Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1061 (KAR)

Shri Muddappa v. State Of Karnataka

2010-10-05

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Writ petitioners claim to be the owners of certain parcels of agricultural lands comprised in Sy No. 68 of Satagalli Village, Mysore Taluk and measuring in all 3 acres 27 guntas having inherited the same from their predecessors-in-title i.e. the husband of first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 6. 2. Petitioners have questioned the legality of acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority, particularly the act of second respondent, for the purpose of formation of Mahadevapura extension layout formed, during the year 1980 and for which purpose the subject lands to which the petitioners claiming ownership, having been taken over the MUDA, through consent acquisition proceedings, from respondents 3 to 10, on the premise that respondents 3 to 10 were the owners of this parcel of agricultural land and having so indicated in the notifications issued under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, for acquiring the lands. 3. It is in this background, petitioners have come approached this court with the following relief: “To set aside the consent acquisition proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.2 with the consent of deceased Chikka Putta Bovi and respondent No.3 and respondent No.10 herein by allowing the above writ petition holding that the proceedings vide annexure ‘H’ dated 10/1/1990 bearing No. LAC MC 36/89-90 are illegal and vitiated one” Contending that while they are the rightful owners of the subject land, the authority could not have acquired the title to the subject land from respondents 3 to 10 or from any one else and therefore the purchase if any made by the second respondent-authority for the purpose of formation of further extension of Mahadevapura layout in Mysore City, is vitiated, is not legal and have sought for setting aside the consent acquisition in so far as it relates to the land of which the petitioners are asserting ownership. 4. Notices had been issued to the respondents. First respondent state is represented by Sri N.B. Vishwanath, learned AGA and the second respondent authority is represented by Sri P.S. Manjunath, learned counsel respondents 3 to 19 are persons who, it is claimed, had effected the sale of the subject land in favour of the second respondent-authority claiming that they were the owners of the subject land. Respondents 4 and 5 are represented their counsel Sri K.L. Srinivas. Respondents 4 and 5 are represented their counsel Sri K.L. Srinivas. Rest of the respondents though served are not represented before the court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently urge that the subject land was subject matter of civil litigation between the petitioner on the one side and the respondents 2 to 10 on the other; that in fact in a suit for declaration of title of the petitioners, the petitioners had succeeded before the court of first instance, but that decree for declaration of title in favour of the petitioners had been set aside in the appeal filed by the authority only on the ground of subsequent legal position viz., the subject land had already vested in the state government and there was no possibility of declaring the title in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs and though the further appeal to this court by way of a second appeal in RSA No.3037 of 2007 came to be dismissed in terms of the judgment and decree dated 4/3/208 passed by this court, but this court nevertheless having observed that it is open to the appellants therein to agitate their rights before an appropriate forum challenging the acquisition proceedings, if they are aggrieved by the same and taking cue from this observation, the petitioners have come up before this court with this writ petition contending that the sale of subject land in favour of the authority by respondents 3 to 10 cannot be sustained and the petitioners cannot be deprived of their lands as well as compensation payable, if the land should have been acquired by the authority. 7. Statement of objections has been filed by the second respondent. 8. 7. Statement of objections has been filed by the second respondent. 8. Sri P.S. Manjunath, learned counsel for second respondent-authority submits that the authority has gone by the revenue entries and it is an admitted fact that the petitioners’ name did not figure in the revenue records and in such a state of affairs, while the factual position is as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the legal position is now concluded in terms of the judgment and decree passed by this court in RSA No. 3037 of 2007; that the decree binds the petitioners and they are stopped from contending contrary vis-à-vis the authority to claim ownership of the subject land either against the authority or against the private respondents and therefore the writ petition only deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have bestowed my attention to the submissions made at the Bar and perused the pleadings etc. 10. It is a fact that the petitioners’ attempt to elicit declaration of title in the subject land in their favour has failed before this court. That position does not alter even assuming that the acquisition proceedings are examined at the instance of the writ petitioners by this court within the scope of jurisdiction of judicial review of administrative action. 11. In a writ petition, the examination is not so much for conferring or declaring the title of the petitioners but in the wake of complaint or grievance that they are making before the court as to whether corresponding action on the part of a public authority is in consonance with the statutory provisions, is in consonance with fair-play, is in consonance with fairness in state action, which is the manner of functioning expected of a public authority, which is ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 12. When examined from this angle, while no case is made out for finding fault with the action taken by the authority, the other question of writ petition being hit by delay ad laches also stares on the face of record, in as much as the petitioners were aware of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the authority even when they instituted OS No. 170 of 1992 impleading the authority as one of the defendants. Mere fact that the petitioners might have been pursuing some other remedy does not necessarily either arrest the period of limitation or in way bail out of the petitioners while examining the question as to whether the petitioners have acted with diligence and have approached this court for relief within a reasonable time. 13. I am of the view that the petitioners are not either diligent or have approached this court for relief in writ jurisdiction within a reasonable time, but have slept over their nights, if any, for involving the jurisdiction of judicial review of administrative action for quashing the acquisition proceedings vis-à-vis respondent State and the Mysore Urban Development Authority. In so far as it relates to the assertions of the petitioners vis-à-vis respondents 3 to 10 relating dispute of title to the property is concerned, such disputes cannot be made subject matter for issue of a writ by the High Court and the appropriate forum being only a civil court, that question cannot be examined in this petition. 14. Viewed from any angle, as the petitioners cannot seek any relief in this petition on the merits of the petition while this writ petition is dismissed, it is open to the petitioners to workout their rights and remedies elsewhere in accordance with law. 15. Petition dismissed.