAMMA TEMPLE,
VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 047.
44. A CHINNAPPA,
S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT NO.45, SRINIVAGILU, A K COLONY,
NEAR KAVERAMMA TEMPLE,
VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 047.
AMENDMENT AS PER V.C.O DATED 09.11.2018
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
7
44(A) SMT.GOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE A CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
44(B) SMT. C NALINI,
D/O LATE A CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
44(C) SMT.HARINI,
D/O LATE A CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
44(D) SRI.C.SRINIVASAN,
S/O LATE A CHINNAPPA,
AMENDMENT AS PER V.C.O DATED 01.02.2021
SINCE DECEASED B HIS LRS.
44(D)(A) SMT.ELIZABETH REBECCA KALYANI WILLIAMS,
W/O LATE SRINIVASAN,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
44(D)(B) MESHACH MANISH CHINNAPPA,
S/O LATE SRINIVASAN,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS(MINOR)
44(D)(C) NETANYA GRACE CHINNAPPA,
D/O LATE SRINIVASAN,
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS(MINOR),
44(D)(A) TO 44(D)(C) ARE
R/AT NO.216/60,S.F.3, 1ST BLOCK,
1ST STAGE, HBR LAYOUT,
KALYANAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
44(D)(B) AND 44(D)(C) ARE MINORS,
REP BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER,
APPLICANT NO.1 HERIEN ABOVE 44(D)(A).
44(E) SMT. C NIRMALA,
D/O A CHINNAPPA,
8
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
44(F) SMT.C.HEMALATHA,
D/O LATE A CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
44(G) SRI.C.KRISHNA PRASAD,
S/O LATE A CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
44(A) TO 44(G) ARE R/AT NO.52/1,
SRINIVAGILU, NEAR KAVERAMMA TEMPLE,
VIVEKNAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 047.
45. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
46. SRINIVASA,
S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
47. VIJAY
S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
48. GANGARAM,
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
49. RAJESH
S/O GANGARAM,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
50. CHINNAPPA
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
51. VENKATESH
S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
9
52. SHASHIKUMAR
S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT SRINIVAGILU,
NEAR KAVERAMMA TEMPLE,
VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 047.
53. S P RAJGOPAL
S/O LATE PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
54. R ANURADHA
D/O RAJGOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
55. R PRABHU
S/O RAJGOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
56. PRATHAP R
S/O RAJGOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
57. S P VENKATESH BABU
S/O LATE PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
58. V ANUSUYA
D/O S P VENKATESH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
59. GAJENDRA V
S/O S P VENKATESH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
60. ASHWINI V
D/O S P VENKATESH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
LEGAL HEIRS/SUCESSORS OF LAND IN
SY.NO.1 & 7 OF SRINIVAGILU,
10
AMANIKERE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.M K SHIVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR P4 TO P7;
SRI.D L JAGADEESH, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI.B R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AND
SRI.K S RAMU, ADVOCATE FOR P27 TO P46 &
P48 TO 60;
WP AGAINST PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 & 8 TO 26 IS
DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN V.C.O DATED 17.7.13;
WP IS ABATED AS AGAINST P47 V.C.O DATED
19.6.14)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
2. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT. (LAQ-II)
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
STATE OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-1.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
STATE OF KARNTAKA,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-1.
4. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIE,
SALI ASKER ROAD, BANGALORE.
5. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE
11
6. THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE
7. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
PODIUM BLOCK, 3RD FLOOR,
VISVESWARAYA TOWERS,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE
8. THE SECRETARY
SHANTHINAGAR HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE LTD.,
# 120, LONG FORD ROAD, NANJAPPA CIRCLE,
SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 025.
9. MR. LAKSHMAN
PRESIDENTSHANTHINAGAR HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE LTD,
# 120, LONG FORD ROAD,
NANJAPPA CIRCLE, SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-5600251
10. THE SECRETARY
SHANTHINAGAR HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE LTD,
NO. 42/13, 3RD FLOOR, 8TH "E" MAIN,
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 011.
