Point of Law: Title dispute - Court in exercise of power under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot determine the question of title - Single Judge has rightly relegated the parties to avail of the remedies in respect of right title or interest, pertaining to lands in question before the appropriate forum

JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

In these intra court appeals filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the appellants have assailed the order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions, from which these appeals emanate. The learned Single Judge by the aforesaid order has quashed the order dated 19.04.2010 and 05.04.2012 passed by Additional Commissioner Bruhath, Bengaluru Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'BBMP' for short) in exercise of powers under Section 114A of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). In order to appreciate the appellant’s challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, few relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.

FACTS

2. The lands measuring 60 acres comprised in Survey numbers 2/1B, 2/1C, 2/4, 17/2, 18/1, 20/2, 20/3, 20/4,20/6, 20/7, 20/10, 20/11, 20/12, 21, 22, 23, 24/4, 24/5, 42/2a, 42/3a, 42/3b, 48/1, 48/2, 52/1, 52/2 situate at Pattanagera Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk were required for the purpose of allotment of sites to members of REMCO House Building Coop. Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society' for short). Thereupon, proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act' for short) were initiated and a Notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, was issued on 16.05.1985, which was followed by a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act dated 03.10.1987. The aforesaid acquisition proceedings were challenged and were quashed by a division bench of this court vide order dated 18.06.1991 in 'NARAYANA REDDY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA', I.L.R. 1991 KAR 2248. The aforesaid decision was affirmed by Supreme Court vide judgment dated 21.02.1995 passed in batch of appeals ['H.M.T. HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY V. SYED KHADER', I.L.R. 1995 KAR 1962 (SC)] and a direction was issued that possession of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their lands or not and a further direction was also issued to land owners to refund the amount received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands and the parties to the Special Leave Petition as well as all concerned persons were directed to implement the directions issued at an early date.

3. Between a period from 21.08.1997 to 06.03.1998 on various dates namely 07.08.1997, 28.08.1997, 03.09.1997, 20.11.2007, and 06.03.1998, the Special Land Acquisition Officer handed over the possession of the lands in question. It appears that some of the land owners had entered into an agreement dated 10.11.2000 with the Society, under which they agreed to ratify the past transaction and the transaction entered into between the Society and its members, the aforesaid agreement pertains to land bearing Survey No.17/2 (measuring 2 acres and 17 guntas), Survey No.42/4 (1.02 acres), Survey No.42/4 (0.20 acres), Survey No.21 (totally 5.24 acres, 5.22 acres, 5.22 acres, 5.22 acres, 5.22 acres, 5.22 acres, 5.22 acres, 5.22 acres, 5.22 acres, 0.20 acres). It was averred in the writ petition that some of the allotees who were allotted sites by the Society had constructed the houses on the sites and khatha of the said properties were made in their respective names by the then City Municipal Corporation, Rajrajeshwari Nagar. Later on, the area in which the aforesaid sites were situate brought within limits of BBMP and Khathas, which was recorded in the name of allotees continued in their name. It was further averred that since, the ratification deed revived the past transactions, the Power Of Attorney executed by the land owners in favour of the Society was also revived.

4. It was further averred that Society had filed suits viz., O.S.No.4602/2000, O.S.No.5470/2002 and O.S.No.17125/2006 aga