Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1063 (KAR)

Mahadevu v. State of Karnataka

2022-08-12

E.S.INDIRESH

body2022
JUDGMENT E.S. Indiresh, J. - Petitioners herein have challenged the endorsements dated 28th May, 2014 and 10th June, 2010 issued by the respondent No. 2 produced as Annexure-A and B in the present writ petition, inter alia, sought for writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to allot a site under incentive scheme implemented by respondent No. 2, in terms of the order dated 02nd August, 2014 in WP No. 49502 of 2013 and connected cases. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that, petitioners are the owners of land bearing Survey No. 13 measuring 5 acres in Nachanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and the said land has been acquired by respondent No. 2 in the year 1982-83 for the purpose of formation of Jayaprakash Narayan Layout and pursuant to the same, award was passed on 11th June, 1982. It is further stated in the petition that there was a dispute regarding the ownership of land inter se within the family of the petitioners and as such, the Land Acquisition Officer, referred the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the rights of claimants and same was registered as LAC No. 138 of 1983. The said claim petition was concluded on 03rd February, 2005 holding that petitioners were the owners of the schedule land and as such, they are entitled for compensation. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioners have made representation on 24th June, 2008 (Annexure-E) seeking allotment of incentive sites, being land-losers. It is further stated that the said representation was rejected by order dated 10th June, 2010 (Annexure-B). It is the contention of the petitioners that in view of the law declared by this court in Writ Petitions No. 15648-650 of 1995 decided on 04th March, 1998, the petitioners are entitled for incentive sites and same has been rejected by the respondent-Authority arbitrarily and accordingly, the petitioners presented this writ petition, challenging the order dated 10th June, 2010 (Annexure-B) and Endorsement dated 28th May, 2014 (Annexure-A) to this writ petition. 3. Respondents entered appearance. The statement of objection has been filed by respondent No. 2 contending that the respondent-Authority have not allotted incentive sites to any of the land owners of Nachanahalli village from whom the land has been acquired for the purpose of formation of Jayaprakash Narayan Layout in the year 1982-83. 3. Respondents entered appearance. The statement of objection has been filed by respondent No. 2 contending that the respondent-Authority have not allotted incentive sites to any of the land owners of Nachanahalli village from whom the land has been acquired for the purpose of formation of Jayaprakash Narayan Layout in the year 1982-83. It is also the defence of the respondent-Authority that, no resolution has been passed by the respondent-Authority resolving to allot site on incentive basis as claimed by the petitioners and accordingly sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard Sri K.R. Lingaraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Nityanand, learned Additional Government Advocate, for respondent No. 1 and Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 5. Sri K.R. Lingaraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that rejection of the representation made by the respondent No. 2, declining to grant incentive site to the petitioners is contrary to the law declared by this Court in Writ petitions No. 15648-650 of 1995 and Writ petitions No. 35158-59 of 2009 decided on 19th September, 2009. He further contended that the respondent-authorities cannot discriminate the people while considering the application made by the claimants seeking incentive sites, which is a legal right of the petitioners and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, he refers to the resolution of the respondent-Authority dated 01st April, 1987 and another resolution dated 22nd October, 1990, wherein the incentive site was allotted to the land losers and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court in this writ petition. 6. Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 argued that the resolution referred to by the petitioners were not with regard to the subject land or with regard to any of the acquisition made in respect of formation of Jayaprakash Narayan Layout, and therefore, he contended that writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. He further contended that the representation dated 21st May 2010 made by the petitioners was rejected on 10th June, 2010 and the writ petition came to be filed in the year 2014 and there is no explanation offered by the petitioners regarding delay and therefore, in view of inordinate delay in approaching this Court challenging the impugned endorsements, writ petitions deserve to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. 7. 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the land bearing survey No. 13, measuring 5 acres was notified for acquisition by the respondent-Authority for the purpose of formation of Jayaprakash Narayan Layout at Mysore. Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued on 06th August, 1979 and the Final Notification was issued under Section 6(1) of the Act on 02nd December, 1982; and award came to be passed on 20th May, 1982. Reference was made under Section 30 of the Act in LAC No. 138 of 1983 before the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysore and the Reference Court, by award dated 03rd February, 2005, allowed the Reference in part holding that the claimants 2 to 4 (children of Veera Raja Urs), Inamdars shall share the compensation to an extent of 3.31 guntas equally between themselves and the claimants 6 to 9 shall share compensation in respect of 5 acres of survey No. 13 of Nachanahalli village equally (as per Annexure-C). Perusal of writ papers would further indicate that petitioners herein have made representation seeking incentive sites in lieu of acquisition of 5 acres of land by the respondent-Authority. The said representation was rejected by impugned endorsement dated 0.06.2010 (Annexure-B) on the ground of non-availability of the relevant Rules under the Act. Thereafter, the respondent-Authority has issued another endorsement dated 28th May, 2014, rejecting the claim made by the petitioners for allotment of incentive sites. The core question to be answered in this writ petition is: "Whether the petitioners herein have made out a case for allotment of incentive sites from the respondent-Authority?' 8. In this regard, the source for allotment of incentive sites under the relevant scheme viz. 9. It is the contention of the respondent-Authority that the Resolutions dated 01st April, 1987 and 22nd October, 1990 referred to by the petitioners, are not applicable to the land which had been acquired by the respondent-Authority for the purpose for formation of Jayaprakash Narayan Layout during 1982-83. 