Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1244 (KAR)

Narayanaswamy v. State of Karnataka

2023-10-25

KRISHNA S.DIXIT, PRASANNA B.VARALE

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This intra-Court appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioner seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge's order dtd. 5/5/2021 whereby his W.P.No.50482/2018 (LA-RES) challenging the land acquisition proceedings has been negatived. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to falter the impugned order mainly on the grounds: lapse of acquisition under Sec. 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; fraud vitiating the acquisition, appellant still continuing in possession and non-payment of compensation. The counsel argues that all these aspects having not been properly addressed in their due perspective, the impugned order is liable to be voided. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) The subject acquisition proceedings were initiated vide Preliminary Notification issued under Sec. 4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894; that was published on 6/10/1988; the Final Notification was issued under Sec. 6(1) on 11/10/1989; award came to be passed on 26/3/1990 and it was approved by the Government on 30/11/1990; the possession of this land along with others was taken over on 23/1/1991; the Notification dtd. 26/2/1991 under Sec. 16(2) of the 1894 Act was gazetted on 7/3/1991. (b) The Government original records perused by the learned Single Judge demonstrated that the subject lands were handed to the respondent -House Building Co-operative Society which is formed by the Ex- Servicemen, who had served in the Defence of the Country. This happened way back in November and December 1992. The entries in the property records were also mutated in favour of the beneficiary Society. The Layout plan was approved by the BDA vide endorsement dtd. 7/11/1992. The Layout having been formed, sites have been allotted to the members of the Society and sale deeds also have been registered. It is relevant to mention that the Society in consideration of BDA approval of Layout has relinquished CA sites, parks etc., by a registered instrument dtd. 23/2/2012. The allottees have not been made parties though they are proper and necessary parties in the light of Apex Court decision in RAZIA BEGUM vs SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM, AIR 1958 SC 886 . (c) Learned Single Judge, after perusing the original records produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate, has recorded a specific finding that the appellant's father Mr. 23/2/2012. The allottees have not been made parties though they are proper and necessary parties in the light of Apex Court decision in RAZIA BEGUM vs SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM, AIR 1958 SC 886 . (c) Learned Single Judge, after perusing the original records produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate, has recorded a specific finding that the appellant's father Mr. Munikrishnappa being the owner of the land had executed a GPA dtd. 7/4/1987 in favour of one Mr.Lakshmaiah, who has acquiesced in the acquisition proceedings. The said Munikrishnappa is said to have kicked the bucket on 30/8/1993. During his lifetime, he did not raise even a little finger as to the regularity of acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly invoked the doctrines of estoppel, abandonment and waiver for denying interference in the challenge to the acquisition. (d) As already observed above, the acquisition proceedings were commenced vide Preliminary Notification dtd. 23/9/1988; that was followed by Final Notification was issued on 11/10/1989; thereafter award came to be passed on 26/3/1990; possession was taken over by the Government on 23/1/1991 and it was handed over to the Housing Society in November/December 1992. The Society had deposited huge amount during those days for getting the bulk allotment of land; the Layout was formed and sites were registered in favour of the members. The writ petition was filed only in the second half of the year 2018 with no explanation whatsoever for the long delay brooked in the matter. The Apex Court in SUKH DUTT RATRA AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS, (2022) 7 SCC 508 has said that belated challenge to the acquisition of land should not be favoured, more particularly when third party interest by way of allotment of site, etc. has been created. It hardly needs to be reiterated that law does not come to the aid of sleepy and tardy. (e) The submission as to fraud and duplicity as affecting the regularity of acquisition proceedings is more often taken than substantiated. "Fraud vitiates everything" cannot be chanted like mantra. All that needs to be pleaded and proved, are lacking in the pleadings of the appellant, to say the least. Since frauds vitiates everything, even laches and limitation take the back seat, is true. "Fraud vitiates everything" cannot be chanted like mantra. All that needs to be pleaded and proved, are lacking in the pleadings of the appellant, to say the least. Since frauds vitiates everything, even laches and limitation take the back seat, is true. However, there is absolutely no scope for the invocation of this proposition in the absence of the pleadings as to material particulars of fraud, much less the evidentiary material on record. When a party acquiesces in the proceedings of acquisition and the same has been acted upon by all the concerned, he cannot be permitted to turn around and complain against acquisition, that too years having lapsed and third party interest having been created. (f) There is absolutely no merit in the argument of counsel for the appellant for invoking the doctrine of lapse as enacted in Sec. 24 of the 2013 Act, in the light of INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MANOHARLAL AND OTHERS, (2020) 8 SCC 129 , in view of the fact that the acquisition proceedings having culminated into an award, possession of the subject land having been taken by the Government decades ago has been handed over to the Society soon thereafter, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge. We do not much refer to the collateral proceedings as to the acquisition of other lands notified since challenge thereto failed even at the level of Apex Court in SLP No.8792/2020 and SLP (DIARY) No.14308/2020. However, his contention that his client has not received the award compensation is a matter which he has to agitate in an appropriate proceeding and in that connection, such contentions need to be and accordingly, are kept open. In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.