DEVAGIRI PANDU RANGA v. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA — 1999 DIGILAW 686 (KAR)

KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition challenges the acquisition proceedings with respect to sy. No. 15/1 measuring 2 acres 21 guntas. The petitioner also seeks an enquiry by the central bureau of investigation. ( 3 ) THE petitioner claims that he is the owner of the land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas in sy. No. 15/1 situated at lalbagh upparalli, Bangalore south taluk. The said property was purchased by the petitioner's uncle late patel chikka kanakappa. Chikka kanakappa and the petitioner's father devanna were brothers. Under the registered partition deed dated 26-4-1932 (Annexure-A) sy. No. 15/1 has come to the share of the petitioner's father. The record of rights in respect of sy. No. 15/1, index of lands, city survey atlas copy, village map of lalbagh upparalli are produced at Annexures-b, c, d and e. ( 4 ) IT is submitted that the petitioner was not aware of any claim made by any one in respect of the said land, but came to know the claim made by the 5th respondent in trajavani' kannada newspaper dated 10-3-1997 claiming the property sy. No. 15/1 belonged to them. ( 5 ) IT is submitted that the petitioner has made a representation to the respondent 2 requesting him to provide him an opportunity to present his case before him. Without giving an opportunity and without considering the representation the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order at Annexure-G dated 9-4-1997. It is submitted that the title to the property and possession between different parties cannot be decided administratively. ( 6 ) IT is further submitted that the citb rules did not permit allotment of 20 sites in favour of one individual family. The primary requirement of site allotment rules of citb was overlooked by the 2nd respondent. ( 7 ) IT is submitted that the 4th and 5th respondents had filed W. P. nos. 394 to 398 of 1997 and W. P. No. 33302 of 1996 and this court disposed of those petitions on 5-3-1997 directing the parties to appear before the 2nd respondent on 6-3-1997 for the dispute being resolved between them. ( 8 ) IT is submitted that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order ignoring the representation of the petitioner dated 27-3-1997 (Annexure-F ). ( 8 ) IT is submitted that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order ignoring the representation of the petitioner dated 27-3-1997 (Annexure-F ). Aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-G and the subsequent acquisition proceedings the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the contesting 5th respondent-Mr. Chi-danandaiah submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings of the year 1953 neither was he the owner nor has he any right, title, or interest in the said land. The acquisition of 1953 remained unchallenged for more than 45 years by anyone including the petitioner. On the ground of delay the writ petition is liable to be dismissed without going into the merits of the case, ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the 5th respondent further submitted that the 5th respondent has purchased the land bearing sy. No. 15/1 from its predecessor one annaiyappa by paying the consideration. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that the government of Mysore had desired to form a residential layout in jayanagar, after acquiring various lands including sy. No. 15/1 measuring 2 acres 26 guntas which belonged to the 5th respondent. The 4 (1) notification was published in the kannada newspapers and the gazette. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent further submitted that the special land acquisition officer passed an award fixing the compensation for acquiring the land sy. No. 15/1. After the acquisition of the land, the 5th respondent made an application for reconveyance of the sites formed in the land bearing sy. No. 15/1. Thereafter, the government by an order dated 27-3-1957 has directed that the land sy. No. 15/1 shall be given to the owners on payment of developmental charges. Accordingly, by an order dated 24-1-1958, 20 sites, in all measuring 6183. 44 sq. Yards have been reconveyed in favour of 5th respondent as per Annexure-r4. The 5th respondent was asked to pay Rs. 18,550/- as developmental charges and the 5th respondent paid the amount as per receipt at Annexure-r5. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent further submitted that at that stage neither the petitioner or anyone made any objection to allot the sites formed in sy. No. 15/1 of lalbagh upparahalli by way of public auction. 18,550/- as developmental charges and the 5th respondent paid the amount as per receipt at Annexure-r5. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent further submitted that at that stage neither the petitioner or anyone made any objection to allot the sites formed in sy. No. 15/1 of lalbagh upparahalli by way of public auction. The citb became the absolute owner in 1953 itself by acquisition of the land and the petitioner has not challenged the acquisition proceedings at that stage. