Karnataka High Court
Sri Bhimaraju C vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4243
WP No. 30195 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 30195 OF 2024 (ULC)
BETWEEN:
SRI BHIMARAJU C,
S/O LATE CHANDRAMATHI MUDALIAR,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
NO.1396, 5TH MAIN, 'D' BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGARA 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SURESH BABU B N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.ABMEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001,REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
Digitally
signed by 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
PRAMILA G V BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 009.
Location: 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HIGH COURT AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
OF URBAN LAND CEILING,
KARNATAKA OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 009.
4. THE THASILDHAR,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4243
WP No. 30195 of 2024
A) QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.ULC(A)
(3)441/1985-86 DATED 01.07.2024 PASSED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents.
2. This petition is filed questioning the endorsement
dated 01.07.2024 at Annexure-A issued by 2nd respondent -
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru. In terms of the said
endorsement, petitioner's representation to reconsider the
order at Annexure - B dated 29.12.1997 is rejected. Petitioner
has assailed the validity of Annexure - B - the order dated
29.12.1997 passed by 3rd respondent - the Special Deputy
Commissioner/Competent Authority under the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'Act, 1976').
NC: 2025:KHC:4243
3. Petitioner claims to have purchased the property
bearing Sy.No.27 measuring 1 acre of Chikkasandra Village,
Chikkabanavara Dhakale, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru
North Taluk vide sale deed dated 29.03.1995. One
Sri R. Narasimhalu Naidu was the previous owner. Pursuant to
the sale deed, petitioner's name is entered in the property
records for the year 1994-95 as found in Annexure - D and
name of the vendor was deleted from the records. It appears
that the respondent/State has initiated action under the Act,
1976 treating the land as excess land. The provisions of the
Act, 1976 mandates issuance of notice to the holder of the
land, before holding enquiry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that when the notice was issued on 18.08.1997, petitioner was
the owner of the land and no notice was issued on him. It is his
further submission that notice is also not served to his vendor.
To substantiate his contention, he would refer to Annexure - B,
the impugned order. Then, it is stated that the notice dated
18.08.1997 sent to previous owner is not served and it is
returned with an endorsement that the previous owner has sold
the property and left the place. Thus, he would contend that
NC: 2025:KHC:4243
the authority was required to make efforts to serve the notice
on the present petitioner who had purchased the property in
the year 1995.
5. It is also his further contention that possession of
the property which is said to be the excess land under the Act,
1976 is not taken over by the competent authority as required
under law. He would submit that infact under the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short 'Act of
1999'), Section 3 of the Act of 1999, says that the action which
are lawfully taken under the Act of 1976 shall not be affected.
It is contended that since possession is not taken by the
respondent/authority, the land continued with the petitioner
and petitioner continues to be the owner of the property and
the land cannot be treated as an excess land, and the petitioner
would have the benefit of repealing Act to substantiate the
contention that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of
the property, learned counsel would refer to Annexure - C - the
sale deed, RTC at Annexure-D and report of the Deputy
Commissioner at Annexure - E. Thus, he would contend by
reason of Section 3 of the Act, 1976, the land still continues to
NC: 2025:KHC:4243
be with the petitioner and the impugned order at Annexures - A
and B are unsustainable.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would
contend that the land held by the petitioner is an excess land
under the Act, 1976 and the order is passed in the year 1997
and petition is filed in the year 2024 is hit by delay and laches
and the same is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
latches. Learned counsel would also contend that the petitioner
is not entitled to the land which is an excess land as he was not
entitled to hold the extent of 1 acre of land in the year 1995
and Repealing Act came into force in 1999 and before the date
of repeal, the decision is already taken holding that the land is
an excess land.
7. This Court has considered the said contentions
raised at the bar and perused the records.
8. It is well settled position of law in terms of various
judgments that in case, possession of land is not taken by the
competent authority provided under the Act, 1976, the
ownership as well as the possession continues to vest with the
NC: 2025:KHC:4243
owner and because of the repeal of Act of 1999, the State loses
the right to claim the property which is not lawfully taken over
by the Government as per the procedure prescribed under law.
9. Learned counsel has relied upon the following
judgments:
(i) SMT NARASANNA AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE
OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (Writ Petition
No.5954/2016 disposed of on 14.03.2024)
(ii) SRI SOMASHEKAR AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE
OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (Writ Petition
No.24808/2009 disposed of on 19.03.2024)
(iii) SRI DHANUMANTHAPPA AND OTHERS VS. THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (Writ
Petition No.51700/2014 disposed of on
22.10.2014)
(iv) SRI SHIVAKUMAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND OTHERS (Writ Petition No.11359/2021
disposed of on 28.08.2024)
10. It is noticed from the records particularly Annexure
- B - impugned order, itself would reveal that notice issued on
18.08.1997 under the Act, 1976 is not served on the previous
owner. It is also relevant to note that no effort is made to
serve notice on the present petitioner who had acquired
NC: 2025:KHC:4243
ownership of the property under the registered sale deed of
1995. Infact, the recital in the order is clear that the notice
that was sent to the previous owner who had sold the property
in 1995 had returned with acknowledgment that the previous
owner had left the place as he had sold the property. Under
these circumstances, the very act of issuing notice to the
previous owner itself is an erroneous act. Under the provisions
of the Act, 1976, notice is required to be sent to the owner who
possessed the property. Thus, notice which was required to be
issued to the petitioner is not issued. Behind the back of the
petitioner, an order is passed in the year 1997. The order is not
communicated to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner's
name continued in the property records. Only in 2007, without
notice to the petitioner, same was deleted. Petitioner states
that he came to know about the change of entry in the records
in the year 2018 and immediately, he gave a representation to
2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner. Nothing is placed on
record to show that notice is served on the petitioner before
making such change in the property records. From the records
placed before this Court, the admitted factual possession is that
no notice is served on the previous owner, no notice is served
NC: 2025:KHC:4243
on the present petitioner nor possession of the property is
taken by the Government in the manner prescribed under the
Act, 1976. Thus, Section 3 of the repealing Act, 1999 would
come to the aid of the petitioner.
11. Though learned High Court Government Pleader
would contend that petition is to be dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches, what was required to be noticed is till 2018
petitioner was not aware of the impugned order which was
passed behind his back. The recitals in the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner itself would indicate that the petitioner is
in possession of the property. The report relied on by the
Deputy Commissioner also indicate that petitioner is in
possession of the property. Infact, the State has admitted the
possession of the petitioner in its order as well as in report.
Under these circumstances, Annexure - A endorsement could
not have been issued at all.
12. It is also relevant to note that in Annexure - A, the
Deputy Commissioner has relied on the legal opinion he has
secured from the panel advocate. The Deputy Commissioner
being a quasi judicial authority is required to apply his mind
NC: 2025:KHC:4243
and pass an order and should not have blindly relied on the
legal opinion secured. Under these circumstances, the
impugned order at Annexure-A is also unsustainable.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, the following is
passed:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders bearing No.ULC
(A)(3)1441/1985-86 at Annexure - A dated
01.07.2024 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner-2nd respondent is quashed and
bearing No.NaBhuPa(Aa)(3)441/1985-86 at
annexure-B dated 29.12.1997 passed by the
Special Deputy Commission-3rd respondent
are quashed.
(iii) The concerned authority shall restore the
name of the petitioner in the property records
as per the registered sale deed dated
29.03.1995.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
