Back
2021 Supreme(Kar) 336
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G.NARENDAR, J.
M/S CHAMUNDESWARI BUILD TECH PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Vs.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.38312/2017 (KLRRES)
Decided On : 17-08-2021
For The Appellant : SRI:K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI:NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE
For The Respondent: SRI:PRABHULING K. NAVADGI ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI: R. SRINIVASAGOWDA, AGA
Point of Law: Grant of lands reserved for public purposes - Petitioner being a commercial entity and being well aware of its rights and reciprocal duties, has been deliberately using litigation as an instrument to give a cover of respectability to its illegal acts.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 & 227 - KLR Act - Section 94 (3) - Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 - Rule 97 (4) - Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 - Government land - Government order - Sought for quashing of proceedings of State Government whereby Government has communicated decision of Cabinet Sub-Committee, which has assessed market value of 77 acres 19 guntas of land, at rate of Rs.982,07,77,480/- and also to quash Endorsement bearing to writ petition, whereby Deputy Commissioner has called upon petitioner to deposit amount, less the amount already deposited and further notified petitioner to pay the same within one month failing which, petitioner's occupation would be concluded as unauthorised occupation and action will be initiated to take possession of lands - Whether Chief Minister or the Cabinet of Ministers have suggested any particular market value that is to be charged or fixed by the Cabinet Sub-Committee.
Finding of the Court:
No material is placed to demonstrate as to whether then Chief Minister or then Cabinet of Ministers suggested any particular methodology for determining market price or suggesting any price to be fixed as market price - Exercise pertaining to fixation of market rate of remaining lands was to commence after excess land was handed over and the petitioner offered to hand over excess land only - Deposit is a voluntary deposit by petitioner and it is relevant to note that if is nearly 300 times more than price recommended under first Deputy Commissioner's report (upon which much reliance is placed). It can be safely inferred that even according to the petitioner said price does not reflect true market value - Court endeavours to record its opinion with regard to manner in which petitioner has been resorting to litigation to continue its illegal hegemony over Government's property and that too for decades together - Petitioner can by, no stretch of imagination, be labeled as a bonafide litigant - Petitioner having acquired huge tracts of private land and being well versed with manner and method in which title over immovable properties can be acquired cannot be permitted to don a saintly garb and project innocence - Describing it as an encroacher, leaves no doubt in mind of Court that present petition is nothing but an abuse of process in order to enable petitioner to achieve its narrow ends, that is to illegally continue its possession and commercial use of public property.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Heard Sri. K. G. Raghavan, learned Senior counsel along with Sri. Nischal Dev B. R, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Advocate General Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi, along with Sri. R. Srinivasa Gowda, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the State Government dated 03.08.2017 vide Annexure-A, whereby the Government has communicated the decision of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, which has assessed the market value of 77 acres 19 guntas of land, at the rate of Rs.982,07,77,480/and also to quash the Endorsement bearing No.RDCO/LND/CR/109200910 dated 07.08.2017, vide Annexure-B to the writ petition, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara, has called upon the petitioner to deposit the amount, less the amount already deposited and further notified the petitioner to pay the same within one month failing which, the petitioner’s occupation would be concluded as unauthorised occupation and action will be initiated to take possession of the lands. The petitioner has further prayed for writ of mandamus and thereby direct the respondents to accept the amount of Rs.12.35 Crores as market value for 77 acres 19 guntas of land in pursuance to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16.01.2014 vide Annexure-W passed in Civil Appeal No.5181/2003 and as per the decision of the Valuation Sub-Committee dated 21.01.2015.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-Company was incorporated on 26.09.1994 with the object of developing a world-class golf course under the banner of ‘Eagleton Golf Resort’. In pursuance of the objective, an extent of nearly 400 acres of land was identified and purchased by the petitioner in Ramanagara District. That in 1995, the project was registered with the State Level Single Window Agency as a ‘Tourism Industry’. That amidst the parcels of lands purchased by the petitioner, some extent of government land came to be enclosed i.e., pieces of government land came to be encompassed by the lands purchased by the petitioner. That in the interregnum, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Authority (KIADB) notified Bidadi Hobli (lying on the outskirts of the Bengaluru City) as an industrial area and large and medium scale industries had been setup.
3.1. That KIADB acquired and allotted 16 acres 26 guntas of land on 04.04.1998 to the petitioner. That in the interregnum, the petitioner was served with an Eviction Notice issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar. That apart, the jurisdictional Tahsildar by letter dated 03.10.1998, called upon the petitioner to vacate and handover possession of ‘B’ kharab lands i.e., lands reserved for public purpose like carttrack, halla, nalas, water ways, roads, community lands etc. measuring 14 acres 18 guntas and with this started the multiple rounds of legal battles.
4. Initially, the petitioner approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by way of revision in R.P.No.126/1998. The Appellate Tribunal was initially pleased to grant an interim order. But later on, by order dated 10.03.2000, the Appellate Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the revision petition.
4.1 Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.29705/2000 praying for quashment of the Eviction Notices emanating from the office of the jurisdictional Tahsildar. That apart, the petitioner also preferred another Writ Petition No.2493/2001. This Court was pleased to reject the first Writ Petition by order dated 02.04.2002. While so rejecting, in paragraph No.9 the Coordinate Bench has observed that the petitioner had altered the nature of the lands reserved for public purpose and in paragraph No.10, taking note of the illegalities also directed action against certain government officials who, the Court was of the opinion had facilitated the encroachment by the petitioner.
4.2 The second writ petition also came to be rejected by an order of even date. The Court while so dismis