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel for the 5th respondent further submitted that out of 20 sites reconveyed in favour of the 5th respondent possession of only 5 sites were handed over in favour of the 5th respondent. In view of the full-fledged slum which had come into being on account of the failure of the citb, the remaining 15 sites could not be handed over in favour of the 5th respondent. The Karnataka slum clearance board issued a notification in respect of sy. no. 15/1 as a slum on 11-12-1974. Aggrieved by the said notification the 5th respondent filed W. P. No. 4125 of 1975 and this court by an order dated 22-7-1976 allowed that petition and quashed the notification dated 11-12-1974 issued by the Karnataka slum clearance board. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the 5th respondent further submitted that in spite of several representations made by the 5th respondent to evict the unauthorised occupants from the sites reconveyed, the 5th respondent had filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 9883 of 1978 unsuccessfully. The writ appeal filed by the 5th respondent in w. a. No. 1876 of 1987 was also dismissed by the division bench of this court on 29-2-1988. Aggrieved by the order dated 29-2-1988 the 5th respondent had filed slp No. 8940 of 1988 before the Supreme Court of india. The Supreme Court granted leave in the said slp by an order dated 18-7-1989 and directed the government of Karnataka to remove the encroachment from the said lands and handover the possession of sites in favour of 5th respondent. The Supreme Court's order dated 18-7-1989 is produced at Annexure-r9. The Supreme Court granted leave in the said slp by an order dated 18-7-1989 and directed the government of Karnataka to remove the encroachment from the said lands and handover the possession of sites in favour of 5th respondent. The Supreme Court's order dated 18-7-1989 is produced at Annexure-r9. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the 5th respondent further submitted that the government of Karnataka felt that the dispossession of the slum dwellers would create law and order problem and therefore proposed that the slum dwellers can be rehabilitated on the land that may be acquired by the government on payment of compensation by the 5th respondent. To facilitate a smooth transition of eviction of slum dwellers from the sites the 5th respondent agreed to pay the compensation for the land to be acquired by the bda which was required for rehabilitation of slum dwellers who occupied the sites belonging to the 5th respondent. When the matter stood thus, the Supreme Court converted the slp as civil appeal No. 1076 of 1990 and allowed the appeal and directed that entire slum should be cleared and the cost of the acquisition of the required land for rehabilitation of the slum dwellers and the cost of dismantling and transportation of the slum dwellers shall be borne by the 5th respondent. The order of the supreme court dated 6-2-1990 is produced at Annexure-r1o. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel for the 5th respondent further submitted that in spite of the directions of the Supreme Court, the slum clearance board and the bda did not take steps to evict the slum dwellers who occupied the sites reconveyed in favour of the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent decided to initiate the contempt proceedings against the authorities concerned for disobedience of the Supreme Court's order. Under such circumstances, the authorities took steps to clear the slum from sy. no. 15/1 of lalbagh upparahalli. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that the Bangalore city corporation along with others had filed W. P. No. 35437 of 1996 claiming that the corporation was the owner of the land which was reconveyed in favour of the 5th respondent by the citb. This court by its order dated 5-3-1997 at Annexure-r11 directed the secretary, urban development department to decide the dispute between the Bangalore city corporation and the bda. This court by its order dated 5-3-1997 at Annexure-r11 directed the secretary, urban development department to decide the dispute between the Bangalore city corporation and the bda. Accordingly the secretary, urban development has conducted an enquiry in terms of the directions of this court and found no merit in the claim made by the Bangalore city corporation. The order passed by the secretary, urban development is produced at Annexure-r12. Aggrieved by that the Bangalore city corporation filed W. P. No. 20384 of 1997. This court by an order at Annexure-r13 rejected the said writ petition upholding the right, title and interest of the 5th respondent on sites reconveyed in sy. No. 15/1 of lalbagh upparahalli. The petitioner, who is one of such persons either set up any one of the corporators who are inimically disposed off to the 5th respondent making false claim before this court for extraneous and irrelevant considerations. ( 17 ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Mr. Vasudevan and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent-Mr. Chi-danandaiah and the