Karnataka High Court
The Housing Commissioner vs Smt. Analabai W/O Basalingappa ... on 26 May, 2023
Bench: R.Devdas, Rajesh Rai
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI.K
WRIT APPEAL NO.100266 OF 2021 (LA-KHB)
BETWEEN
THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
3RD FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BAGALKOT (DIVISION)
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. V. SABARAD, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. H.R. GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. ANALABAI
W/O BASALINGAPPA BALLARI
AGE 75 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GANJAL TQ,
HUNAGUND
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
-2-
2. BHADRAPPA
S/O CHANNABASAPPA ANGADI
AGE 76 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ-587102
BAGALKOT DISTRICT
3. NINGAWWA
W/O BASAPPA ANGADI
AGE 96 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101
R3 IS DEAD LEAVING BEHIND
R4 IS THE ONLY LIVING
LEGAL HEIR OF R3,
R4 IS ON RECORD
4. MADIWALAPPA @ VEERAPPA
S/O BASAPPA ANGADI
AGE 69 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI,
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DOSTROCT-587101.
5. SMT. SHANTAWWA
W/O SANGAPPA ANGADI
AGE 74 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
6. SHARANAPPA
S/O SANGAPPA ANGADI
-3-
AGE 59 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
7. SHIVAWWA
W/O SHRISHAIL SHIVARUDRAPPANAVAR
AGE 57 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ANAWAL
BADAMI-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587201.
8. MALLAPPA
S/O SANGAPPA ANGADI
AGE 49 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
9. MAHANTESH
S/O SANGAPPA ANGADI
AGE 44 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
10. SHIVANAND
S/O SANGAPPA ANGADI
AGE 34 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
-4-
11. BHIMAPPA
S/O YAMANAPPA HANAMAR
AGE 59 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
12. YALLAPPA
S/O YAMANAPPA HANAMAR
AGE 57 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
13. MANAPPA
S/O YAMANAPPA HANAMAR
AGE 55 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
14. YANKANNA
S/O YAMANAPPA HANAMAR
AGE 53 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
15. SMT. YALAWWA
W/O MADIWALAPPA MADIWALAR @AGASAR
AGE 60 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
-5-
16. BASAVARAJ
S/O MADIWALAPPA MADIWALAR @AGASAR
AGE 24 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
17. NAGAPPA
S/O BASAVANTAPPA ANGADI
AGE 68 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
18. MADIWALAPPA
S/O BASAVANTAPPA ANGADI
AGE 59 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
19. BASALINGAPPA
S/O BASAVANTAPPA ANGADI
AGE 68 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
20. GURUSIDDAPPA
S/O HALEBASAPPA ANGADI
AGE 86 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GADDANAKERI
BAGALKOT-TQ
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
-6-
21. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R/, R11, R17
SRI. B.B. BALLARI, ADVOCATE, SRI. RAVI.N
CHIKKARADDER, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R2,
R4-R12, R14, R17 TO R20
R3 DECEASED
R4 IS TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED-R3
R13, R15 AND R16 ARE SERVED
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R21)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS
HON'BLE COURT TO CALL FOR RECORDS, IN
W.P.NO.64471-64477/2012 (LA-KHB) AND TO SET ASIDE,
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.07.2017, PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.64471 TO 64477
(LA-KHB) AND TO RESOTRED THE WRIT PETITIONS, TO
ITS ORIGINAL FILE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 16.03.2023 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY R.DEVDAS J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-7-
JUDGMENT
The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board
has filed this writ appeal aggrieved of the impugned
order dated 28.07.2017, wherein the learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the
Preliminary Notification dated 26.03.2010 issued
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act as well
as the Final Notification dated 07.02.2012 under
Section 6(1) of the Act, insofar as the petitioner's
lands are concerned.
2. There is a delay of 1500 days in filing the
appeal. The reasons furnished by the Commissioner
for condonation of delay is that a review petition was
filed before the learned Single Judge in
R.P.No.100045/2020 and the same was disposed of
on 20.09.2021. The writ petitions were disposed of on
28.07.2017 and certified copy was received by the
appellant on 07.08.2017. During the course of these
proceedings, orders have been passed that the
interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay
shall be considered along with the main matter.
3. Insofar as the merit of the matter is
concerned, it is the contention of the appellant that
the writ petitions were not disposed of on merits. The
writ petitioners had sought for a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the acquisition notification on the
basis of the grounds raised in the writ petitions.
Admittedly, the learned Single Judge considered the
resolution dated 08.12.2016 said to have been passed
by the appellant-Board resolving to write to the
Government to drop the acquisition proceedings in
respect of lands of those owners who do not agree for
sharing developed land at a certain percentage in view
of the fact that the Board was facing financial
constraints. A submission is said to have been made
by the learned Counsel appearing for the Karnataka
Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'KHB', for
short) that the writ petitioners have not agreed or
come forward to accept a portion of the developed
land, in terms of the resolution passed by the Board.
It was also recorded by the learned Single Judge that
the Board has no objection in allowing the writ
petitions and proceeding to quash the acquisition
notification insofar as the lands pertaining to the writ
petitioners are concerned.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Basavaraj V
Sabarad, appearing on behalf of the appellant-KHB
submits that an award was passed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer on 20.11.2015 pursuant to a
notification dated 17.11.2015 published in the official
gazette, extending the time for passing the awards
under Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013. That being the position,
the learned Counsel who appeared for the KHB before
the learned Single Judge could not have conceded that
the writ petitions may be allowed. In that regard,
several decisions, including UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS VS. MOHAN LAL LIKUMAL PUNJABI AND
OTHERS (2004) 3 SCC 628 is cited by the learned
Senior Counsel in support of his contention that a
wrong concession made by a counsel cannot bind the
party. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submits
that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands
of the learned Single Judge.
5. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel
is sought to be countered by the learned Counsel for
the contesting private respondents, more particularly,
on the ground that delay of 1500 days in filing the
appeal is not explained. It is also submitted that the
appellant-KHB cannot deny the fact that such a
resolution was indeed passed by the Board resolving
to recommend to the Government to de-notify such
lands of owners who do not come forward to accept a
portion of the developed land in lieu of compensation.
6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant-KHB, the learned Counsel Sri.K.L.Patil
for the contesting private respondents and the learned
HCGP, this Court is of the considered opinion that
since the writ petitions were disposed of recording the
concession made by the learned Counsel who
appeared on behalf of the KHB, the matter requires
reconsideration. The writ petitioners had raised
several grounds in the writ petitions and if the KHB
seeks a decision on the merits of the matter, then the
writ petitions is to be considered on merits. Needless
to observe that the resolution dated 08.12.2016 which
is sought to be relied upon by the writ petitioners may
also be considered while disposing of the writ petitions
on merits.
7. However, insofar as the delay is concerned,
we have to notice that the delay of 1500 days is not
properly explained. Though the certified copy of the
impugned order dated 28.07.2017 was received by
KHB on 07.08.2017, the review petition is said to have
been filed in the year 2020. Complete details as to
when the review petition was filed, is also not
forthcoming. In that view of the matter, we are of
the considered opinion that the writ appeal may have
to be allowed by imposing exemplary costs. The
appellant-KHB is hereby directed to pay costs of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to each of
the writ petitioners on or before the writ petitions are
listed before the learned Single Judge on remand or
within such time that would be stipulated by the
learned Single Judge.
8. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed.
The impugned order dated 28.07.2017 is set aside
while remanding the matter back to the learned Single
Judge for reconsideration on merits.
Ordered accordingly.
Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
