Karnataka High Court
Shri Surendra K M vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
WP No. 11182 of 2021
C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 11182 OF 2021 (LA-KIADB)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 23727 OF 2021
IN W.P.NO.11182/2021:
BETWEEN:
SRI SURENDRA K.M.,
S/O LATE SRI MULBAGILAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O KARINAYAKANAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
CHANDRASHEKAR AND INDUSTRIES,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE CHAIRMAN,
DHARWAD BENCH
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING
4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
WP No. 11182 of 2021
C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. DEER FIELD LOGISTICS,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY,
INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.136, 2ND FLOOR, 10TH 'A' MAIN,
JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. ASHWIN GOVINDAN.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI NIKHILESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1;
SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER THE ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND PROCEEDS OF THE CASE, QUASH THE IMPUGNED
NOTIFICATION DATED 13.03.2012 ANNEXURE-H AND J AND THE
IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATIONS DATED 04.12.2012 ANNEXURE-K,
DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-H, J AND K ARE
DEEMED TO HAVE LAPSED, INSOFAR AS THEY RELATE TO 3 ACRES
OF LAND IN SY.NO.16 (MOREFULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE
HEREUNDER) AS PER SECTION 24(2) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RE-SETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.23727/2021:
BETWEEN:
1 . CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O DODDA THIMMAIAH,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 130.
2 . MUNIRAJU Y.,
S/O LT YELLANA BHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
WP No. 11182 of 2021
C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
3 . VENKATESHAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNITHIMMANNA BHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
4 . MUNIYAMMA,
W/O DODDATHIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
5 . VENKATESHAPPA,
S/O RAMAIAH AND LATE MUNIYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
6 . VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
D/O LT VENKATAMMA AND YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
7 . SAKAMMA,
S/O CHIKKA NARAYANA BHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
...PETITIONERS
[BY SRI NARESH KUMAR P.C., ADVOCATE (PH)]
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
WP No. 11182 of 2021
C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING
4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. DEER FIELD LOGISTICS,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY,
INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.136, 2ND FLOOR, 10TH 'A' MAIN,
JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. ASHWIN GOVINDAN.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI NIKHILESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER THE ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 13.03.2012 ANNEXURE-B AND
THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 04.12.2012 ANNEXURE-A ISSUED
BY THE R2 AND R3 AND ETC.,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
WP No. 11182 of 2021
C/W WP No. 23727 of 2021
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 14.12.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed seeking for following reliefs:
IN W.P.No.11182/2021:
"1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
Writ, Order of Direction, quashing the impugned
Notification dated 13.03.2012 (Annexure-H),
bearing No.CI100SPQ2012, Bangalore impugned
Notification dated 13.03.2012 (Annexure-J),
bearing No.CI100SPQ2012, Bangalore, and the
impugned Final Notification dated 04.12.2012
(Annexure-K), bearing No.CI568SPQ2012;
2. Issue of Writ of Mandamus, or any other
appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring
that the Notifications Annexures-H, J and K are
deemed to have lapsed, insofar as they relate to 3
acres of land in Sy.No.16 (more fully described in
the Schedule hereunder), as per Section 24(2) of
the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-
settlement Act, 2013 etc.
IN W.P.No.23727/2021:
"1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate Writ, Order of Direction, quashing
the impugned Notification dated 13.03.2012
bearing No.C1100SPQ12 (Annexure-B) and the
Final Notification dated 04.12.2012 bearing
No.CI 568 SPQ qw (Annexure-A) issued by the
respondent nos.2 & 3 etc.
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
2. Sri G.A. Srikante Gowda, learned counsel for
petitioner submitted that petitioner's father Mulbaglappa
purchased 03 Acres of land in Sy.no.16 of Jakkasandra Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk from Jodidar - Bapu Singh under
registered sale deed dated 27.09.1956 and was in possession
and enjoyment since then. On 28.05.2013, this Court in
W.P.no.19183/2013 directed Tahsildar to consider
representation for continuation of name in revenue entries, in
accordance with law. After death of petitioner's father in year
2019, name of petitioner was mutated as per MR.no.H4/2019-
2020, and petitioner was growing ragi, groundnuts, eucalyptus
etc. and his family was dependent entirely on income from said
land.
