Sri.Narayanaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 7300 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                       NC: 2023:KHC:37786-DB
                                                          WA No. 56 of 2023



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                           PRESENT

                   THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                                              AND

                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

                             WRIT APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI.NARAYANASWAMY,
                   S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
                   AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
                   R/AT NO.140, GANIGARAPALYA,
                   THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
                   UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
                   BANGALORE-560 109.
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. SURESH K.,ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARADA         1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VANI B                   DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Location: HIGH           VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

                   2.    STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                         DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
                         VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
                         REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

                   3.    SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                         BANGALORE DISTRICT,
                         KANDAYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD,
                         BANGALORE-560 009.
                              -2-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC:37786-DB
                                          WA No. 56 of 2023



4.   SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
     BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
     3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK,
     VISWESHWARYA TOWER,
     DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560 001.

5.   EX-SERVICEMEN HOUSING
     CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
     NO.652/B, 2ND FLOOR, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD,
     2ND STAGE RAJAJINAGAR,
     BANGALORE-560 010.
     REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
         ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
     SRI. R KRISHNAMURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL
AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE DATED 05.05.2021 PASSED IN WP No-
50482/2018

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

                        JUDGMENT

This intra-Court appeal by the unsuccessful writ

petitioner seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge's

order dated 05.05.2021 whereby his W.P.No.50482/2018

(LA-RES) challenging the land acquisition proceedings has

been negatived.

NC: 2023:KHC:37786-DB WA No. 56 of 2023

2. Learned counsel appearing for the

appellant seeks to falter the impugned order mainly on the

grounds: lapse of acquisition under Section 24 of the Right

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;

fraud vitiating the acquisition, appellant still continuing in

possession and non-payment of compensation. The

counsel argues that all these aspects having not been

properly addressed in their due perspective, the impugned

order is liable to be voided.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline

indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a) The subject acquisition proceedings were

initiated vide Preliminary Notification issued

under Section 4(1) of the erstwhile Land

Acquisition Act, 1894; that was published on

06.10.1988; the Final Notification was

NC: 2023:KHC:37786-DB WA No. 56 of 2023

issued under Section 6(1) on 11.10.1989;

award came to be passed on 26.03.1990

and it was approved by the Government on

30.11.1990; the possession of this land

along with others was taken over on

23.01.1991; the Notification dated

26.02.1991 under Section 16(2) of the 1894

Act was gazetted on 07.03.1991.

(b) The Government original records perused by

the learned Single Judge demonstrated that

the subject lands were handed to the

respondent -House Building Co-operative

Society which is formed by the Ex-

Servicemen, who had served in the Defence

of the Country. This happened way back in

November and December 1992. The entries

in the property records were also mutated in

favour of the beneficiary Society. The Layout

plan was approved by the BDA vide

endorsement dated 07.11.1992. The Layout

NC: 2023:KHC:37786-DB WA No. 56 of 2023

having been formed, sites have been

allotted to the members of the Society and

sale deeds also have been registered. It is

relevant to mention that the Society in

consideration of BDA approval of Layout has

relinquished CA sites, parks etc., by a

registered instrument dated 23.02.2012.

The allottees have not been made parties

though they are proper & necessary parties

in the light of Apex Court decision in RAZIA

BEGUM vs SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM,

AIR 1958 SC 886.

(c) Learned Single Judge, after perusing the

original records produced by the learned

Additional Government Advocate, has

recorded a specific finding that the

appellant's father Mr. Munikrishnappa being

the owner of the land had executed a GPA

dated 07.04.1987 in favour of one

Mr.Lakshmaiah, who has acquiesced in the

NC: 2023:KHC:37786-DB WA No. 56 of 2023

acquisition proceedings. The said

Munikrishnappa is said to have kicked the

bucket on 30.08.1993. During his lifetime,

he did not raise even a little finger as to the

regularity of acquisition proceedings.

Therefore, the learned Single Judge has

rightly invoked the doctrines of estoppel,

abandonment & waiver for denying

interference in the challenge to the

acquisition.

(d) As already observed above, the acquisition

proceedings were commenced vide

Preliminary Notification dated 23.09.1988;

that was followed by Final Notification was

issued on 11.10.1989; thereafter award

came to be passed on 26.03.1990;

possession was taken over by the

Government on 23.01.1991 and it was

handed over to the Housing Society in

November/December 1992. The Society

NC: 2023:KHC:37786-DB WA No. 56 of 2023

had deposited huge amount during those

days for getting the bulk allotment of land;

the Layout was formed and sites were

registered in favour of the members. The

writ petition was filed only in the second half

of the year 2018 with no explanation

whatsoever for the long delay brooked in the

matter. The Apex Court in SUKH DUTT

RATRA AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF

HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS,

(2022) 7 SCC 508 has said that belated

challenge to the acquisition of land should

not be favoured, more particularly when

third party interest by way of allotment of

site, etc. has been created. It hardly needs

to be reiterated that law does not come to

the aid of sleepy and tardy.

(e) The submission as to fraud and duplicity as

affecting the regularity of acquisition

proceedings is more often taken than

NC: 2023:KHC:37786-DB WA No. 56 of 2023

substantiated. "Fraud vitiates everything"

cannot be chanted like mantra. All that

needs to be pleaded and proved, are lacking

in the pleadings of the appellant, to say the

least. Since frauds vitiates everything, even

laches & limitation take the back seat, is

true. However, there is absolutely no scope

for the invocation of this proposition in the

absence of the pleadings as to material

particulars of fraud, much less the

evidentiary material on record. When a

party acquiesces in the proceedings of

acquisition and the same has been acted

upon by all the concerned, he cannot be

permitted to turn around and complain

against acquisition, that too years having

lapsed and third party interest having been

created.

(f) There is absolutely no merit in the argument

of counsel for the appellant for invoking the

NC: 2023:KHC:37786-DB WA No. 56 of 2023

doctrine of lapse as enacted in Section 24 of

the 2013 Act, in the light of INDORE

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs

MANOHARLAL AND OTHERS, (2020) 8

SCC 129, in view of the fact that the

acquisition proceedings having culminated

into an award, possession of the subject

land having been taken by the Government

decades ago has been handed over to the

Society soon thereafter, as rightly observed

by the learned Single Judge. We do not

much refer to the collateral proceedings as

to the acquisition of other lands notified

since challenge thereto failed even at the

level of Apex Court in SLP No.8792/2020

and SLP (DIARY) No.14308/2020. However,

his contention that his client has not

received the award compensation is a

matter which he has to agitate in an

appropriate proceeding and in that

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:37786-DB WA No. 56 of 2023

connection, such contentions need to be and

accordingly, are kept open.

In the above circumstances, this appeal being

devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed,

costs having been made easy.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Snb,