Back
2018 Supreme(Kar) 437
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.
Smt. Lakshmamma, W/o Late Madegowda & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary to Government Department of Urban Development & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.60045-60048 of 2014 (LA-RES)
Decided On : 02-01-2018
For the Petitioners:Sri R.S. Ravi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sri Vijaya Kumar A. Patil, AGA.
Headnote:RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION & TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION & RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 [C.A. NO. 30/2013] - Section 24 - CITY OF MYSORE IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1903 [K.A. No. 3/1903] - Sections 16(1), 18(1) & 18 (2) - KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 [K.A. No. 34/1987] - Section 27 - Acquisition of land initiated under the 1903 Act, which was in force prior to the enforcement of KUDA Act, 1987 and the same is repealed - Question whether provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 are applicable to such acquisitions - Held, inter alia, that provisions of the KUDA Act, 1987 which have been enforced from 16-11-1987 to provide for the establishment of Urban Development Authorities for the planned development of major and important urban areas in the State and areas adjacent thereto and for matters connected therewith - Object and purpose of the KUDA Act and Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, are in pari material - Scheme and object of the BDA Act is distinct and different from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Even by a more recent judgment of this Court in Ever shine Monuments (earlier known as M/s. Granite Exporters), Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore & ors., vs State of Karnataka & ors., 2018 (2) KLJ 6, it has been held that Section 24 of the Act 2013 would not apply to any acquisition initiated under the BDA Act - Same reasoning would squarely apply to acquisition initiated under the Act 1903, in the present case. Section 24 of the Act 2013 (whether it is sub-section (1) or(2)) applies only when acquisition proceedings have been initiated under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 [K.A. No. 34/1987] - Section 27 - Lapse of scheme - KUDA Act substituted the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 - Applicability - Delay and larches - Held, a provision in the nature of Section 27 of the KUDA Act is not found under the 1903 Act - Therefore, petitioners cannot raise a contention under Section 27 of the KUDA Act, insofar as the acquisition in question is concerned - As the acquisition was the acquisition in question in concerned - As the acquisition was made under the 1903 Act, which was a legislation prior to enforcement of the KUDA Act - Assessing that the case could be considered under Section 27 of the KUDA Act, here the preliminary and final notifications are of years 1981 and 1984 - Common award was passed on 21-04-1986 - Scheme for which land acquired for formation of Vijayanagar Layout, involving 24 acres, has been implemented long ago - Whereas, the present petition is of 2014, under the KUDA Act, a subsequent legislation, filed at a very belated stage - Petition, therefore liable for dismissal on ground of delay, laches, insofar as contention regarding Section 27 of the KUDA Act is concerned.
RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION & TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION & RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 [C.A. NO. 30/2013] - Section 24(2) - Locus standi - Petitioners who have alienated the land in question to respondents 5 to 15 in the form of house sites, have no locus standi to seek any relief in respect of land in question, as they have no right, title and interest in the same.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 226 & 227 - Stale claims - Delay and laches - Court of equity exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot extend its hand to such persons, who approach the Court after several years - Stale claims ought not to be entertained by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioners have sought for the following reliefs in these writ petitions :
(a) To declare that the 2nd and 3rd respondents have no subsisting right over the land in question by virtue of the notification dated 29.03.1984, made in No. HUD 82, MIB 82, published in the Official Gazette dated 31.03.1984, vide Annexure-F; in view of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;
(b) To declare the Notification dated 27.9.2005 made No.LAC:435/85-86, u/s 16(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 27.9.2005 vide Annexure-S, as null and void by virtue of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;
(c) To declare the Notification dated 15.11.1984 made in No. ULA 2170/1976-77 issued by the respondent No.4 as null and void vide Annexure-U, by virtue of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999;
(d) Grant such other relief/relieves as deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Petitioners submit that in respect of the land in question, which is Sy.No.337 measuring 1 acre of Hinkal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District, petitioners formed a residential layout after obtaining permission from Hinkal Mandal Panchayath. Thereafter, house sites have been sold to respondent Nos.5 to 15. The petitioners have sought the aforesaid prayers having regard to the fact that respondent Nos.1 to 4 initiated acquisition proceedings in respect of several lands including the land in question by issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 25.06.1981 under Section 16(1) of the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 (hereinafter, referred to as “1903 Act”, for the sake brevity) and the same was followed by a Final Notification dated 29.03.1984 under Section 18 (1) and (2) of the said Act.
3. According to the petitioners, general award was passed in respect of the lands sought to be acquired including the land in question on 21.04.1986, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-G to the writ petitions. The contention of the petitioners is that no separate award has been passed in respect of the land in question. In the circumstances, petitioners have sought the aforesaid prayers.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 4 and perused the material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly submitted that Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter, referred to as “2013 Act” for the sake brevity), is applicable even in respect of acquisitions initiated under the Act. Secondly, he submitted that under Section 27 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, (hereinafter, referred to as “KUDA Act” for the sake brevity), which has substituted 1903 Act, this Court may declare that the acquisition has lapsed as the scheme for which the land was sought to be acquired has not been substantially implemented. Thirdly, he submitted that when the award has not been passed in the name of the petitioners, possession from them could not have been taken from the respondent Authorities. Therefore, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed. In the circumstances, petitioners’ counsel sought for the aforesaid reliefs being granted to them.
6. Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 4 on advance notice submitted that Section 24 of 2013 Act does not apply to acquisition initiated under 1903 Act or even under KUDA Act, which Act has repealed 1903 Act under which acquisition has taken place. He further submitted that the petitioners cannot seek a declaration under Section 27 of the KUDA Act at this belated point of time assuming that it applies. He also drew my attention to the general award at Annexure-G dated 21.04.
