Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 666 (KAR)

Rama Veerasai v. State of Karnataka

2018-06-06

VINEET KOTHARI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. The petitioner, Ramaveer Sai, son of late D.V. Dharan has filed this writ petition in this Court on 4.7.2016 seeking to quash the Preliminary Notification dated 30.3.1990 bearing No. LAQ(1)SR 5/89-90 published in the Gazette on 12.4.1990, Annexure A and Final Notification dated 9.5.1991 bearing No.RD 209 AQB 89, published in the Gazette on 23.05.1991, Annexure-B and declare the land acquisition in respect of Survey No.34/1 at Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk with a further declaration that the said acquisition has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the new land acquisition law in the form of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 2. At the outset, the learned Senior Advocate Mr. S. Vijayshankar submitted that the prayer with regard to the challenge to the land acquisition itself is not pressed in view of the fact that the same has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the previous round of litigation initiated by the Vendor of the present petitioner and the erstwhile owner of the land in question, from whom the said land in Survey No.34/1 was purchased by the present petitioner on 31.1.1996 while with the dismissal of S.LP.No.12774/2005 connected with S.LP.No.12775/2005 and S.LP.No.18153/2005, vide order dated 9.9.2005, as stated in Paragraph-4 of the present writ petition itself. 3. In Paragraph-6 of the writ petition also, it is stated that the present petitioner, along with the erstwhile land owners, also filed W.P.No.2664/2008 in this Court which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 3.1.2014, against which, W.A.No.422/2014 is pending before the Division Bench of this Court. 4. 3. In Paragraph-6 of the writ petition also, it is stated that the present petitioner, along with the erstwhile land owners, also filed W.P.No.2664/2008 in this Court which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 3.1.2014, against which, W.A.No.422/2014 is pending before the Division Bench of this Court. 4. The submission made by the learned Senior Advocate is that on account of an Endorsement, Annexure-K dated 27.7.2015 issued in response to an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the petitioner on 6.7.2015, it came to light and knowledge of the petitioner that the amount of compensation for the land in question, acquired for the benefit of the Respondent, The University of Agricultural Sciences Employees House Building Co-operative Society (Society), amounting to Rs.2,26,450/- came to be deposited in the District Treasury on 27.2.1993 and on subsequent dates, after the award for compensation was approved by the State Government, the said compensation amount was not claimed by the owners and the same was not deposited in the Court also and therefore for a different cause of action, namely, for seeking declaration of lapsing of the land acquisition in view of Section 24(2) of the new Act, the present writ petition has been filed by the present petitioner. 5. The learned Senior Advocate relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Another, (2017) 6 SCC 751 , (Paragraphs 27 and 28 thereof) and he submitted that if a declaration with regard to lapsing of the land acquisition proceedings is made in terms of Section 24(2) of the new law, the subsequent purchasers, assignees or the successors-in-interest are all persons who are interested in compensation/land owners/affected persons in terms of the 2013 Act and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to maintain this writ petition. 6. The said submissions are refuted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shashikiran Shetty appearing for Respondent No.3, Society. 7. 6. The said submissions are refuted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shashikiran Shetty appearing for Respondent No.3, Society. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of this writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, who is the subsequent purchaser is nothing but a repetitive litigation in the third round of litigation for the same land in question, the first round of which was initiated by the land owners having already been lost up to the Supreme Court of India and the second round of litigation initiated by the land owners with the present petitioner is pending before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.422/2014. Even in the present writ petition, a prayer for quashing of the Notifications for land acquisition was made by the petitioner. However, just at the nick of time, the learned Senior Advocate does not press this part of the prayer and only seeks the relief of declaration of lapsing of acquisition in terms of Section 24(2) of the new Act, for which the conditions even prima facie are not satisfied in the present case. 8. This Court is of the opinion that such multiplicity of litigation in such cases, should be consciously avoided and a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate the case more than once in the Courts of law, that too, by filing multiple writ petitions and litigations in different names, in different capacity and in different Courts. The purpose is obvious and simple i.e., to avoid the possible conflict of orders which may be passed by different courts, at different points of time. This is already the third round of litigation for almost same or similar purpose. Prima facie, it appears that the procedure for acquisition in the form of Award being passed, the same being approved and compensation being deposited by the beneficiary-Society stood complied in 1993 much prior to the purchase of the land in question by the present petitioner on 31.1.1996. Therefore, with the same facts to attract Section 24(2) of the new law, prima facie, appears to be a futile effort on the part of the petitioner. 9. Be that as it may. Therefore, with the same facts to attract Section 24(2) of the new law, prima facie, appears to be a futile effort on the part of the petitioner. 9. Be that as it may. This Court would not like to enter into and pronounce upon the merit of the present case, as it is found that the same is nothing but wholly unnecessary effort on the part of the petitioner, i.e., the subsequent purchaser to multiply and vex the litigation for the same or similar cause. The petitioner along with the erstwhile land owner is already a party in the Writ Appeal No.422/2014. If the petitioner has any cause to raise before a Court of law, it can very well raise points raised in the present petition before the Division Bench of this Court in the pending appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage of concluding the order, has also brought to the notice of the Court a NIC Status Report of the Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 16.6.2016, which is peremptory in nature on the office objection that unless compliance is made in two weeks, in default, Writ Appeal No.422/2014 shall stand dismissed. However, the final fate of the said writ appeal depending upon the compliance of office objections is not before the Court as of now. The present writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.