9. It is the contention of the respondent-Authority that the Resolutions dated 01st April, 1987 and 22nd October, 1990 referred to by the petitioners, are not applicable to the land which had been acquired by the respondent-Authority for the purpose for formation of Jayaprakash Narayan Layout during 1982-83. In view of the reference made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners with regard to Writ petitions No. 15648-650 of 1995 (Annexure-F), the petitioners therein have called in question the correctness of notification dated 23rd December, 1991 issued under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'KUDA Act') and the notification dated 12th December, 1992 issued under Section 19(1) of the KUDA Act. The aforementioned judgment is relating to formation of Layout known as Vijayanagar Extension, IV Stage, II Phase. In the said Writ Petition the compensation was fixed by the respondent-Authority by mutual consent by entering into agreements with land owners and therefore, this Court, while considering the resolution dated 22nd October, 1990, at paragraph 8 of the judgment, held that the said resolution does not provide for allotment of sites to the land owners on preferential basis, free of cost as consideration for giving up their claim for higher compensation. In the said case, this Court directed the respondent-authorities therein to allot sites to such land owners whose lands have been acquired on preferential basis keeping in view the extent of land acquired and such other relevant consideration. Undisputably, the said judgment was relating to acquisition of land for the purpose of Vijayanagar Extension, IV Stage, and the observation made by this Court in the operative portion of the order, reads as under: "iv. that in the event if the sites not being available in the layout formed out of the lands acquired belonging to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent shall allot equally suitable site in any of the layout formed as far as possible very close to the layout formed out of the lands acquired belonging to the petitioners subject to the availability of sites and the commitment made by the Authority for allotment of sites to others who are similarly situated like the petitioners.' 10. In the said case, distinction was made between the allottees who have voluntarily surrendered the land and entered into a mutual agreement with the respondent-Authority with that of the land owners who have challenged the acquisition proceedings, however, resulting in award of compensation pursuant to completion of the acquisition proceedings by the respondent-Authority. In the present case, the defence of the respondent-Authority was that, no such resolution was passed with regard to allotment of incentive sites for the land-losers whose lands have been acquired for the purpose of formation of Jayaprakash Narayan Layout. In this regard, it is to be noted that resolution made by the respondent-Authority cannot be equated with the Rules stated above. It is the case of the respondent-Authority that, the identical resolution referred to above, was not passed with regard to the claimants/land losers in Jayaprakash Narayan Layout. Undisputably, the subject land in the present writ petition has been acquired for the purpose of Jayaprakash Narayan Layout and therefore, the said resolution and the order passed by this Court in writ petitions referred to above, cannot be made applicable to the present case. In this regard, I have also noticed the decision of this Court in Writ petition No. 14342 of 2010 (Annexure-H), whereby this Court, by order dated 26th April, 2013, directed the respondent-authorities to allot incentive sites as per the resolution dated 22nd October, 1990 and the impugned notification in the said writ petition was relating to the acquisition by the respondent-Authority to form layout, viz. Vijayanagar Extension IV Stage. I have also examined the judgment of this Court in writ petitions No. 35158-59 of 2009 dated 19th September, 2011 and this Court has extracted the resolutions dated 01st April, 1987 and 22nd October, 1990 issued by the second respondent herein. Undisputably, in the said writ petition the land acquired was situated at Basavanahalli Village, Mysore Taluk and not with respect to Jayaprakash Nagar Layout, Mysore. This Court, directed the respondent-Authority to allot incentive sites to the land owners based on the resolutions dated 01st April, 1987 and 22nd October, 1990. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that, no material has been produced by the petitioners to say that the orders passed by this Court were with regard to the land losers under formation of Jayaprakash Nagar Layout. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that, no material has been produced by the petitioners to say that the orders passed by this Court were with regard to the land losers under formation of Jayaprakash Nagar Layout. Undoubtedly, the aforementioned resolutions have been passed by the respondent-Authority in respect of the specified layouts wherein large number of lands have been acquired for the purpose of formation of Layouts and also provides for granting sites under the scheme called "Incentive Scheme" to people who have lost their lands, in addition to the compensation that they were entitled to. The petitioners have also produced Official Memorandum dated 03rd June, 1992 (Annexure-L) whereby the incentive sites have been allotted in favour of land losers who had entered into an agreement with the respondent-Authority. The relevant subject of the official memorandum dated 03rd June, 1992 reads thus: 11. It is the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Authority that the incentive sites have been provided to the land losers who had entered into an agreement for awarding compensation under consent award. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Authority whereby some of the sites have been allotted in favour of the respective allottees/claimants who had entered into an agreement for awarding compensation under consent award. In the instant case, compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter, same was referred to the Reference Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that allotment of incentive sites by the second respondent-Authority is a policy matter of the second respondent-Authority, which is purely in the domain of the second respondent-Authority to consider for allotment of incentive site, and further taking into consideration the respective layouts formed therein and in view of the fact that the respondent-Authority, has not allotted incentive sites to any of the land losers of Nachanahalli sector from whom the lands had been acquired for the purpose of formation of Jayaprakash Nagar Layout in the year 1982 and as such, I do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to direct the respondent-Authority to allot incentive sites in favour of the petitioners herein. If that is so, if any direction is issued in the present writ petition, the same would open pandora's box which would disturb the exchequer of the respondent-Authority. Therefore, as the acquisition proceedings of the Jayaprakash Nagar Layout, Mysuru was formed way back in the year 1987-88 and had reached finality and at the time of passing of the award by the respondent-Authority, there was no resolution by the respondent-Authority for allotment of incentive sites, I am of the view that the petitioners herein have not made out a case for interference of this Court in the present writ petition and as such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned endorsements dated 28th May, 2014 (Annexure-A) and 10th June, 2010 (Annexure-B). Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Be that as it may, the impugned endorsement rejecting the allotment of incentive site was made on 10th June, 2010 (Annexure-B) and the writ petition was filed in the year 2014 and no explanation was offered in the writ petition with regard to delay in filing the writ petition except challenging the reiteration of the same endorsement on 28th May, 2014, and as such, writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, accordingly writ petition is dismissed.