3. But, in June 2021, there were attempts by officials
of respondents to dispossess petitioner. On enquiry, petitioner
was informed that Notifications dated 13.03.2012 were issued
under Sections 3 (1) and 1 (3) of KIDB Act, at Annexures-H
and J; and Final Notification dated 04.12.2012 issued under
Section 28 (4) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act,
1966 ('KIAD Act' for short) at Annexure-K to acquire
petitioner's land for industrial purposes.
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
4. It was submitted, though petitioner was
owner/occupier in actual possession and revenue entries were
standing in his name, impugned notifications for acquisition
were issued without issuing notice to petitioner under Sections
28 (1), 28 (3) or under 28 (6) of KIAD Act providing
opportunity of being heard. As such, notifications were illegal
and liable to be quashed.
5. It was submitted, though respondents claim to have
issued Final Notification at Annexure-K on 04.12.2012, till date
no award was passed by respondent no.3 or actual physical
possession taken. Therefore, failure to pass award and take
possession within reasonable period, acquisition proceedings
insofar as petitioner's land was liable to held as lapsed or
abandoned, applying principles under Section 24 (2) of Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('RFCTLARR Act'
for short).
6. It was submitted, Full Bench of this Court in State
Government v. M.L. Manjunatha Shetty, reported in AIR
1972 KAR 263, had held whether there was transfer of
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
property or interest under a document had to be gathered from
expressions used in document and expression 'hereby
relinquished' would indicate that right /interest in land was
being conveyed under said document. Relying on decision in
Mrs.Mathekar Taherunissa by LRs and Anr. v. State of
Karnataka and Ors., in W.P.no.15027/2007, disposed of
on 23.08.2013, rendered referring to decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in M/s. Ahuja Industries Limited v. State of
Karnataka and Ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 3519 and in
HMT Limited v. Mudappa and Ors., reported in 2007 (3)
KCCR 1985, it was held, only after issuing Preliminary
Notification, State Government would evince interest to acquire
land notified and that issuance of notice to land owner or
occupier and personal hearing in course of acquisition
proceedings were mandatory.
7. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana and Ors.,
reported in 2012 (1) SCC 792, referring to its earlier decision
in Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal
Agarwal and Ors., reported in 2011 (5) SCC 394 reiterated
principles regarding taking of possession. It was held, mere
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
record by revenue authorities showing delivery of possession to
beneficiary would not be sufficient. It was submitted acquisition
proceedings without due compliance with Section 5A (2) of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act' for short) providing
opportunity of personal hearing and participation would be
unsustainable. It was further held, even 'person in occupation'
would be a person interested in land and entitled for notice,
opportunity of personal hearing etc. It was also submitted,
Apex Court had taken note of casual approach of statutory
authorities while acquiring agricultural lands. It observed,
before acquiring private land, State or its agencies should as
far as possible use land belonging to State and even in case,
acquisition of land was necessary, same ought to be with strict
compliance of statutory provisions and principles of natural
justice.
8. It was submitted, as per statement of objections,
allotment of land in favour of respondent no.4 herein was even
prior to alleged date of taking possession of land and its
handing over to Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
('Board' for short). Therefore, respondent no.4 had no locus
standi to oppose present writ petition.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
9. It was submitted, as per Annexure-R7, Deputy
Commissioner had authorized SLAO to take possession, who in
turn delegated said power to Tahsildar, under Annexure-R8.
Thereafter, as per Annexure-R9, Tahsildar authorized a retired
Tahsildar to take possession. It was submitted Annexure-R10 is
record for taking of possession from petitioner and its delivery
to Board. It was submitted mode of taking possession under
Annexures-R7 to R10 and delivery to Board was therefore
illegal. It was submitted, admission in written statement filed in
O.S.no.603/2011 about taking possession was in respect of
Sy.no.16/P5, measuring 05 Acres only and not present land.
