Karnataka High Court
Sri C Prabhakar vs Union Of India on 23 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42944
WP No. 20439 of 2024
C/W WP No. 20323 of 2024
WP No. 20668 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 20439 OF 2024 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 20323 OF 2024 (LA-RES)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 20668 OF 2024 (LA-RES)
IN WP No. 20439/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI C. PRABHAKAR,
S/O LATE CN. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT ABILASHA 2ND CROSS,
NETAJI ROAD, VIDHYANAGAR,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572101.
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND AND:
CHAYA
Location: High Court
of Karnataka 1. UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS,
RAIL BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI 110001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY THE SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
TUMKUR RAYADURGA RAILWAY PROJECT,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42944
WP No. 20439 of 2024
C/W WP No. 20323 of 2024
WP No. 20668 of 2024
TUMKUR 572101.
4. SRI JAMBAGI RENUKAPRASAD DILIP,
MAJOR, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
TUMKUR RAYADURGA AND
TUMKUR DAVANGERE RAILWAY PROJECT,
TUMKUR 572101.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. MADANAN PILLAI, CGC FOR R1;
SRI. RAVINDRANATH. B. AGA FOR R2 AND R4.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDNA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.SLAO RSR (T-R)
11/2011-12 DTD 9.07.2024 PASSED BY THE R-4 AT ANNX-K AS
ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND VOID AND WITHOUT COMPETENCE
AND JURISDICTION AND ETC,.
IN WP NO. 20323/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI C,PRABHAKAR,
S/O LATE CN. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT ABILASHA, 2ND CROSS,
NETAJI ROAD, VIDHYANAGAR,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572101.
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED..
PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS,
RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42944
WP No. 20439 of 2024
C/W WP No. 20323 of 2024
WP No. 20668 of 2024
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
TUMKUR RAYADURGA RAILWAY PROJECT,
TUMKUR 572101.
4. SRI JAMBAGI RENUKAPRASAD DILIP,
MAJOR,
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
TUMKUR RAYADURGA AND
TUMKUR DAVANGERE RAILWAY PROJECT,
TUMKUR 572101.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. MADANAN PILLAI, CGC FOR R1;
SRI. RAVINDRANATH. B. AGA FOR R2 AND R4.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. SLAO RSR (T-
R)/11/2011-12 DTD 09.07.2024 PASSED BY THE R-4 AT
ANNEXURE-K AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID AND
WITHOUT COMPETENCE AND JURISDICTION AND ETC,.
IN WP NO. 20668/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M.D HANUMANATHARAJU,
S/O LATE DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT MUNUVINKURIKE,
CN. DURGAHOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572101.
PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:42944
WP No. 20439 of 2024
C/W WP No. 20323 of 2024
WP No. 20668 of 2024
1. UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS,
RAIL BHAVAN NEW DELHI 110001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
TUMKUR RAYADURGA RAILWAY PROJECT,
TUMKUR 572101.
4. SRI JAMBAGI RENUKAPRASAD DILIP,
MAJOR, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
TUMKUR RAYADURGA AND TUMKUR DAVANGERE
RAILWAY PROJECT,
TUMKUR 572101.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. MADANAN PILLAI, CGC FOR R1;
SRI. RAVINDRANATH. B. AGA FOR R2 AND R4.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.SLAORSR(T.R).11/2011-12
DATED 9.7.24 PASSED BY THE R4 AT ANNEXURE-K AS
ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID AND WITHOUT
COMPETENCE AND JURISDICTION AND ETC,.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged
the impugned endorsement dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure-K),
NC: 2024:KHC:42944
issued by respondent No.4, inter alia sought for direction to the
respondent authorities to consider the representations made by
the petitioners seeking release of compensation in respect of
the land being acquired by the respondent authorities for the
purpose of laying Tumukuru - Rayadurga Railway Project.
2. The brief facts for the adjudication of these writ
petitions are that the petitioners claim to be the owner of
respective extent of subject land in different survey numbers
which has been converted for non agricultural purpose. It is
also stated that the land belonging to the petitioners has been
notified for the purpose of laying Tumukuru - Rayadurga
Railway Project and as such the possession of the schedule land
has been taken by the respondent authorities for achieving the
acquisition proceedings. It is stated in the writ petitions that
land belonging to the petitioners has been converted as per the
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 03.01.2012. It
is also not in dispute that the respondent authorities have
issued the Preliminary Notification dated 05.01.2012 and
sought to acquire the land of the petitioners and thereafter, the
Final Notification came to be passed on 24.01.2013 (Annexure-
C), which was issued by the respondent authorities. It is also
NC: 2024:KHC:42944
not in dispute that the land belonging to the petitioners has
been acquired by the respondent authorities. In this regard, the
petitioners herein have approached this Court in
W.P.No.10640/2023 C/W W.P. No10607/2023 and W.P.
No.10675/2023, seeking direction to respondent authorities to
consider their representations relating to the quantification of
the compensation to be payable in respect of the acquisition of
land as stated thereunder. This Court vide Order dated
08.11.2023 (Annexure-H), directed the respondent authorities
to consider the claim made by the petitioners within three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the Order
and in furtherance of the same, the petitioners have
approached respondent - authority as per Annexure-J to the
Writ Petitions. Thereafter, respondent No.4 has issued the
impugned order 09.07.2024 (Annexure-K), and stated that the
portion of the land as per Preliminary Notification was sought to
be acquired by the respondent authorities for the purpose of
Tumukuru - Rayadurga Railway Project, however, the said
portion of the land that was notified for acquisition has not
been utilized for the said purpose and the petitioners have
converted the land for residential purpose and as such, stated
NC: 2024:KHC:42944
that the petitioners are not entitled for compensation in respect
of the unutilized land that was not acquired as per the
aforementioned notification. Hence, the petitioners have
approached this Court by way of presenting these Writ
Petitions.
