Karnataka High Court
Sri. Srinivasa Murthy V vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 July, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:24123-DB
WA No. 241 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 241 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY V
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O T. VENKATESH,
RESIDING AT NO.404,
"VANDANA LOTUS"
VENKATAPURA MAIN ROAD,
KORAMANGALA, 1ST BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 034.
Digitally
signed by
SUMA B N ...APPELLANT
Location: (BY SRI. NIRUPAN GOWDA H.N., ADVOCATE FOR
High Court SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN.,ADVOCATE)
of Karnataka
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:24123-DB
WA No. 241 of 2023
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 20.01.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W. P. No. 29631/2017 IN RESPECT OF LAND
BEARING Sy. No.26/1 OF JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR
HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 5 ACRES 03
GUNTAS INCLUDING 4 GUNTAS OF KHARAB BELONGING TO
THE APPELLANT AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY
THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR IN WP. No. 29631/2017 AND
ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:24123-DB
WA No. 241 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is against the order dated
20.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.29631/2017 (LA-BDA) by
which the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking quash
of the Preliminary Notification dated 26.11.1959 published
on 28.01.1960 under Section 4(1) and Final Notification
dated 28.09.1965 issued under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act,
1894' for short) to the extent of the property bearing
Sy.No.26/1 measuring 5 acres 3 guntas situated at
Jakkasandra Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru was dismissed by imposing an exemplary cost
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) payable by the
appellant to the High Court Legal Services Committee,
Bengaluru, within eight (8) weeks. It is further directed to
pay Rs.200/- per day in the event of any delay in
depositing the said amount.
NC: 2023:KHC:24123-DB
WA No. 241 of 2023
2. The above writ petition was filed by the appellant
contending that he continued to be in possession of the
said land even after passing of the award on 01.01.2009
resulting in lapsing of proceedings under Section 24(2) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and
under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority
Act,1976 and that no compensation has been paid to the
land owner under whom the appellant is claiming his right
over the property as a relinquishee and also on the ground
that the lands are de-notified under Section 48 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Notification dated 14.12.2009.
3. The said writ petition was resisted by the
respondents on the grounds of locus standi of the
appellant and delay in filing the writ petition without any
explanation and also on the earlier unsuccessful challenge
to the acquisition proceedings.
NC: 2023:KHC:24123-DB
WA No. 241 of 2023
4. The learned Single judge after hearing the parties
has taken note of the fact that in the enquiry held under
Section 5A of the Act, 1894, one Mr.R.Hanumaiah the
owner of the land had filed his objections and had received
the enhanced compensation in terms of representation
dated 12.03.1976. That the erstwhile CITB though by
resolutions dated 26.06.1968 and 19.04.1972 had
resolved to re-convey the land to the said Mr.R.Hanumaiah
which was not given effect to resulting in filing of writ
petition in W.P.No.15487/1987 by said Mr. R.Hanumaiah
which was dismissed on 03.04.1989. The writ appeal in
W.A.No.727/1989 filed by Mr.R.Hanumaiah against the
order of dismissal was allowed. The said matter was taken
by BDA before the Apex Court which was allowed, setting
aside the order passed in the writ appeal with a direction
to pay enhanced compensation to said Mr.R.Hanumaiah.
The said Mr.R.Hanumaiah had thereafter filed writ petition
in W.P.No.26826/2005 questioning the validity of Section
9 of Act, 17 of 1994 which had validated the CITB
allotments made during the period between 20.12.1973
NC: 2023:KHC:24123-DB
WA No. 241 of 2023
and 08.05.1986. That in the meanwhile, the State
Government by its Notification dated 14.10.2009, issued
under Section 48(1) of 1894 Act, had de-notified the
subject land. The above writ petition in
W.P.No.26826/2005 filed by Mr.R.Hanumaiah was
disposed of. The said de-notification was challenged by the
allottees of the sites in W.P.No.32919-922/2009. The
State Government had issued another Notification dated
13.11.2009 rescinding the earlier Notification
dated.14.10.2009. The Notification dated 13.11.2009 was
challenged by Mr.R.Hanumaiah in W.P.No.21186/2010
which was dismissed on 20.04.2012 and the writ petition
in W.P.No.32919-922/2009 was dismissed as infructuous.
Mr. R.Hanumaiah filed Writ Appeal Nos.3051-3067/2012
challenging the order dated 20.04.2012 passed in
W.P.No.21186/2010 which was allowed in part on
10.12.2014. The BDA carried the said matter in appeal
before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2576-
2593/2017 which were allowed by order dated 12.05.2017
by imposing cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
NC: 2023:KHC:24123-DB
WA No. 241 of 2023
only) on the legal representatives of deceased
Mr.R.Hanumaiah.
5. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the
fact that in the present belated challenge by the appellant
none of the aforesaid aspects were revealed in the
pleadings. Having take note of the aforesaid aspect of the
matter and declining to show indulgence the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by imposing the
cost of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as noted
above. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant is before
this Court.
6. Heard Sri. Nirupan Gowda H.N, learned counsel for
Sri.Siddharth Suman, learned counsel for the appellant.
7. The only contention being urged by the appellant
is with regard to the document dated 23.12.1966
produced at Annexure-R4 to the statement of objections
referred to at paragraph 4(e) of the impugned order
NC: 2023:KHC:24123-DB
WA No. 241 of 2023
wherein a statement is made by Mr.R.Hanumaiah
admitting the acquisition and receipt of the notice and also
stating that he is not the owner of the land. Referring to
the said document, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that learned Single Judge has not appreciated the
fact that the said document is in English language and that
Mr.R.Hanumaiah was not aware of the contents of the
document, therefore he submits that the matter warrants
interference. The said submission of the learned counsel
cannot be countenanced. Firstly, the appellant who at the
time of filing the writ petition who is stated to be aged
about 35 years was not even born when the said
document at Annexure-R4 dated 23.12.1966 was
executed. There is nothing on record to suggest that the
said Mr.R.Hanumaiah whose thumb impression is found on
the said document had disputed the same. Secondly,
learned Single Judge at paragraph 4 (f) of the impugned
order, has observed that if the appellant has any
grievance as to the fraud allegedly committed by some
other person with a name of Mr.R.Hanumaiah, his remedy
NC: 2023:KHC:24123-DB
WA No. 241 of 2023
lies elsewhere. Learned Single Judge having adverted to
each and every aspect of the matter has come to just
conclusion in dismissing the writ petition.
No grounds made out by the appellant warranting
interference in the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RU
