Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1124 (KAR)

Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka

2015-09-23

B.S.PATIL

body2015
ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. 1. In these writ petitions, petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent-State and its Authorities to re-enter his name in the RTC in respect of land bearing Sy. Nos. 34/1, 35/1, 35/3, 43/2, 2/1 and 1/2 of Kariammana Agrahara Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The case of the petitioner is that he owned several agricultural lands in Kariammana Agrahara Village. He had filed a declaration in terms of the provisions contained under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act'). The then Special Deputy Commissioner who was the Competent Authority under the Act passed an order dated 25-8-1987 declaring that petitioner was in possession of excess vacant land to an extent of 15290 sq. mtrs. Pursuant to this order, a notification was issued under Section 10(3) of the Act declaring that the excess vacant land comprised in Sy. Nos. 34/1, 35/1, 43/3, 2/1, 1/2 and 35/3 shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State with effect from the date of publication in the gazette on 20-7-1971. Subsequently, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 15 of 1999) came to be enacted. 2. In terms of the provisions contained under Sections 3 and 4 of the repeal Act, if the excess vacant land had continued to be in possession of the declarant and he had not received any compensation, then, the land has to be restored to the owner. Even in case where compensation has been received, the land was required to be restored upon the declarant refunding the amount paid to him. All proceedings relating to any order made under the Principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of the Repeal Act stood abated. 3. In the light of the repeal of the original Act, petitioner filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 1436 of 2008 contending inter alia that he was entitled for the benefit of repeal Act and also that as his lands were agricultural lands, they were wrongly declared as urban lands, therefore, the entire proceedings initiated were vitiated. 4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 27-8-2008. 4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 27-8-2008. Writ appeal filed in W.A. No. 1577 of 2008 against the said order was allowed on 20-7-2012 directing the Authorities to reconsider the matter by giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and making it clear that if the Authorities were to be of the opinion that possession of the lands had not been taken in accordance with law and no compensation was paid to the appellant or to her deceased husband, appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law. It was also observed in the said order that agricultural lands would not come under the purview of the Act, therefore, even if declaration had been given by the late husband of the appellant in that regard, it was the duty of the Authorities to consider whether the lands were urban lands falling within the purview of the Act. 5. Thereafter, the State Government has undertaken the exercise of examining whether possession of lands had been indeed taken over pursuant to the notification issued under Section 10(3) of the Principal Act or whether they continued to be in possession of the declarant and subsequently with his wife Smt. Lakshmamma. 6. As is evident from the proceedings of the Government produced at Annexure-J, the Authorities have come to the conclusion that lands in question continued to be in possession of the declarant along with pump house and shed constructed therein apart from a school in existence and therefore, the proposal made to restore the right of the petitioner over the lands could be accepted. This is evident from the proceeding sheet produced at Annexure-J, particularly, the note made in the proceeding sheet dated 26-10-2013. This has been approved by the Urban Development Departments as is evident form the views expressed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore dated 5-7-2014. It is also relevant to notice here that the Chief Minister has also approved the said view and the recommendation of the Additional Chief Secretary. 7. However, it transpires that the Authorities have entertained a doubt as to whether Sy. Nos. It is also relevant to notice here that the Chief Minister has also approved the said view and the recommendation of the Additional Chief Secretary. 7. However, it transpires that the Authorities have entertained a doubt as to whether Sy. Nos. 45/2 and 1/6 were also included in the notification published under Section 10(3) and also in the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1577 of 2008 so that even those two lands also could be restored in the name of the writ petitioner. It is at this stage that the matter has been kept pending before the Authorities. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the Authorities to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of lands which are continued in her possession and enjoyment and in view of the decision already taken by the State Government. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the notification issued under Section 10(3) pertains to only 15290 sq. meters of land comprised in six survey numbers namely Sy. Nos. 34/1, 35/1, 35/3, 43/3, 2/1 and 1/2 and lands in Survey Numbers 45/2 and 1/6 were not the subject-matter of the said notification issued under Section 10(3). It is his submission that these two lands in Sy. Nos. 45/2 and 1/6 which measured less than 1000 sq. meters had been already excluded in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and also in the notification issued under Section 10(3). He submits that the revenue records of these two lands continued in the name of the writ petitioner, therefore, they are not the subject-matter of any dispute. This submission is just and appropriate and is born out from the notification issued under Section 10(3). 9. Even though in the order passed by the Division Bench at paragraph 2 wherein the facts have been enumerated these two survey numbers i.e., 45/2 and 1/6 are shown as part of the holdings of the petitioner, they are not the subject-matter of notification issued under Section 10(3). Therefore, the Authorities are not required to pass any order in respect of these two survey numbers. The action that the authorities is required for reinstating or restoring the name of the petitioner in the revenue records only in respect of six survey numbers. Therefore, the Authorities are not required to pass any order in respect of these two survey numbers. The action that the authorities is required for reinstating or restoring the name of the petitioner in the revenue records only in respect of six survey numbers. As the State Government has already taken a decision that these lands were in possession of the declarant and upon his death his wife - writ petitioner, petitioner is entitled for the benefit of restoration of the lands in terms of the provisions contained under the Repeal Act 15 of 1999. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to pass orders in accordance with law and restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of Sy. Nos. 34/1, 35/1, 35/3, 43/2, 2/1 and 1/2 of Kariammana Agrahara Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.