Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1459 (KAR)

Ramesha v. Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District

2019-06-27

ALOK ARADHE

body2019
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. Sri. K. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. P. Mahesha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri. E. S. Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Sri. G. M. Ananda, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Sri. H. N. Shashidhara, learned counsel for respondent No.5. These petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally. 2. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia seek for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the Preliminary notification dated 02.07.2009 as well as the final notification dated 17.08.2010 and seeks for a declaration that the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) have been lapsed. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of these writ petitions briefly stated are that on 02.07.2009, respondent No.1, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya has issued a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire the lands of the petitioners measuring 05 Acres 28 Guntas in various Survey numbers of Pandavapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District for construction of the Sewerage Treatment Plant. A final notification dated 17.08.2010 under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the Gazette on 07.09.2010. Thereafter, the award was passed on 23.04.2011 by which the compensation was fixed at the rate of RS. 2,79,040/- for wet land. The aforesaid award was published in the Official Memorandum on 23.05.2011. On 07.06.2011, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has issued notices of the award to be passed, to the land owners. The Revenue Inspector along with Taluk Surveyor and Village Accountant demarcated the land and handed over the possession of 5 Acres 20 Guntas in Sy.No.72/1 and other lands to the Chief Officer, Pattan Panchayath of Pandavapura on 14.07.2011, the letter of which is produced at Annexure-R10. Thereafter, the possession of the aforesaid land was handed over to respondent No.4 - the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Pandavapura Town Pattan Panchayat. On 17.10.2011, the Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant attempted to serve the award notices on the land owners. However, the land owners refused to accept the notices and also prevented the officers to affix the notices on their doors. On 17.10.2011, the Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant attempted to serve the award notices on the land owners. However, the land owners refused to accept the notices and also prevented the officers to affix the notices on their doors. Accordingly, Mahazar was drawn on 26.10.2011 by the Revenue Inspector in which it was stated that the land owners have refused to accept the notices issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The land owners filed the petitions under Section 18 of the Act seeking compensation at the higher rate. The aforesaid petitions were filed in the year 2011 and 2014. The amount of compensation was deposited by the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither possession of the lands in question have been taken from the petitioners nor the compensation has been paid to them. It is also submitted that in case, the compensation is paid to the petitioners as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the petitioners have no objection. In support of the submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (a) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SUKHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS, (2016) 16 SCC 258 ; (b) RAJIV SARIN AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS, (2011) 8 SCC 708 ; (c) GIRNAR TRADERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS WITH DIGAMBAR MOTIRAM JHADHAV VS. COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS, (2011) 3 SCC 1 ; (d) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER WITH NARMADA HYDRO ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER WITH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER WITH NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER AND NARMADA HYDRODEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND OTHERS, (2011) 7 SCC 639 ; (e) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. VIRENDER LAL BAHRI & ORS IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.37375 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED MATTERS; 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that since the petitioners have already filed the petitions on 21.10.2011 and 24.02.2014 under Section 18 of the Act, therefore, he submits that these writ petitions are not maintainable. VIRENDER LAL BAHRI & ORS IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.37375 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED MATTERS; 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that since the petitioners have already filed the petitions on 21.10.2011 and 24.02.2014 under Section 18 of the Act, therefore, he submits that these writ petitions are not maintainable. It is also submitted that the petitioners are guilty of suppressing the facts as the factum of filing of the petitions under Section 18 of the Act was not disclosed in these writ petitions. It is also submitted that the notices were issued to the petitioners under Section 16(1) of the Act and taking into account the larger public interest, the work of construction of Sewerage Treatment Plant, in Pandavapura should not be stalled. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Government Advocate has relied upon the following decisions: (i) V.T. KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (1991) ILR(Kar) 1183; (ii) PRESTIGE LIGHTS LIMITED VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA, (2007) 8 SCC 449 ; (iii) MODINBI AND OTHERS VS. THE KALAL KHATIK SAMAJ SEVA SANGHA (REGD.), OLD HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT AND OTHERS, (2002) 1 KarLJ 180 (DB); (iv) RAMNIKLAL N. BHUTTA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS, (1997) AIR SC 1236. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5 has submitted that the award was passed in the year 2011 and thereafter, the possession have already been taken and the petition has been filed in the year 2011, which suffers from delay and latches for which no explanation has been offered. It is submitted that out of thirteen Land Owners, three land owners have already received the amount of compensation. In support of the submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'SWAIKA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS, (2008) 4 SCC 695 '. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the preliminary notification was issued on 02.07.2009 and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 17.08.2010. Thereafter, an award was passed on 23.04.2011. From the perusal of the records (Annexure-R10), it is evident that the possession of the land in question has been taken on 14.07.2011. The petitioners have filed the claim petition on 21.10.2011 and 24.02.2014 under Section 18(1) of the Act seeking compensation. Thereafter, an award was passed on 23.04.2011. From the perusal of the records (Annexure-R10), it is evident that the possession of the land in question has been taken on 14.07.2011. The petitioners have filed the claim petition on 21.10.2011 and 24.02.2014 under Section 18(1) of the Act seeking compensation. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in V.T. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Supra), once the petitioners have filed applications claiming compensation under Section 18 of the Act, they cannot be permitted to question the proceedings under Land Acquisition Act. The aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court is binding with this Court. 8. It is also pertinent to mention here that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary and is discretionary in nature and cannot be invoked in favour of the person, who does not approach in the clean hands and is guilty of suppressing the facts. In the instant case, the petitioners have not disclosed the factum of filing of the petitions under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioners disentitles in discretionary relief in exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to mention that no award was passed in the year 2011. The petitioners have filed this petition in the year 2019, which obviously suffers from delay and latches and no explanation has been offered. The petitioners have slept over their rights and their inaction also disentitles to many discretionary reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to mention here that under Section 16(1) of the Act, the Collector has to take possession of the Land and thereupon, the land vested absolutely with the State Government. 9. From perusal of Annexure-R1, the possession of land in question has been taken on 14.07.2011. Therefore, the land in question is vested in the State Government. It is also pertinent to mention here that the land is being acquired for the larger public interest and the individual interest of the petitioners must give way for the larger public interest. 9. From perusal of Annexure-R1, the possession of land in question has been taken on 14.07.2011. Therefore, the land in question is vested in the State Government. It is also pertinent to mention here that the land is being acquired for the larger public interest and the individual interest of the petitioners must give way for the larger public interest. The contention of the petitioners that since the possession of the land has not been taken from them, they are entitled to compensation under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is sans substance as the materials on record shows that the compensation of the lands in question have already been taken from the petitioners. 10. In view of the preceding analysis, it is not necessary to advert to other submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. In the result, I find no merit in these petitions. The same fails and are hereby dismissed. 11. In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending Interlocutory Applications do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same are disposed of.