11. M/S LORVEN PROJECTS LTD.,
NO.1291, ROAD, NO. 65,
JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD
AND ALSO AT M/S LORVEN PROJECTS LTD.,
NO.92, 4TH MAIN, A G S COLONY,
ANANDANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 & R7;
SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN M, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6;
SRI.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI.KIRAN J, ADVOCATE FOR R10;
R8 & R9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
12
NOTICE TO R11 IS H/S V.C.O DATED 20.02.2013)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION MADE IN RD 73 AQB 83,
DT.30.6.1983, VIDE ANN-H PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA
GAZETTE DT.7.7.1983 UNDER WHICH THE LANDS IN
DISPUTE i.e., LNAD IN SY.NO.1, 3, 7 & 8 OF SRINIVAGILU
AMANIKERE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TQ.
IS ACQIRED IS NOT SURVIVE IN VIEW OF NON
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING SCHEME OVER A PERIOD
OF 28 YEARS, SINCE EITHER THE GOVT. OR THE BDA HAVE
TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE LANDS IN QUESTION.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The challenge in this petition is to the land acquisition
proceedings that commenced with the issuance of Preliminary
Notification dated 12.01.1983 and culminated into the award
dated 12.09.1986. This challenge is structured principally
on the grounds that: The acquisition is not in public interest.
Housing Societies are fictitious entities vide GVK Rao Report.
There is no approval for the Housing Scheme in question.
Neither possession is taken nor compensation is paid.
Petitioners who belong to Scheduled Caste are illiterates with
no exposure to the outer world and therefore delay & laches,
if any, be condoned, regard being also had to merits of the
main matter.
Note: Petitioner nos. 1 to 3 & 8 to 26 have withdrawn the
challenge and therefore those who remain on record are only
petitioner nos. 4 to 7 & 27 to 60.
2. After service of notice, the State and its officials
have entered appearance through the learned AGA;
respondent-BDA and its officials are represented by their
Panel Counsel; the respondent-Housing Societies are
represented by their Panel Advocates and the private
respondents barring one have engaged their private counsel.
The Housing Societies have filed their Statement of
Objections. All they oppose the petition making submission
in justification of the acquisition proceedings. They contend
that: Petition is bad because of delay & laches. There was
approval of scheme by the Government and contra contention
is legally untenable. Acquisition is accomplished by due
process of law. Compensation and additional amounts are
paid. Possession has been taken. Land is developed, layout
is formed and sites have been allotted to members. Petition
is bad for non-arraignment of allottees as parties. Similar
challenge by others is already rejected upto the level of Apex
Court after repelling similar contentions. Petition is liable to
be rejected on the ground of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi
with exemplary costs.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines
indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
A. As to delay & laches:
(i) The subject acquisition commenced with the
Preliminary Notification dated 12.01.1983, followed by the
Final Notification dated 30.06.1983. The award was passed
on 27.08.1986 and the Government approved the same on
22.09.1986. Possession was taken by the Government on
21.10.1988 and accordingly the Notification evenly dated was
issued u/s.16(2) of the L.A. Act, 1984 on 21.10.1988. The
lands were handed to the beneficiary on 11.05.1989. The
petition has been filed only on 20.03.2012. Thus there is a
delay of more than a quarter century. The original petition
that was filed on 20.03.2012 did not offer any explanation for
the enormous delay brooked in approaching the writ court.
However, petition came to be amended in terms of application
in I.A.No.4/2018 that was allowed vide order dated
23.09.2019.
(ii) By way amendment of pleadings what is now
stated as explanation for this delay is: Petitioners are illiterate
& gullible persons belonging to scheduled caste; till date they
continue in possession; there was some litigation between the
Housing Societies inter se, all these years; when their
possession was sought to be disturbed, this petition which is
meritorious has been filed; if delay is not condoned they
would be put to enormous injustice. All this even if taken at
the face value, hardly constitutes a sufficient explanation for
the enormous delay brooked in the matter. Added, the same
cannot be taken at the face value for more than one reason:
It is not the case of petitioners that they were not aware of
these proceedings. In fact, their application for impleadment
in W.P.No.6951/2005 that was instituted by the respondent-
Housing Society, came to be rejected way back on
19.03.2006 and no liberty to institute this petition having
been reserved. That writ petition came to be disposed off by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 19.04.2006, whereas the
petition at hands is filed only in March 2012. There is a
finding recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench about the taking of
possession from the land owners and Sec.16(2) Notification
has been issued to this effect on 21.10.1988. Therefore the
version of the petitioners is militantly insufficient to condone
the delay & laches, more particularly when third party interest
is created.