10. Insofar as W.P.no.23727/2021 filed by Chinnappa
and others, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that as
per order at Annexure-C dated 10.11.1983, extent of 02 Acres
out of Sy.no.16 (new Sy.no.16/P22-P1) was granted in name of
petitioner no.1 and his name was mutated as per ME.no.17/87-
88 and entered into record of rights as per Annexures-C1 and
C2 on 30.06.1988 in revenue records. Though, respondents
had contended that there was creation of revenue records,
same would not hold good as police after investigation had filed
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
'C-report' as per Annexure-Q. Therefore, petitioners as
grantees were 'interested persons' in land under acquisition and
entitled to challenge same. As admittedly no notice was issued
to petitioners, acquisition was illegal and liable to be quashed.
11. On other hand, Sri Yogesh D. Naik, learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1 and Sri
B.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 sought to
oppose writ petition. Referring to statement of objections filed,
Sri B.B. Patil , learned counsel submitted that insofar as
W.P.no.11182/2021, with object of establishing an industrial
area, Board had issued Preliminary Notification dated
13.03.2012 under Section 28 (1) of KIAD Act, as per Annexure-
R1. Thereafter, Final Notification dated 04.12.2012 under
Section 28 (4) of KIAD Act, was issued. It was submitted,
without producing copy of sale deed, petitioner was claiming
interest in respect of 03 Acres of land in Sy.no.16 of
Jakkasandra village. In fact, Record of Rights ('RoR' for short)
produced showing his name as khatedar were questionable. It
was further submitted, even alleged sale deed of 27.09.1956
produced as Annexure-R6 was in fact only a "khayam geni
kaagada" and absolute sale deed. Said right would stand
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
extinguished after coming into force of Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 ('LR Act' for short) with land vesting in State.
Thereafter, unless such occupier filed necessary application and
obtained grant of occupancy certificate, he could not lay any
claim over such land. Therefore, petitioner could not lawfully
claim to be a person interested in any land notified for
acquisition by Board.
12. It was submitted, as on date of issuance of
acquisition notifications name of petitioner or his father were
not entered in RoRs. In fact, even as per petitioner, names
were mutated only after disposal of W.P.no.19183/2013 on
28.05.2013. It was submitted, as held in
Smt.P.Venkatalakshmamma v. SLAO and Ors., reported in
2002 SCC OnLine KAR 143, there was no obligation on Land
Acquisition Officer to conduct enquiry into possible interests of
all persons in respect of lands proposed for acquisition. Hence,
contention about acquisition being in violation of principles of
natural justice would not sustain as held in M/s.Ahuja
Industries Limited's case (supra).
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
13. In Mr.Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka and
Ors., reported in 2011 (3) SCC 11, it was held by operation of
law, with issuance of notification under Section 28 (4) of KIAD
Act, lands stood vested in State free from all encumbrances.
Therefore, claim of petitioner to have continued in possession
of notified land would be illegal. It was submitted, unauthorized
occupant or person in illegal occupation did not have any right
of hearing under Section 28 (3) of KIAD Act, as held in
Venkataramanappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and
Ors., reported in 1984 (2) KLJ 326. Even contention that
petitioner had no other land and dependent on income for
livelihood would not sustain as Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Chameli Singh and Ors., v. State of UP and Ors., reported
in 1996 (2) SCC 549, had held that compulsory acquisition by
State for public purpose in exercise of power of eminent
domain would not amount to deprivation of right of livelihood
and that individual interest ought to yield to larger public
purpose.
14. It was also contended, Section 28 (4) of KIAD Act,
did not contain provision about time limit and therefore as held
in P. Narayanappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2006
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
(7) SCC 578, acquisition could not be negated on that count.
