Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 851
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
L. NARAYANA SWAMY, R. DEVDAS, JJ.
A. Chandrashekar - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 15859, 15860 of 2011
Decided On : 05-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Ashok Haranahalli, Adv., R.S. Hegde, Adv., S.S. Mahendra, Adv., D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, Adv., K. Krishna, Adv., M.N. Seshadri, Adv., B.C. Venkatesh, Adv., M.S. Rajendra, Adv., C. Narasimhachar, Adv., Gururaj B.M., Adv., N.M. Guruprakash, Adv.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48(1) – Quash - Claim to be Power of Attorney - State Government withdrawing lands in question from acquisition- However by issuing a notification order of identification was withdrawn- Consequently were filed challenging withdrawal notification - By a common order Single Judge quashed and set aside order of de-notification well as withdrawal notification and connected matters order Single Judge was affirmed by Division Bench - However learned Single Judge had observed that withdrawal notification being quashed State Government was at liberty to consider matter after hearing all persons aggrieved with a rider that competent Civil Court declaring that possession was not taken from landlords -Held, Court on question of possession being against land owners benefit of decision case (supra) shall not to appellants herein Court has held that provisions of Section have a direct nexus with provisions of Section BDA Act which provide that provisions of Land Acquisition Act so far as are applicable State shall govern cases of acquisition otherwise than by agreement- Acquisition stands on a completely distinct footing from scheme formulated which is subject-matter of execution provisions of BDA Act- On a conjunctive reading of provisions of Section it was held that scheme may lapse but acquisition shall not- Upon completion of acquisition proceedings and when once land vests in State Government in terms Land Acquisition Act acquisition would not lapse or terminate as a result of lapsing of scheme appellants herein since earlier pronouncement of this court is binding on parties inter se- It is beneficial to notice well settled proposition that even inter-parties if law laid down in a pronouncement is later overruled as distinguished from it being reversed its binding effect inter-parties is not set at naught State Transport Authority and was that it is well settled law that even if erroneous an inter-party judgment binds party if court of competent jurisdiction decides appeals fail- On question of imposition of costs as vehemently contended by court counsel for respondents no doubt we have held that prayer insofar are concerned are barred by and as a consequence court may impose costs on appellants for vexing respondents more than once however since we have also concluded that insofar is concerned doctrine of res not attracted we give benefit to appellants and desist from imposing costs – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
R. DEVDAS, J.
1. These appeals arise out of order dated 30.05.2011 in W.P.Nos.1222/2003.
2. The issue is whether the decision of a Coordinate Bench with respect to the very same parties, albeit with respect to different property, in the matter of Dr.A.Parthasarathy and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, by its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, (2017) ILR(Kar) 3489, wherein the co-ordinate Bench held that the acquisition proceedings has lapsed after expiry of five years of the final declaration/notification under Section 19(1) dated 28.12.1982, is applicable to the facts and circumstances of these cases?
3. The lands in question are Sy.Nos.17, 25 and 28 of Bhoopasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore District. The extent of land in Sy.No.17 is 3 acres 7 guntas; 2 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.25 and 3 acres 9 guntas in Sy.No.28. Preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1970 (for short 'BDA Act') was issued on 19.01.1978, whereas the final notification came to be issued on 28.12.1982. At different stages of the acquisition, the appellant-landlords have filed writ petitions, the details of which may not be necessary at this stage.
4. On 09.02.2001, invoking powers under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a notification came to be issued by the State Government withdrawing the lands in Sy.Nos.25 and 28, in question from acquisition. However, by issuing a notification dated 21.03.2001, Gazetted on 22.03.2001, the order of denotification was withdrawn. Consequently, W.P.Nos.13806/2001 & 14376/2001 were filed challenging the withdrawal notification dated 21.03.2001. By a common order dated 04.07.2001, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the order of de-notification dated 09.02.2011, as well as the withdrawal notification dated 21.03.2001 in W.P.Nos.11761-65/2001 and connected matters. The order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.4886-67/2001, by order dated 26.08.2002. However, the learned Single Judge-10- had observed that dehors the withdrawal notification being quashed, the State Government was at liberty to consider the matter after hearing all the persons aggrieved, with a rider that the competent Civil Court declaring that possession was not taken from the landlords in 1984.
5. In the meanwhile, it appears that one Sri. G.Rajan, claiming to be the Power of Attorney holder of Sri. P.Anjanappa and Smt.Kempamma, the landlords, had filed W.P.Nos.29933-34/2000 questioning the acquisition proceedings, which came to be dismissed on 22.11.2000. In this regard, a Review Petition in Civil Petition No.493/2002 was filed by Sri.P.Anjanappa and Smt.Kempamma, on the ground that they had neither executed Power of Attorney nor authorized Sri G.Rajan to file the writ petitions. By order dated 09.04.2002 the Review Petition was dismissed granting liberty to initiate appropriate action against Sri G.Rajan.
6. Subsequently, the instant writ petition out of which these appeals arise, in W.P.No.1222/2003 was filed by the appellants herein seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed after the expiry of five years, in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act. The writ petition having been dismissed, the appellants are before this Court assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants would submit that the writ petitions are not barred by res judicata. This submission is made in view of the learned Single Judge holding that the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted as they are barred by res judicata. In this regard the learned Senior Counsel places reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Hari Ram and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2010) 3 SCC 621, and Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2012) 12 SCC 443, to buttress his contention that a person who is depri