Note: The above view of the Court is fully supported by
the decision of the Apex Court in INDOR DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY vs MANOHARLAL, (2020) 8 SCC 129,
PARAGRAPHS 243 & 244.
B. As to the conduct of the Petitioners:
(i) There is absolutely no material to show that the
Petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste or that they are not
educated. Petitioners/their predecessors in title admittedly
had sought for their impleadment and that has been rejected
long ago, as already mentioned above. The predecessors in
title have admittedly fought several cases before various
authorities and documents are produced by the petitioners to
that effect. Therefore it cannot be argued that they do not
have exposure to the outer world. Petitioners vehemently
contended through their counsel that they have not parted
with the possession whereas the findings recorded by the Co-
ordinate Bench in W.P.No.6951/2005 disposed off on
19.04.2006, W.A.No.119/2007 c/w W.P.No.10726/2007
disposed off on 23.12.2008 and Review Petition No.52/2009
disposed off on 24.04.2009 demonstrate the contrary. As
already mentioned above, Sec.16(2) Notification operates as
a conclusive proof of delivery of possession, in the absence of
any contra material. In fact possession of the land has been
taken and there are approval of Layout Plans, Modified Layout
Plans, Work Orders and Modified Work Orders towards which
the Housing Society has paid Rs.1,47,11,450/- by Canara
Bank cheques. This is in addition to Rs.1,14,81,730/- paid
during the period between November 1986 & May 1988. The
Housing Society has also executed and registered
Relinquishment Deed & Rectified Relinquishment Deed. The
land has been developed by forming a layout and sites have
been allotted too. That being the position, the version of the
petitioners as to they still being in the possession, is a blatant
lie, to say the least.
(ii) Petitioners have also lied to the writ court in
telling that no compensation has been paid in respect of
acquired lands. The truth some how trickles out, say the
sages. At para 50 of their original petition they have
admitted some of their predecessors in title having received
the compensation. Clandestinely they have not disclosed the
names and particulars of such of the predecessors who have
received it and the quantum of amount and date of receipt.
They have taken up evasive pleadings which is nothing but a
sharp practice. In fact, the respondent-Housing Society is
more than justified in drawing attention of the court to the
settlement agreement dated 13.09.1988 which gives full
particulars of the additional amounts of money received by
the predecessors in title. There is a finding in the judgment of
the Co-ordinate Bench as well in this regard. Therefore no
words should be minced in stating that the petitioners have
approached the court with soiled hands and this should not
go with impunity.
(iii) Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitoners
relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in SATLUJ JAL
VIDUT NIGAM vs RAJKUMAR RAJINDER SINGH, (2019) 14
SCC 449, in support of his contention that some third party
middlemen engaged by the Housing Society has influenced
the initiation of acquisition proceedings and therefore the
same being fraud on the power, the said proceedings need to
be voided. However, no factual foundation is laid supported
by evidentiary material for the invocation of the arguable
ration emanating from the said decision. On the contrary, this
decision is an authority for the proposition that where the
parties approach the Court with soiled hands, the Writ Court
would deny relief. Much need not be discussed in this regard.
C. As to absence of approval of Housing Scheme:
(i) Firstly, when there is enormous delay & laches, it is
not desirable to examine the matter on merits, and that the
contention as to absence of approval to the Housing Scheme,
touches the merits, cannot be disputed. The Petitioners are
not justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in BANGALORE CITY CO-OP HOUSING LTD., vs THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2012) 3 SCC 727, having acquiesced
in the acquisition by the acceptance of payment of
compensation and additional compensation. Even otherwise,
this Court need not undertake the examination of this
contention, in a highly belated challenge to the acquisition of
the kind.
