Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.
Chanabasanagouda Polis Patil & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4470/2019 (LA-RES)
Decided On : 02-02-2022
Land Acquisition - Lapsed Acquisition Proceedings - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 27(2), Section 24(2) - The court rejected the petitioners' claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 27(2) of the Act and that possession of the land was never taken by the authorities. The court held that the Act of 2013, in particular, Section 24(2) is not applicable to acquisition under the BDA Act, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in previous cases. The court also found that the petitioners, as subsequent purchasers, did not have locus standi to challenge the notifications. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners' claims were barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata, estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment, and waiver.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed to have acquired the land and sold portions of it to subsequent purchasers. The land was notified for acquisition, and possession was taken by the authorities and handed over to a housing society. The petitioners challenged the notifications, claiming that possession was never taken and that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under the Act of 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' claims were not maintainable as subsequent purchasers did not have locus standi to challenge the notifications. The court also held that the Act of 2013 was not applicable to the acquisition under the BDA Act. The court further found that the petitioners' claims were barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata, estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment, and waiver.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 27(2) of the Act of 2013. 2. Whether the petitioners, as subsequent purchasers, had locus standi to challenge the notifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The Act of 2013, in particular, Section 24(2) is not applicable to acquisition under the BDA Act. Subsequent purchasers did not have locus standi to challenge the notifications. The petitioners' claims were barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata, estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment, and waiver.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. - In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ of appropriate nature to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated as per the preliminary notification dated 04.01.1985 at Annexure-G and the final notification dated 25.09.1986 at Annexure-H, in so far as it relates to Survey No. 11 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring 1 acre 28 guntas has stood lapsed in view of Section 27(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; or in the alternative
ii. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the notification dated 25.09.1986 at Annexure-H in so far as it relate to Survey No. 11 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring 1 acre 28 guntas.
iii. Pass such other order as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice."
2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.C. Balaraj, learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri R.V. Jayaprakash, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Smt. Susheela, learned senior counsel for respondents 5 to 9 and perused the material on record.
3. The various contentions urged in the petition are as follows:-
(i) The petitioners have contended that the subject land bearing Sy. No. 11 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas of Kodigehali village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, was purchased by petitioner No. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 10.08.1983. The 1st petitioner formed the residential layout in the said land comprising of residential sites and petitioners 2 to 9 are the purchasers in respect of the some of the sites. It is contended that most of the petitioners have put up construction, obtained electricity and are paying taxes.
(ii) It is contended that on 04.01.1985, a preliminary notification was issued by the BDA notifying various lands for acquisition for the benefits of the 3rd respondent - NTI Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., (for short' the society') for the purpose of providing housing sites to its employees; on 25.09.1986, a final notification to an extent of 210 acres including the subject land was issued. In this context, it is contended that the names of petitioners 2 to 9 and other purchasers was not contained in the final notification.
(iii) Petitioner No. 1 has challenged the final notification in W.P. No. 292/1987 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.10.1993. It is contended that subsequently, several properties were excluded from acquisition proceedings and the subject land being a isolated piece of property or island which could not be develop along with the remaining part of the layout, petitioner No. 1 once again approached this Court in W.P. No. 12784/2002 challenging the final notification in respect of the subject land. In the said petition, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition reserving liberty in favour of petitioner No. 1 to approach the Government for de-notification of the subject land. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was placed on record by this Court which dismissed the petition as withdrawn vide final order dated 24.06.2002. It is contended that though the petitioner approached the State Government seeking de-notification, the State Government did not take any steps in this regard.
(iv) The petitioners have further contended that though the mahazar and other documents suggest that possession was taken, in reality, the said documents were only paper work and possession of the subject land were never taken by the BDA.
(v) It is contended that litigations referred to in paragraph-9 of the petition, petitioner No. 1 came to know that one Prabhavathi B. Chandapur had claimed under a fabricated power of attorney said to have been
The court established that an acquisition may lapse if not substantially implemented within a reasonable timeframe, affirming the landowner's right to challenge ineffective acquisitions.
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not create a new cause of action to question finalized land acquisition proceedings where possession was taken and compensation paid.
The court established that failure to notify landowners and to take possession in accordance with the law invalidates the land acquisition process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
