Back
High Court of Karnataka
ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI, J.
Thirumalamma & Others
Versus
The Principal Secretary Government of Karnataka Housing & Urban Development Department & Others
Writ Petition Nos.394 of 2008 (LA-UDA) C/w 9966 of 2008, 1914 of 2007, 2447 of 2008, 361 of 2008, 2733 of 2008, 1915 of 2007, 17000 of 2008 & 17052-54 of 2008, 37548-549 of 2009, 25570-572 of 2009, 5490-5491 of 2009, 2348-2458 of 2011, 1192711947 of 2011, 14351-14352 of 2011, 39034 of 2010 & 39035of 2010, 34369-34383 of 2010, 41507-41519 of 2010 & 41676-41695 of 2010 & 41520-41526 of 2010
Decided On : 02-01-2013
KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 - Sections 17(1): [Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J] Acquisition of land - Delay of 5 to 9 years in challenging acquisition notifications - Held, Writ Petitions are liable to de dismissed on short ground of delay and laches.
KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 - Sections 19: [Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J] Re-vesting of acquired lands - Held, Once the acquisition proceedings are concluded, there cannot be any re-vesting of lands in erstwhile owners.
KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 - Sections 19: [Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J] Re-vesting of land - Land not used for purpose it was acquired - Majority of landowners accorded their consent to land acquisition - Held, As the majority of the land-owners have accorded their consent to the land acquisition and have received the compensation amounts, they are not justified in demanding the restoration of the lands to them. It is also to be noticed that besides some of the land owners, who have accepted the compensation amounts have not come before the Court seeking the relief of restoration of the lands to them. If the lands are ordered to be restored to the petitioning land owners and if the lands of those land owners, who have not filed the writ petitions, are left with the HUDA, it would create not merely confusion but chaotic state of affairs. No housing layout can be formed in stray and isolated bits of lands. If the acquisition is intact in some pockets and disrupted in other pockets, it would affect the contiguity of the project adversely. Vesting of some lands in the State and re-vesting of some lands in favour of the land owners may render the implementation of the housing scheme an impossibility.
KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 - Section 38: [Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J] Allotment and sale of sites - Requirements of public law not complied with - No advertisement issued calling for applications from desirous parties for allotment of civic amenity sites - Held, In the instant case, the bulk allotments made by HUDA in favour of some societies/organizations was abhorable. It was not known on what basis the societies/organizations made the applications for the allotment of the lands, Further, neither the HUDA nor the Government have audited the land requirements of the allottee societies/organizations. The fixation of the allotment consideration was also not uniform for several allottee societies/organizations. It was not shown that the approved scheme provides for such allotments. The allotments in favour of the said societies and organisations had deprived the land owners of their land under the cover of public purpose. The diversification of land for a private purpose is not permissible. Therefore, such allotments are liable to be withdrawn/cancelled.
The petitioning land-owners' grievance in W.P.Nos.394/2008, 9966/2008, 1914/2007, 2447/2008, 2733/2008, 1915/2007, 17000/2008 & 17052-17054/2008, 37548-37549/ 2009, 25570-25572/2009, 5490-5491/2009, 2348-2458/2011, 11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011, 39034/2010 & 39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010, 41507-41519/2010 & 41676-41695/2010 and 41520-41526/2010 is over the issuance of the preliminary notification, dated 26.2.2002 and the final notification, dated 3.12.2002 issued under Sections 17(1) and 19(1) respectively of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 ('KUDA' for short), in so far as they pertain to the petitioners' lands. The acquisition of the land measuring 394 acres 35 guntas is for the benefit of Hassan Urban Development Authority ('HUDA' - 79 - for short) for the formation of Sri S.M.Krishna Nagar ('SMKN' for short) Layout. Some of the petitioning land-owners have also sought the declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. Further, some of them have also sought the quashing of the bulk allotments made to organizations like Nisarga Educational Trust, Karnataka State Cricket Association ('KSCA' for short), Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short), Netaji Rural Development Trust, etc.
2. W.P.No.361/2008 is filed by Netaji Rural Development Trust (R), in whose favour the HUDA had allotted 6 acres of land. Its grievance is over the cancellation of allotment on account of the delay in paying the allotment consideration.
3. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, the Senior Counsel appearing for Sri A.Ravishankar for HUDA has raised two preliminary objections. He submits that the majority of the petitioning land-owners have entered into the consent award and have also received the compensation amount. According to him, once the landowner gives the consent to the acquisition of his land and receives the compensation thereon, he loses the right of raising the challenge to the acquisition proceedings. He sought to draw support from the Apex Court's judgments in the cases of NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES v. JASWANT SINGH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2003 SC 234 and URMILA ROY AND OHERS vs. BENGAL PEARLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (2009) 5 SCC 242.
4. The details of giving the consent to the passing of the awards and the receipt of the compensation amounts by the various petitioning land-owners herein are culled out in the tabular form hereinbelow. It is based on the statement filed by the HUDA.
5. The second preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that these petitions are liable to be thrown out on the short ground of delay and laches. He submits that the preliminary notification and final notifications are issued in 2001 and 2002 respectively. The petitions are filed between 2007 and 2011. In all the cases, there is a delay of 5 to 9 years. In this regard, he relies on the Apex Court's decision in the case of NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES (supra).
6. He submits that on the passing of the award and taking of the possession, the lands vest in the State Government. The State Government has made over the lands to the HUDA. Anything that comes to be vested by the operation of law cannot be divested at the instance of the erstwhile landowners.
7. Sri B.N.Jayadeva, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.9966/2008, 2447/2008, 2348-2548/2011 and 11927-11947/2011 alleges the colourable exercise of power in acquiring the petitioners' lands compulsorily. He submits that the possession of the lands was forcibly taken from the petitioners by misrepresenting the facts.
8. He submits that even before the passing of the award, the large chunks of the lands were allotted to bigwigs. He submits that the award was passed only on 06.11.2003. On 19.11.2003, the HUDA has allotted 50 acres of land to Shariff Academy of Higher Education, Hassan vide HUDA's letter, dated 19.11.2003 (Annexure-R4). He also brings to my notice the extract of t
gpt-4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