(ii) Several developments have taken place after the
acquisition; possession has been handed to the Housing
Society on 11.05.1989; the Society obtained approval to the
Layout Plans and other approvals from various authorities by
paying a sum of Rs.14711450/- plus Rs.11481730/- till 2012;
the layout has been formed and the contractor himself has
been paid more than Rs. 4 Crore. Sites having been formed,
the members have been allotted also. Petition has been
filed, as already mentioned above, only in March, 2012, that
too without making the allottees the parties. Therefore at this
length of time and in the absence of necessary parties, the
contention of the kind cannot be addressed.
(iii) In more or less a similar contention was taken up
by other litigants in respect of very same acquisition in
Housing Society's W.P.No.6951/2005 wherein challenge was
laid to the Government Enquiry as to the misfeasance &
malfeasance of the Management. The Coordinate Bench did
not much entertain the same, although a limited enquiry at
the hands of the Government was not interdicted. A finding
as to the vesting of the land in the State, delivery of
judgment dated 19.04.2006 rendered by the Co-ordinate
Bench which held that dropping of acquisition proceedings
was not possible. It is relevant to mention that a Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1199/2007 c/w W.P.No.
10726/2007 has also recorded similar findings vide judgment
dated 23.12.2008. A further challenge before the Apex Court
in SLP Nos.888-889/2009 came to be withdrawn. Thereafter,
the RP No.52/2009 filed by the other Housing Society was
negatived by the Division Bench vide order dated 24.04.2009.
The observations made in all these cases warrant repulsion of
Petitioners' contention.
(iv) The predecessors in title in the Settlement
Agreements dated 23.04.1988 & 13.08.1988 having accepted
additional compensation amount have specifically given up
their right to lay a challenge to the acquisition in question.
Petitioners claim under those persons and therefore they too
have no right to lay a challenge on any ground and more
particularly on the ground of absence of Government approval
to the Housing Scheme. Notably, these Settlement
Agreements are not in dispute. In fact, the Society has made
the payment by Bank cheques and particulars thereof do
avail.
D. As to non-impleadment of necessary parties:
Learned counsel appearing for the contesting Housing
Society is more than justified in contending that the layout
having been formed, the sites have been allotted to members
of the Society and thus third party interest has been created.
This Court also agrees that in the absence of such third
parties to whom allotments are made, the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It
hardly needs to be stated should the acquisition be voided, all
such allottees would be adversely affected and therefore in
their absence as parties eo nomine no relief can be granted in
favour of the Petitioners.
E. As to the Housing Society being a fictitious entity:
(i) Petitioners contended that the Respondent-Housing
Society is a fictitious entity as is reflected in the Report of the
GVK Rao Committee. However, this is bit difficult to
countenance inasmuch as, this Report cannot be taken as the
gospel truth, regard being had to enormous numerical
strength of such housing societies cursorily examined by the
Committee within the shortest period of time. Unless, the
recommendation of the Committee is accepted by the
Government and an effective order is made, nothing turns out
from mere recommendation. Even otherwise, a contention of
the kind cannot be examined without having likely aggrieved
persons as the opponents to the proceedings.
(ii) There was some dispute between the two Housing
Societies and that some investigation of the kind was
undertaken by the Co-operative Department. However, a
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1199/2007 c/w
Writ Petition No.10726/2007 vide judgment dated 23.12.2008
has largely looked into this aspect of the matter and arrived
at a conclusion favourable to the contesting Housing Society
by interdicting the enquiry. In fact, SLP Nos.888-889 of 2009
filed against the said judgment by another Society having the
same nomenclature came to be disposed off as having been
withdrawn. Thereafter the Review Petition No.52/2009 filed
by the said Society against the respondent-Society herein
came to be rejected by the Division Bench on 24.042009.
This apart, the civil dispute between the two Housing
Societies also came to be amicably settled, in the Regular
First Appeal as submitted by learned Sr. Advocate appearing
for the Housing Society. That being the position, the
argument of 'fictitious Society' or the 'bogus Society' cannot
be sustained.
In the above circumstances, petition being devoid of
merits, is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-
payable by each of the Petitioners to the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority within eight weeks and if delay is
brooked, each of them shall pay Rs.100/- per day as
additional amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