It was submitted, acquisition notifications issued in year 2012
were sought to be challenged by filing writ petition in year 2021
after nine years. Therefore, writ petition was liable to be
dismissed on ground of delay and laches.
15. It was submitted, Division Bench of this Court in
Smt.Jalaja and Ors. v. Union of India, Ministry of Rural
Development and Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine KAR
15768, had held KIAD Act being special enactment, provisions
of RFCTLARR Act, specifically Section 24 (2) would not apply to
acquisition under KIAD Act. Therefore, none of petitioners'
contentions were meritorious and sought dismissal of writ
petition.
16. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Sri Nikhilesh Rao, advocate for respondent no.4 submitted
that on 04.12.2012, Board issued Final Notification for
acquisition of 627.18 Acres of land including 03 Acres of
Sy.no.16 of Jakkasandra village, Malur Taluk for formation of
industrial area. It was submitted, as per petitioner, his father
Mulabagilappa purchased schedule property under registered
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
sale deed dated 27.09.1956. Perusal of copy of said deed
obtained by respondent no.4 indicated that it was not a sale
deed, but only a lease deed. It was submitted, since said land
was tenanted, it stood vested with State after coming into force
of amendment to LR Act. Relying on decision in Basappa v.
The Land Tribunal, Bagalkote Taluk and Ors., reported in
1977 SCC OnLine KAR 230, it was submitted admittedly,
neither petitioner nor his father were granted occupancy rights
and consequently, they had lost their rights over schedule
property.
17. It was further submitted that Sri Mariyappa and
others had filed O.S.no.603/2011 before Civil Judge at Malur
for partition of several properties include schedule property and
petitioner was arrayed as defendant no.2 in said suit. It was
pointed out that in paragraph no.6a of very plaint mentioned
about schedule land being acquired by Board. In said suit,
petitioner had filed written statement and also additional
written statement on 01.07.2013 clearly admitting acquisition.
Hence, petitioner was fully aware of acquisition and neither
approached Court in time nor by disclosing all material facts.
Such being case, without arraying Board as a party, filed
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
W.P.no.19183/2013 and obtained directions for entering name
in revenue records.
18. Despite being aware of above facts, petitioner had
suppressed same and filed writ petition disentitling him for any
relief as per ratio laid down in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State
Bank of India, reported in 2007 (8) SCC 449.
19. It was further submitted that on 31.12.2015, State
Government had allotted land bearing Sy.nos.16, 47 and 59 of
Jakkasandra village, totally measuring 84 Acres 01 guntas in
favour of Board, free of cost. In furtherance of same, Final
Notification was issued by Deputy Commissioner on 26.04.2016
transferring lands to Board and delivered possession. On
12.02.2016, respondent no.4 paid sum of Rs.44.32 Crores to
Board. Thereafter on 21.07.2016, a registered lease deed was
executed by Board in favour of respondent no.4 leasing 64
Acres including schedule property for setting up an Industrial
Logistics Park.
20. It was submitted, first prayer sought i.e. for
declaration about acquisition having lapsed by virtue of Section
24 (2) of RFCTLARR Act, would not be tenable in view of
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Land
Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore and Anr. v. Anasuya
Bai (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Ors., reported in
2017 (3) SCC 313 and
S. Jalaja's case (supra).
21. It was submitted that writ petition filed nine years
after issuance of acquisition notification, when petitioner was
aware of, would liable to be dismissed on ground of delay and
laches also. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration
and Ors. v. Kaushilya Thakur and Anr., reported in 2012
(5) SCC 412 has held delay of four years in challenging
acquisition as fatal.
22. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in State
of Karnataka and Ors. v. Narasimhamurthy and Ors.,
reported in 1995 (5) SCC 534, had held that Land Acquisition
Officer was not obliged to hold roving enquiry to ascertain
persons having interest in land under acquisition and it would
suffice, if acquisition proceeded in name of person whose name
was shown in revenue entries. Admittedly, by virtue of
provisions of LR Act, schedule property stood vested in State
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
and as per Annexure-R9 transferred extent of 84 Acres 01
Guntas in favour of Board, free of cost. Having left over his
right, petitioner could not maintain grievance against
acquisition.
