Back
2014 Supreme(Kar) 851
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. - PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PRINCIPAL REVENUE SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001 & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION No.56623/2014 (KLRRES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.56017/2014 (KLRRES) AND WRIT PETITION Nos.56096-56100/2014 AND WRIT PETITION No.57213/2014 (KLRRES)
Decided On : 16-12-2014
SMT. GAYATRHI BALU, ADVOCATE, SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR SHETTY AND HEGDE ASSTS., ADVOCATES
SRI KIRAN KUMAR, AGA., FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5 SRI H.S. SACHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4, SRI KIRAN KUMAR, AGA., FOR R1 TO R4 SRI H.S. SACHIDANANDA, ADV., FOR R5, SRI KIRAN KUMAR, AGA., FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1, 3 AND 4 TO 6 SRI H.S. SACHIDANANDA, ADV., FOR R2
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the survey to be conducted in accordance with the law, including the provision of sufficient notice to the affected parties.
Headnote:
Order - Land Survey - Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 Rule 84(4) - The court directed the respondent authorities to conduct a fresh survey of the lands after issuing notice to the petitioners and other persons, giving at least seven clear days notice, and conducting the survey in accordance with the law. The court also stated that if the petitioners do not appear at the proposed survey without any good reason, they would be estopped from seeking resurvey of the lands.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners questioned the survey conducted by the Joint Director of Land Records, Survey Settlement of Land and Records, K.R. Circle, Bangalore, regarding the lands in their possession and occupation. The survey was conducted without sufficient notice to the petitioners and other persons, and the petitioners sought a resurvey of the lands.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the survey conducted was not in accordance with the law as sufficient notice was not given to the petitioners and other persons. The court directed the respondent authorities to conduct a fresh survey after issuing proper notice and conducting the survey in accordance with the law. The court also stated that if the petitioners do not appear at the proposed survey without any good reason, they would be estopped from seeking resurvey of the lands.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the survey conducted by the respondent authorities and the petitioners' request for a resurvey of the lands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the survey conducted without sufficient notice to the petitioners and other persons was not in accordance with the law. The court directed the respondent authorities to conduct a fresh survey after issuing proper notice and conducting the survey in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed with the direction for a fresh survey to be conducted by the respondent authorities after issuing proper notice and conducting the survey in accordance with the law. The court also stated that if the petitioners do not appear at the proposed survey without any good reason, they would be estopped from seeking resurvey of the lands.
Issues raised in these writ petitions are common and identical and therefore, they have been clubbed together and are heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. Petitioners have questioned the survey conducted by the Joint Director of Land Records, Survey Settlement of Land and Records, K.R. Circle, Bangalore, respondent No.3 in W.P. Nos. 56017, 56096-56100 of 2014, which writ petitions shall be referred to during the course of this order visàvis the facts of the case as well documents that have been annexed thereto. Petitioners have consequently sought resurvey of the lands, which are in their possession and occupation.
3. The relevant facts of the case are that petitioner in W.P. Nos. 56017, 56096-56100 of 2014 is in occupation of several survey numbers in Byrasandra Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. Those lands are adjacent to a lake called Kelaginakere, Byrasandra. Survey number assigned to the lake is Sy. No.112. There have been several proceedings initiated in regard to the alleged encroachment of land by the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 56017, 56096-56100 of 2014 and other persons with regard to the lake in question. In fact, the jurisdictional Tahsildar i.e., Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, had issued notice dated 30.08.2013 to the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 56017, 56096-56100 of 2014. That notice was assailed in W.P. Nos. 40082-40085/2013 before this Court. On 19.12.2013, this Court disposed the writ petitions by observing that the petitioner therein would reply to the impugned notice and respondent therein on considering the reply within a period of two months would pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Till then, the revenue authorities were directed not to take any precipitative action against the petitioner therein. It is stated at the Bar that respective petitioners in W.P. No. 56623/2014 and W.P. No. 57213/2014 have purchased various extents of land from the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 56017, 56096-56100 of 2014. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 19.12.2013, petitioner in W.P. Nos. 56017, 56096-56100 of 2014 replied to the notice, but it is submitted at the Bar that till date, no orders have been passed in the said proceedings.
4. When the matter stood thus, the Lake Development Authority (L.D.A.) passed an order on 26.09.2013 in proceeding No. CEO/LDA/Kelaginakere Byrasandra/1314/2001 rejecting the request made by petitioner in W.P. Nos. 56017, 56096-56100 of 2014 to conduct resurvey of land bearing Sy. No. 112 as well as the adjacent lands by the Commissioner of Survey Settlement of Land Records. That order was challenged in W.P. No.46381/2013. This Court, by order dated 29.01.2014, held that the petitioner therein had made out a case with regard to quashing of the order dated 26.09.2013 and on quashing that order of L.D.A., directed the L.D.A., to consider the application filed by the petitioner therein for the purpose of resurvey and to conduct resurvey in the presence of petitioner therein and others, who may have interest in the lands in question. Subsequently, on 20.11.2014, the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 56017, 56096-56100 of 2014 made a representation to the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, K.R. Circle, Bangalore1, seeking resurvey of various extents of lands adjacent to the lake i.e., Kelagina kere, Byrasandra. Pursuant to that request, respondent No.2 – Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records issued notice dated 24.11.2014 stating that a resurvey would be conducted on 26.11.2014 at 11 a.m. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 56017, 56096-56100 of 2014 sent a representation on 25.11.2014 seeking three days’ time. A similar request was made to the 3rd respondent herein – Joint Director of Land Records. However, on the very next day i.e., from 26.11.2014 upto 01.12.2014, the respondent authorities conducted the survey. According to petitioners, they were not present on those days when the survey was conducted. It is also stated that
