Karnataka High Court
Smt.Roshanbi W/O Muktubsaheb Galagali ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 4 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
WP No. 205718 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.205718 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.ROSHANBI
W/O MUKTUBSAHEB GALAGALI
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK,
R/O: HALE KUMBAR GALLI,
NEAR UPPALI BARUZ,
BIJAPUR-586101.
2. SMT.NAJMA
W/O KHUTUBUDDIN JAMDAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O: TAKKE ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101.
Digitally
signed by 3. SRI.WASEEM
RENUKA
S/O MOHAMAD SHARIF JAMBAGI
Location:
High Court Of AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
Karnataka R/O: JAMBAGI CHOWL,
NEAR UPPALI BURUZ,
BIJAPUR-586101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR P2 & P3;
V/O DATED 22/11/2023, PETITION ABATED AGAINST P1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
WP No. 205718 of 2014
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIJAPUR,
DIST: BIJAPUR-586 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BIJAPUR,
BIJAPUR SUB-DIVISION,
DIST: BIJAPUR-586 101.
4. THE NEW MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
BIJAPUR, NO.22, HAVELI STREET,
BIJAPUR, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI.CHANDAPEER SADHIKSAHEB INAMDAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O: HAVELI GALLI,
BIJAPUR-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI AJAYKUMAR A. KALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE AWARD DATED
29.6.1995 IN NO.LAQ:SR:2:91-92 PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE - C, THE RESOLUTION DATED
1.3.2012 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F
AND THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2012 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT IN NO.KAMVI/BHUSSWA/CR/19/2008-09 VIDE
ANNEXURE- H. B) ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
WP No. 205718 of 2014
4.3.2014 OF THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND M
RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature
of certiorari to quash the award dated 29.06.1995 passed
by respondent No.3 and the resolution and the order both
dated 01.03.2012 passed by respondent No.2. The
petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of
mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the
representation dated 04.03.2014.
2. (i) The facts as pleaded by the petitioners in
the writ petition, in brief, are that the property bearing
Sy.No.848 of Mahal Bhagayat, Vijayapur District was
owned and possessed by the father of petitioner No.1 and
grand-father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. A suit in
O.S.No.99/1987 was filed for partition which was decreed
whereby the plaintiffs were declared to be jointly entitled
to 4/17th share, defendant Nos.1 to 4 were entitled to
2/17th share each, defendant Nos.5 to 8 were entitled to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
1/17th share each and defendant Nos.9 to 11 were jointly
entitled to 1/17th share.
(ii) During the pendency of said suit, respondent
No.3 initiated proceedings to acquire the land bearing
Sy.No.848 in terms of a notification under Section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of
establishment of a school by the respondent No.4. The
petitioners alleged that this acquisition was without issuing
notice to the land owners, which was followed by a final
notification and an award dated 29.06.1995. It was
contended that since the land bearing Sy.No.848 was
involved in litigation in O.S.No.99/1987, respondent No.2
directed the deposit of the award amount before the Civil
Court in O.S.No.99/1987. However, the amount was
neither deposited nor was disbursed to the petitioners.
(iii) However, respondent No.4 was neither running a
school nor had any intention of establishing an educational
institution but it existed only on paper. Therefore, on
coming to know this malafide intention on the part of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
respondent No.4, the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapur
prepared a report on 18.07.2000 stating that respondent
No.4 did not exist and that it had cheated the Government
by invoking its power of eminent domain. Based on the
said report, respondent No.1 passed an order dated
24.11.2000 vesting the land bearing Sy.No.848 with the
Government to be used for public purpose such as
construction of offices or Government quarters.
(iv) Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent
No.4 filed Writ Petition No.32915/2000. This Court in
terms of order dated 10.09.2001 quashed the order dated
24.11.2000 on the ground that respondent No.4 was not
heard but reserved liberty to the respondents to take fresh
decision after giving an opportunity to respondent No.4.