23. In reply, it was submitted that name of petitioner's
father shown in revenue records was mutated and continued till
year 1986 and after his death name of petitioner was
mentioned. Denying that writ petition suffered from delay and
laches, it was submitted, petitioner had been in possession and
cultivation until attempt by staff of Board to disturb possession.
And since acquisition was not in name of petitioner, was
unaware of acquisition, therefore, there was no delay or laches.
24. Insofar as W.P.no.23727/2021, learned counsel for
respondents submitted in unison that instant writ petition was
filed based on created revenue records and liable to be
dismissed with cost. It was submitted that on a complaint dated
16.11.2016 filed by Tahsildar, Malur Taluk as per Annexure-R2,
FIR was registered against petitioner and revenue officials in
Crime no.339/2016. As per Annexure-R4 after filing of 'C-
report', Police had obtained permission for further investigation
and on finding incriminating material, filed charge-sheet on
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
20.02.2019. Therefore, petitioners were misconceived that
filing of 'C-report' on 29.06.2018 amounted to discharge. It
was further submitted that writ petition filed after delay of
more than nine years without an acceptable explanation was
liable to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches also.
25. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition
records.
26. From above, it is seen that petitioners are
challenging notifications issued by Board for acquisition insofar
as 02 Acres of land in Sy.no.16 of Jakkasandra village, Malur
Taluk. Main grounds of challenge in W.P.no.11182/2021 were
that petitioners being owners/occupiers was not issued with
any notice of acquisition and it was contrary to Section 28 (1),
28 (3) and 28 (6) of KIAD Act; failure to pass award, pay
compensation and take possession; non-consideration of
alternative Government land for acquisition; following illegal
procedure for taking possession and illegally claiming to have
allotted land to respondent no.4 even prior to conclusion of
acquisition etc. While in W.P.no.23727/2021, it is mainly on
ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
27. On other hand, respondents contend that
petitioners not falling into category of interested persons were
not entitled to challenge acquisition proceedings; that challenge
long after issuance of notification under Section 28 (4) of KIAD
Act, suffered from delay and laches and in any case, land was
acquired in exercise of power of eminent domain and
suppression and misrepresentation of material facts etc.
28. Therefore, questions required to be considered are:
i. Whether petitioners would be interested
persons and consequently, acquisition
without issuing notice to them would be
illegal?
ii. Whether writ petitions are liable to be
dismissed on ground of suppression and
misrepresentation and from delay and
laches?
iii. Whether acquisition is liable to be quashed
on ground of failure to follow procedure
prescribed under KIAD Act?
Question (i):
29. As per Section 2 (11) of KIAD Act, term 'interested
person' shall have same meaning as in Section 3 of LA Act,
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
where it is defined to include all persons claiming interest in
compensation to be paid for acquisition of land, including a
person interested in an easement affecting such land.
30. As stated above, petitioner in W.P.no.11182/2021
claims to be owner/occupier of schedule property, which is
claimed to have been purchased under sale deed dated
27.09.1956, produced by respondent no.4 as Annexure-R6. Its
nomenclature is as permanent lease, while recitals mention
about transfer of interest and enjoyment of property leased by
legal heirs and successors of lessee perpetually. In
ME.no.10/1972-73 produced by petitioner as Annexure-P1,
respondent no.4 recorded such transfer as sale of tenancy. As
per Section 44 of LR Act, all tenanted lands vested with State
by operation of law. It is specifically contended by respondent
no.4 that petitioner did not file application for grant of
occupancy rights and vesting attained finality. Thereafter with
consent of Government, it was transferred to Board, free of
cost for formation of industrial layout and as per Annexure-
R10, possession was delivered to Board. But, none of records
produced by respondents bear any indication about vesting of
land. Specific order for mutation of revenue records indicating
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
vesting is not produced. Annexures-R7 to R9, refer to
G.O.no.RD437SGB/2015, Bangalore, dated 31.12.2015
consenting for transfer of 84 Acres and 01 gunta of land
including scheduled land herein in favour of Board. In entire
writ petition, petitioner has asserted and claimed interest in
land as owner.
31. In rejoinder statement, petitioner asserts that land
referred to in O.S.no.603/2011 is Sy.no.16/P15, measuring 05
acres and was different portion than property scheduled herein
measuring 03 acres in Sy.no.16 and in which petitioner's
interest was subsisting. It is asserted that name of petitioner
was mutated and subsisted as on date of initiation of
acquisition. Respondent no.1 - State has not supported
assertion by respondent no.4 about such vesting. Therefore,
whether there is vesting of scheduled property due to coming
into force of amendment to Land Reforms Act, would be a
disputed question of fact. In case, if lands were to have vested,
then as per Section 44 (2) (f) of LR Act, only right available to
land owners would be for compensation under LR Act. Proviso
to Section 44 (2) (e) of LR Act, contemplates enquiry by State
to determine whether any person in possession of vested lands
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
is prima-facie entitled to be registered as occupant and protects
such persons from dispossession by State.
32. In fact, condition no.2 in orders at Annexures-R7
and R9 mandate payment of compensation by Board, in case
any applications in Form-50 and Form-53 were filed. Order at
Annexure-R7 refers to proceedings under Section 68 of
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('KLR Act' for short) read
with Rule 97 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. Section 68 (2)
and (3) provides opportunity to every person having interest or
right or likely to be adversely affected to file objections and
Sub-Section 3 specifically provides application of provisions of
Sections 9, 10 and 11 of LA Act. Thus, even in case of
proceedings under Section 68 of KLR Act, determination and
payment of compensation is contemplated.
33. Though petitioner has contended that he has been
in occupation of schedule property even as on date of initiation
of acquisition proceedings and therefore entitled for notice,
High Court of Madras after referring to several earlier decisions
held in Palani Gunrukkal v. Commissioner and Secretary
to the Government, reported in 1995 SCC OnLine Mad 74
as follows:
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
"6. Learned Special Government Pleader has raised
preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ
petition on the ground that the 7th petitioner is only a
cultivating tenant and if at all, he can only claim
compensation and he has no right to challenge the
acquisition itself. It is also stated that the 7th petitioner
did have the notice of the award enquiry. Secondly it is
pointed out that the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of laches. In support of these
two contentions several judgments are relied on. I am
not referring to the earner judgments because of the
judgment of D. Raju, J. in W.P. Nos. 10147 and 10148
of 1983 dated 11.11.1991. As already stated, these two
writ petitions are decided by D. Raju, J. relating to the
very land in question filed by another occupier. It
specifically relates to the 15 cents of land in S. No. 17,
Villivakkam village and the land is claimed to be a
factory building. Relying on the judgment of this Court
in T.K. Sambanda Rao, A Registered Partnership
Firm v. The Union Territory of Pondicherry 1984 Writ
L.R. (Summary of Judgments) 134, the learned judge
held that a lessee is not a person interested for the
purpose of S. 5-A of the Act and that he has
no locus standi to challenge acquisition
proceedings issued under Ss. 5-A and 6 of the Act.
In Kesavan v. Government of Tamil Nadu 1992 Writ L.R.
453, a Division Bench of this Court has taken the same
view. In this case also, several judgments are relied
upon and consequently, the Division Bench has held that
persons who are having only a status of a lessee
have no locus standi to agitate a writ petition
challenging the acquisition proceedings. The above
judgments conclude the issue against the petitioners
that a cultivating tenant cannot challenge the
acquisition proceedings, but, he may have an
interest only in claiming compensation."
