Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 652 (KAR)

J. Nanda Kishore v. State of Karnataka

2017-03-24

BUDIHAL R.B., SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE

body2017
JUDGMENT : Budihal R.B., J. A.N. Janardhana Reddy was the owner of survey Nos.34, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of Agara village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and survey No.7 of Jakkasandra village of the same hobli and same taluk. The property was allotted to him in a family partition in 1969. The revenue settlement record of rights recorded his possession. 2. Janardhana Reddy had two wives, namely, Jayamma and Sudamma. Janardhana Reddy died intestate in 1990. On June 14, 1992, the widows of Janardhana Reddy entered into an agreement for sale of the aforesaid lands, excepting one item, with the respondent No.4. At the relevant point of time, the writ petitioner, who has been the son of Sudamma, the second wife of Janardhana Reddy, was a minor. 3. On September 3, 1992, a preliminary notification under sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (in short ' the BDA Act'), was issued proposing to acquire those lands, which was followed by a final notification under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the BDA Act, on May 29, 1996. 4. Notwithstanding that acquisition proceeding, the widows of the said Janardhana Reddy, on December 19, 1992, conveyed the said properties to the respondent No.4, by virtue of registered conveyance. 5. The respondent No.4 approached the Bangalore Development Authority (in short ' BDA') seeking permission to utilize the lands in-question for a Group Housing Scheme. 6. A writ petition was moved before this Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No.17836 of 1997. This Court, by the Judgment and order dated September 11, 1999, disposed of the writ petition by directing the BDA to consider the claim of the respondent No.4. On July 21, 1999, the BDA passed a resolution deleting those lands from the acquisition proceeding. 7. The State Government, on January 15, 2001, issued a notification under Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, (in short ' the KIAD Act'), proceeding to acquire the lands in-question. The respondent No.4 challenged that notification by filing writ petitions, which were registered as Writ Petition Nos. 31937 to 31945 of 2001. This Court, while entertaining those writ petitions, passed an ad-interim order of maintenance of status quo by the parties. 8. The State Government, on May 2, 2002, withdrew those notifications issued under the KIAD Act. 9. The respondent No.4 challenged that notification by filing writ petitions, which were registered as Writ Petition Nos. 31937 to 31945 of 2001. This Court, while entertaining those writ petitions, passed an ad-interim order of maintenance of status quo by the parties. 8. The State Government, on May 2, 2002, withdrew those notifications issued under the KIAD Act. 9. On February 10, 2004, the State Government issued yet another notification withdrawing the acquisition proceedings initiated under the BDA Act and directed the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (in short ' KIADB') to proceed with the acquisition as proposed in the notification dated January 15, 2001. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.4, being Writ Petition No. 26782 of 2002, challenging the notification of the State was withdrawn as infructuous on March 8, 2004. 10. On April 23, 2004, the State Government issued a notification under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the KIAD Act. The notification was challenged in Writ Petition No. 18918 of 2004, by certain land owners. By the judgment and order dated July 12, 2005, the writ petition was allowed and the notification proposing to acquire the land was quashed. However, liberty was reserved to the State to initiate fresh acquisition proceeding. 11. Manipal Eta Infotech challenged the said judgment and order dated July 12, 2005, in appeals being Writ Appeal Nos. 1170 of 2006 and 3774 of 2005. On February 9, 2007, by consent of the parties, those appeals were disposed of recording that the order passed in Writ Petition No. 18918 of 2004, dated July 12, 2005, would be restricted to the respective writ petitioners therein. 12. The writ petitioner, who has been the son of Sudamma, challenged the alienation of the lands by his mother and the step-mother, by filing a suit, being Original Suit No. 5585 of 2007, before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. 13. In the earlier proceedings, the writ petitioner did not come forward to join to assert his title. For the first time, in 2007, he instituted a suit against his mother and the stepmother. 14. The writ petitioner approached the KIADB for clarification as to whether survey No. 34, which was not conveyed by his mother and the step-mother in 1992, was free from acquisition proceedings. For the first time, in 2007, he instituted a suit against his mother and the stepmother. 14. The writ petitioner approached the KIADB for clarification as to whether survey No. 34, which was not conveyed by his mother and the step-mother in 1992, was free from acquisition proceedings. The KIADB informed the writ petitioner that by virtue of the decision in Writ Appeal was 1170 of 2006 and 3774 of 2005 of this Court, the property has, since, been acquired. This was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing these writ petitions, long after attainment of majority by him. There is no explanation to such inordinate delay. 15. The Hon'ble single Judge, inter alia, held that the status of parties has, since, been finally decided in the Writ Appeal Nos. 1170 of 2006 and 3774 of 2005, the matter could not be reopened for interpretation. The Hon'ble single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petitions. 16. Mr. Udaya Holla, learned senior advocate appearing in support of the appeals, argues that as the preliminary notification was withdrawn, a final notification, in the absence of a fresh preliminary notification, is not permissible under the law. In this matter, the procedure contemplated under the law has not been followed. He submits that as this court, in Writ Petition No. 18918 of 2004 and connected petitions, by judgment and order dated July 12, 2005, quashed the notification proposing to acquire the land and, thus, the land stands reverted to the owner with full bundle of rights. 17. In support of his contention, Mr. Holla relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this court in M/s. Vijaya Leasing Limited v. The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary and others [ILR 2005 KAR 2539] : (2005 AIR Kant HCR 1331). 18. There is complete answer to the submissions advanced by Mr. Holla, in the order dated February 9, 2007, passed in Writ Appeal Nos. 1170 of 2006 and 3774 of 2005. The appeal against the order in Writ Petition No. 18918 of 2004, was disposed of on February 9, 2007, specifically recording that the order passed in the said writ petition would be restricted to the respective writ petitioners therein. 19. Mr. 1170 of 2006 and 3774 of 2005. The appeal against the order in Writ Petition No. 18918 of 2004, was disposed of on February 9, 2007, specifically recording that the order passed in the said writ petition would be restricted to the respective writ petitioners therein. 19. Mr. Vijaya Shankar, learned senior advocate, in his submissions, brought to the notice of the court that a civil suit in Original Suit No. 5585 of 2007, on the file of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, is still pending. The petitioner challenged the proceedings by filing the said suit and seeking partition of his share, and also by filing the writ petition, challenged the acquisition proceedings 15 years after attaining majority. He has, also, submitted that in Writ Appeal Nos. 1170 of 2006 and 3774 of 2005, it is clarified that the order passed in the said writ appeals is confined to the writ petitioners who filed the writ petitions. Therefore, he submits that there is no merit in the contentions of the other side. 20. The writ petitioner did not challenge the acquisition notification. Therefore, the acquisition has become final as against him. 21. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the decision relied upon by the learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant, which is referred to above, is not applicable to this case. 22. We do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 23. There will be no order as to costs.