(v) It is claimed that prior to passing such a
resolution, respondent No.2 had addressed a letter to the
DDPI, Vijayapur to submit a report regarding existence of
respondent No.4. The DDPI, Vijayapur had in turn
requested the BEO, Vijayapur to submit a report which
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
was submitted on 01.03.2012. Immediately, thereafter on
02.03.2012, the DDPI, Vijayapur submitted a report along
with the covering letter stating that respondent No.4 did
not exist and that the school was itself closed. It is
contended that a meeting was scheduled on 01-03-2012,
which was attended by respondent No.2 along with other
respondents as well as the Deputy Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, Vijayapur, DDPI, Vijayapur,
Commissioner BDA, Vijayapur, District Registrar, Vijayapur
and respondent No.4. At the meeting, it was resolved to
permit respondent No.4 to sell the land in Sy.No.848 to
the developers as per Section 44 (A) of the Karnataka
Land Acquisition (Companies), Rules, 1973. After receipt
of the said resolution, respondent No.1 permitted the
respondent No.4 as per the resolution and intimated
respondent No.2 about the same in its order dated
28.03.2012. After coming to know of this development,
the petitioner approached respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
requested them not to permit sale of the acquired property
to the Developers. However, in collusion with the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
developers and the Government officials, the sale deed
was executed on 19.12.2012 for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-.
The petitioners contend that they have not received any
compensation from respondent No.3 even after completion
of the acquisition. When all requests to pay the
compensation proved futile, they submitted representation
on 04.03.2014. When respondent No.4 was attempting to
change the revenue records, the petitioners filed an appeal
before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2)
of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 where an
interim order was granted. The petitioners contend that
since they had obtained preliminary decree in
O.S.No.99/1987, they filed FDP No.14/1997 and later
E.P.No.148/2007. However, execution petition was closed
as satisfied in respect of other properties excluding land in
Sy.No.848. Therefore, one more FDP was filed in
F.D.P.No.27/2012 which is stated to be pending. The
petitioners therefore contend that they are entitled to
receive compensation in respect of acquisition of
Sy.No.848.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
3. With these contentions, the petitioners claimed
that the award dated 29.06.1995 and resolution dated
01.03.2012 by respondent No.2 deserve to be set at
naught or in the alternative, for a direction to the
respondents to consider the representations dated
04.03.2014.
4. The petition is opposed by respondent No.4 who
contends that respondent No.4 is a minority institution
registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act. Respondent No.4 requested the State
Government to acquire 10 acres of land in Sy.No.848 of
Mahal Bhagayat, Vijayapur District, consequent to which,
the State Government initiated acquisition proceedings. It
contended that a sum of Rs.3,88,759/- was paid to
respondent No.2 being the compensation payable towards
acquisition of Sy.No.848 and the same was deposited
before the Civil Court, Vijayapur under Section 30 of the
Land Acquisition Act. It contended that there was a
dispute between the petitioners and the Karnataka State
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
Board of Wakf, Bengaluru over the land bearing
Sy.No.848. The Wakf Board claimed that a notification
dated 14.02.1974 was issued in respect of land bearing
Sy.No.848 and that the father of the petitioner No.2 and
grand-father of petitioner No.3 challenged the notification
under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in
W.P.No.23005/1994 and W.P.Nos.23051-23054/1994.
These writ petitions were dismissed in terms of the order
dated 01/12/1998. This Court held that the predecessors
of the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the
acquisition. In the meanwhile, the Land Acquisition Officer
after hearing all concerned passed an award on
29.06.1995 and in the award, it was specifically mentioned
about the claim of the Karnataka State Board of Wakf,
Bengaluru that the land bearing Sy.No.848 was attached
to a Wakf named, 'Bara Tang Mosque'. The respondent
No.4 contended that the possession of the acquired land
was delivered to it. Nonetheless, the petitioners who were
unsuccessful in writ petition No.23005/1994 and Writ
Petition Nos.23051-23054/1994, filed Writ Petition
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
No.41654/1999 through their henchmen which again was
dismissed on 08.08.2000. The Karnataka State Board of
Wakf filed a Miscellaneous Application No.34/1999 before
the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapur against the
members of Jambagi family including petitioner No.1 and
father of petitioner No.2 and grand-father of petitioner
No.3 and others under Section 90(3) of the Wakf Act,
1995 to set aside the decree dated 10.09.1993 in
O.S.No.99/1987. The Wakf Tribunal in terms of the order
dated 09/12/2009 set aside the decree passed in
O.S.No.99/1987 insofar as the land bearing Sy.No.848
was concerned. The petitioner No.1 herein and her
brothers who were petitioners in W.P.No.23005/1994
thereafter filed a suit before the Principal Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.) Vijayapur challenging the gazette notification
dated 14/2/1974 declaring Sy.No.848 as a Wakf property.