(emphasis supplied)
34. Wherefore, if petitioner is able to establish his
possession of acquired land, as per Annexure-R3 in statement
of objections of respondent no.4, his status would be that of
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
tenant. In Union of India v. A. Ajit Singh, reported in
(1997) 6 SCC 50, it is held that tenant would be entitled for
share in compensation. Admittedly, Form-7 for grant of
occupancy rights is not filed. Petitioner/s have also lost right to
grant of land under Section 77 (A) of LR Act, as even Form-7A
is not filed. Though filing of Form-50 or 53 under KLR Act, is
claimed, same is not substantiated. It is seen petitioner claims
to be lessee under deed of permanent lease and cannot be
equated with owner. Therefore, failure to issue notice to
petitioner would not be fatal. Hence, question (i) is answered
partly in affirmative insofar as petitioner being interested
person for purposes of compensation and partly in negative
insofar as right to challenge acquisition notification.
Question (ii):
35. In its statement of objections and contentions
urged, respondent no.4 has alleged suppression and
misrepresentation of material facts insofar as lack of knowledge
of acquisition on ground that petitioner herein was defendant
no.2 in O.S.no.603/2011 in which plaintiff himself had stated
about suit schedule property (including Sy.no.16 of
Jakkasandra village) being under acquisition. Though in
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
rejoinder statement, petitioner attempts to refute allegation by
claiming that reference in Civil suit was with regard to different
portion of land namely Sy.no.16/P15 of Jakkasandra village
measuring 05 Acres, such assertion could not have been made
without consulting acquisition notifications prior to filing written
statement in said suit. Admittedly, present schedule property
was part of lands notified for acquisition under very same
notification. Therefore, if petitioner claims lack of knowledge, it
can only be attributed to failure of due diligence on his part.
Consequently, assertion about lack of knowledge of acquisition
may not be deliberate with intention to mislead this Court into
passing favourable orders. Hence, question (ii) insofar as
suppression and misrepresentation is answered in negative.
36. However, writ petitions are filed in year 2021
challenging acquisition issued in preliminary notification dated
13.03.2012 and final notification dated 04.12.2012 i.e. after
nine years. In writ petition, stand of petitioner is one of
complete lack of knowledge of acquisition proceedings until 1st
week of June 2021, when officials of Board allegedly sought to
interfere with petitioners possession of suit property. But, as
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
per conclusion reached above lack of knowledge at best can be
attributed to lack of due diligence on part of petitioner.
37. In Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4
SCC 285, Hon'ble Supreme Court held :
"11. Nor do we think that the petitioners in the writ
petitions should be allowed to raise this plea in view
of their conduct in not challenging the validity of the
notification even after the publication of the
declaration under Section 6 in 1966. Of the two writ
petitions, one is filed by one of the appellants. There
was apparently no reason why the writ petitioners
should have waited till 1972 to come to this Court
for challenging the validity of the notification issued
in 1959 on the ground that the particulars of the
public purpose were not specified. A valid notification
under Section 4 is a sine qua non for initiation of
proceedings for acquisition of property. To have sat
on the fence and allowed the Government to
complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis
that the notification under Section 4 and the
declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to
attack the notification on grounds which were
available to them at the time when the
notification was published would be putting a
premium on dilatory tactics. The writ petitions
are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches
and delay on the part of the petitioners
(see Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1
SCC 110 : (1969) 2 SCR 824] and Rabindranath
Base v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84 : (1970) 2
SCR 697] )."
38. Thus, belated challenge against acquisition
notifications cannot be entertained as substantial effort on part
of State would have ensued in pursuance of notifications. In
instant case, Board has allotted large portion of land including
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
schedule property herein to respondent no.4, which as per
assertions in statement of objections made substantial
payments to Board and has been in possession. Thus, third
party rights are created and it will be inequitable to disturb said
position after lapse of substantial amount of time. Likewise,
belated challenge feigning lack of knowledge due to lack of
diligence was also turned down in Sawaran Lata v. State of
Haryana, (2010) 4 SCC 532. Hence, question (ii) insofar as
delay and laches is answered in affirmative.