3. Heard learned Senior counsel Smt. Lakshmy
Iyengar appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri.
Chandrakanth. R. Goulay for the petitioners, learned CGC Sri.
R. Madanan Pillai, for respondent No.1 and learned Additional
Government Advocate Sri. Ravindranath B., for respondent
Nos.2 to 4.
4. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners that there is no dispute with
regard to the acquisition of the converted land belonging to the
petitioners by the respondent authorities and therefore, the
petitioners are entitled for compensation as per the Notification
issued thereunder for utilization of the land by the respondent
authorities. It is also submitted by the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners that though the portion of land
being unutilized by the respondent authorities, however, even
NC: 2024:KHC:42944
for such unutilized land, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation and also it is submitted that the petitioners
herein are entitled for compensation in so far as the converted
land under the present Act of 2013. Therefore, she places
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of V. CHANDRASEKARAN AND ANOTHER Vs.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in
(2012) 12 SCC 133 and in the case of MANSUKHBHAI
DHAMJIBHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF
GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 2 SCC 642, and
contended that the petitioners herein are entitled for
compensation even for unutilized land by the respondent
authorities though acquired for the said project, accordingly,
sought for allowing the Writ Petitions.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate Sri. Ravindranath B., appearing for respondent Nos.2
to 4, sought to defend the impugned order passed by
respondent No.4 by reiterating the averments made in the
statement of objections.
NC: 2024:KHC:42944
6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that
portion of the land belonging to the petitioners has been
acquired by respondent authorities for the purpose of
Tumukuru - Rayadurga Railway Project. It is also evident from
the writ papers that the land in question has been converted for
non agricultural purpose as per the order dated 03.01.2012
(Annexure-A), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru.
Thereafter, respondent authorities have notified the land in
question for the aforementioned project. In that view of the
matter, in the event, if the respondent authorities have to
quantify the compensation and same has to be done by taking
into consideration as converted land. At this juncture, it is
relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
V. CHANDARASEKARAN AND ANOTHER (supra) at para
Nos. 31 and 32, held as follows:
"31. In view of the above, the law can be crystallised to
mean, that once the land is acquired and it vests in the
State, free from all encumbrances, it is not the concern
of the landowner, whether the land is being used for the
purpose for which it was acquired or for any other
purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the land
vests in the State. He has a right to only receive
compensation for the same, unless the acquisition
proceeding is itself challenged. The State neither has the
requisite power to reconvey the land to the person
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42944
interested nor can such person claim any right of
restitution on any ground, whatsoever, unless there is
some statutory amendment to this effect.
32. The general rule of law is undoubted, that no one can
transfer a better title than he himself possesses; nemo
dat quod non habet. However, this rule has certain
exceptions and one of them is, that the transfer must be
in good faith for value, and there must be no
misrepresentation or fraud, which would render the
transactions as void and also that the property is
purchased after taking reasonable care to ascertain that
the transferee has the requisite power to transfer the
said land, and finally that, the parties have acted in good
faith, as is required under Section 41 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. (Vide Asa Ram v. Ram Kali [AIR
1958 SC 183] , SBI v. Rajendra Kumar Singh [AIR 1969
SC 401 : 1969 Cri LJ 659] , CED v. Aloke Mitra [(1981) 2
SCC 121 : AIR 1981 SC 102] , Hanumant Kumar
Talesara v. Mohan Lal [(1988) 1 SCC 377 : AIR 1988 SC
299] and State of Punjab v. Surjit Kaur [(2012) 12 SCC
155]) ."
7. Following the declaration of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is well settled principle in law, that
once the land is acquired, it vests with the State Government,
free from all encumbrances, then it is not with concern the land
owner, whether the land is being utilized for the project as per
the notification issued by the respondent authorities or not
however, the land owner is entitled for just compensation to be
awarded by the respondent authorities.
8. In that view of the matter, following the declaration
of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42944
aforementioned case, I find force in the submission made by
the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners are entitled for compensation even in so far as
unutilized converted land which has been converted prior to the
publication of 4(1) notification dated 05.01.2012.
9. It is also to be noted that once the land is vested
with the Government, it is for the Government to pay
compensation towards the land which has been acquired by the
respondent authorities and the unutilized land, the respondent
- authorities, after the completion of the project by the
respondent authorities, cannot be permitted to return the
unutilized land to the land owners. In that view of the matter,
the impugned endorsement dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure-K),
issued by respondent No.4 is hereby quashed and respondent
authorities are directed to consider the representations dated
25.01.2024 (Annexure-J), made by the petitioners, within an
outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order in accordance with law, in terms of the
observation made above.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42944
10. It is also stated in the said representations that the
possession of the land belonging to the petitioners has been
taken during 2013 and that aspect has to be considered by the
respondent authorities while considering the representations
made by the petitioners as per Annexure-J to the Writ Petitions.
11. With the above observations, these writ petitions
are disposed of.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
PNV