The said suit was transferred to the Wakf Tribunal,
Belgaum on 29.10.2002 which was decreed in favour of
the petitioners and others. However, respondent No.4 was
not arrayed as party in the said suit.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
5. Respondent No.4 alleging that the State
Government had failed to issue notification under Section
16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, filed a Writ Petition
No.1164/2003 against respondent Nos.1 to 3. This Court
in terms of the order dated 06.08.2003 directed
respondent Nos.1 to 3 to issue notification as
contemplated under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition
Act. Accordingly, notification was issued and was published
in the gazette on 04.09.2003. Respondent No.4 contended
that after the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, the land bearing Sy.No.848 was bifurcated
as 848/B in respect of 10 acres of land which was acquired
and name of respondent No.4 was entered. Being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Wakf
Tribunal in miscellaneous case No.KWT:BJR:SR-10/2002,
respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition No.16098/2004 while
the Karnataka State of Wakf Board also filed Writ Petition
No.26649/2004. The said writ petitions were clubbed and
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the petitions
and directed the Wakf Tribunal, Belgaum to permit
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
respondent No.4 to come on record in the proceedings and
also directed the Tribunal to dispose off the proceedings
within six months. Accordingly, the Tribunal after
impleading respondent No.4 and after hearing it,
dismissed the suit as barred by time in terms of the order
dated 28.04.2007. Respondent No.4 alleged that brother
of petitioner No.1 filed Writ Petition No.2115/2008
challenging the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal.
However, the same came to be dismissed in terms of the
order dated 18.03.2015. Respondent No.4 therefore,
contended that the petitioners had deliberately suppressed
the aforesaid proceedings and had deliberately not
referred to any of the proceedings initiated before the
various Courts from time to time. Nonetheless, he
submitted representations seeking compensation in
respect of the acquisition of the land bearing Sy.No.848. It
therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.
6. When this petition was listed for preliminary
hearing in 'B' group, learned counsel for respondent No.4
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
submitted that the penultimate order passed by this Court
in Writ Petition No.2115/2008 was confirmed by the
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.200127/2015. He therefore, contends that the
petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not
dispute the fact that the proceedings initiated by the
petitioners which was transferred to the Wakf Tribunal,
Belgaum and registered as KWT:BJR:SR-10/2002 was
challenged before this Court in W.P.No.16908/2004 and
W.P.No.26649/2004. He also did not dispute the fact that
this Court set aside the judgment passed by the Wakf
Tribunal in KWT:BJR:SR-10/2002 and directed the Tribunal
to reconsider the case on merit after impleading
respondent No.4. It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal
after remand, dismissed the proceedings in KWT:BJR:SR-
10/2002 as barred by time and W.P.No.2115/2008 filed by
the brother of petitioner No.1 was also dismissed by this
Court on 18.03.2015 and an appeal filed before the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3588
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200127/2015 was
also dismissed. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners
cannot now contend that the land bearing Sy.No.848 is not
a Wakf property and that it belongs to them. Therefore,
they are not entitled to claim compensation in respect of
the acquisition of the said land for the benefit of the
respondent No.4. Consequently, the petitioners do not
have any locus standi to challenge the award passed in
respect of the acquisition of Sy.No.848 and the
consequent orders passed by the respondent No.2. The
petitioners are also not entitled for a direction to the
respondents to pay the compensation.
In view of the above discussions, the petition lacks
merit and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP/SMP
CT:SI