Question (iii):
39. This question is mainly due to petitioners contention
that acquisition procedure is not compliant with Section 28 (1),
28 (3) and 28 (6) of KIAD Act. Annexures-H, J & K in
W.P.no.11182/2021 indicate that respondent no.1 - State by
two notifications dated 13.03.2012 issued under Sections 1 (3)
and 3 (1) of KIAD Act, declared extent of 696 acres 25½
guntas of land in Jakkasandra village as 'industrial area' and
extended application of provisions of KIAD Act, followed by
notification under Section 28 (1) of KIAD Act. Thereafter,
notification at Annexure-K dated 04.12.2012 is issued under
Section 28 (4) of KIAD Act, for vesting of notified lands.
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
40. Indeed, in all these notifications, name of petitioner
is not mentioned. As per statement of objections, respondent
no.2 - Board disputed claim of title by petitioner in respect of
schedule property under alleged sale deed dated 27.09.1956.
Producing copy of same as Annexure-R3, it is contended that
same is permanent lease deed and with promulgation of
amendment to LR Act, tenancy was abolished and land stood
vested with State. Since petitioner did not file application for
grant of occupancy rights, vesting continued. Further as per
petitioner's assertion recorded in order dated 28.05.2013
passed by this Court in W.P.no.19183/2013 produced as
Annexure-C, his name had not continued in RoR in respect of
petition property after year 1995. As per averments made in
present writ petitions, it was re-entered only as per
MR.no.H4/2019-2020 produced as Annexure-E. Thus, as on
date of acquisition, name of petitioner was not found in record
of rights. In fact, writ petition itself was filed in year 2013, after
issuance of impugned acquisition notifications. Therefore, it
would be uncharitable to attribute State with knowledge of all
claims of title or interest in respect of lands proposed to be
acquired. As held in Narasimhamurthy's case (supra), neither
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
State nor land acquisition officer is required to hold roving
enquiry to ascertain all persons having any interests
whatsoever in lands proposed to be acquired. It would suffice if
name of anubhavdar/khatedar is notified.
41. Apart from above, one of grounds urged by
petitioner is that acquisition lapsing due to failure to pass
award and pay compensation. Though Division Bench of this
Court in H.N. Shivanna v. State of Karnataka, reported in
2012 SCC OnLine Kar 8956, had held though no period of
limitation is prescribed in KIAD Act for passing award, it should
be passed within reasonable time which would normally be
within period of two years. In Premakala Prabhakara Reddy
v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar
2985, learned single Judge of this Court held same as not good
law. And Appeal before Division Bench was dismissed. Further
in instant case, right of petitioner to claim compensation is
required to be established as held above. Admittedly, as on
date of issuance of acquisition notifications, extent 124 acres in
Sy.no.16 including schedule land, therefore respondent would
be justified in not passing award until demonstration of his
right by petitioner. Even contention that alternative
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
Government lands available were not considered would be
invain, as lands were shown to be belonging to Government as
per entries in revenue records. Hence, question (iii) is
answered in negative.
42. In view of above findings, W.P.no.11182/2021
insofar as challenge against acquisition notifications is
dismissed, with observation that dismissal would not come in
way of petitioners claiming compensation by establishing their
right as tenant/occupant or unauthorised occupant, in
accordance with law.
43. Insofar as W.P.no.23727/2021, it is seen that
prosecution is launched for falsification of revenue records in
collusion with revenue officials in respect of petition properties.
As per Annexure-R4 dated 20.02.2019 produced by respondent
no.4, charge-sheet is filed. Though, learned counsel for
petitioners sought to rely on 'C-report' dated 29.06.2018 at
Annexure-Q to contend that prosecution had ceased, said
submission would be on misconception about effect of 'C-
report' and in any case, would not subsist with charge-sheet
being filed subsequently. Since entire contentions urged are
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15301
with reference to suspect revenue records, it would not be
appropriate to entertain writ petition based on tainted records.
Hence, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GRD