learned counsel for the b. d. a. Mr. N. k. patil. ( 18 ) IN this writ petition, petitioner challenges the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the act issued on 9-12-1953. The possession of the land was taken in the year 1953. The paper publication was issued on 26-5-1953. An award was passed for a sum of Rs. 44,249/- on 31-1-1955. On 29-3-1956 citb notified the sites for public auction. On 24-1-1958, 20 sites were reconveyed to the fifth respondent. On 18-7-1989 the Supreme Court directed the delivery of possession of the sites to the fifth respondent. The final order of the Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 1076 of 1990 was passed on 6-2-1990. On 9-4-1997 the secretary rejected the claim of the Bangalore city corporation. The possession with respect to the remaining sites was handed over to the fifth respondent on 31-5-1997. On 17-12-1997 the high court upheld the order passed by the secretary, urban development in W. P. No. 20384 of 1997. ( 19 ) IN spite of all this, another round of litigation has been set in motion challenging the land acquisition proceedings that took place in the year 1953. On 17-12-1997 the high court upheld the order passed by the secretary, urban development in W. P. No. 20384 of 1997. ( 19 ) IN spite of all this, another round of litigation has been set in motion challenging the land acquisition proceedings that took place in the year 1953. ( 20 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited v State of Gujarat and others, at paragraph (21) held as follows:"this court has repeatedly held that writ petition challenging the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the act is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches if challenge is not made within a reasonable time. This court has said that the petitioner cannot sit on the fence and allow the state to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis that notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the notifications on the grounds which were available to him at the time when these were published as otherwise it would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics. Writ petition (sca No. 5149 of 1989) is thus barred by laches as well". ( 21 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh and others v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at paragraph (4) held as follows:"at the outset we are of the view that the writ petition filed in july, 1982 questioning the notification issued in january, 1980 after a delay of nearly two and a half years is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches only. It is no doubt true that the appellants have pleaded that they did not know anything about the notifications which had been published in the gazette till they came to know of the notices issued under Section 9 (3) of the act but they have not pleaded that there was no publication in the locality of the public notice of the substance of the notification as required by Section 4 (1) of the act. It should be presumed that official acts would have been performed duly as required by law. It is significant that a large number of persons who own the remaining plots have not challenged the acquisition proceedings. The only other petition in which these proceedings are challenged in civil misc. It should be presumed that official acts would have been performed duly as required by law. It is significant that a large number of persons who own the remaining plots have not challenged the acquisition proceedings. The only other petition in which these proceedings are challenged in civil misc. Writ petition No. 11476 of 1982 on the file of the high court filed subsequently by amar singh and four others. Moreover, in a small place like kheragarh where these plots are situate, the acquisition of these lands would be the talk of the town in a shortwhile and it is difficult to believe that the appellants who are residents of that place would not have known till july, 1982 that the impugned notification had been published in 1980. Any interference in this case filed after two and a half years with the acquisition proceedings is likely to cause serious public prejudice. This appeal should, therefore, fail on the ground of delay alone". ( 22 ) THE writ petition is bound to fail on the question of laches. Land acquisition proceedings of the year 1953 is being challenged in the year 1998 after nearly 45 years. It would be impossible to believe that the petitioner had no prior knowledge of the proceedings. ( 23 ) IT is not permissible for this court to go behind the order of the Supreme Court as far as the delivery of possession in favour of the fifth respondent is concerned. The petitioner states that he was aged 56 years when he filed the writ petition in 1998. It is not known as to why the petitioner was waiting for such a long time before he moved this court. ( 24 ) RELYING on the judgments of the Supreme Court in larsen and toubro limited's case, supra and hari singh's case, supra, this writ petition is bound to fail. ( 25 ) FOR all these reasons, there is absolutely no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .