Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1250 (KAR)

M. Rajesh v. State of Karnataka

2023-10-27

KRISHNA S.DIXIT, PRASANNA B.VARALE

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This intra-court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge's order dtd. 4/8/2023 whereby appellants' W.P.No.4748/2018 C/w W.P.No.1130/2021 challenging acquisition of their lands has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submits that: the Doctrine of Lapse enacted in Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; possession of the subject lands continues with the appellants all through; the appellants have not received any compensation; learned Single Judge erred in invoking delay and laches even when plausible explanation was offered; similarly, the ground of suppression of material facts is wrongly invoked; the ratio in INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. MANOHAR LAAL, (2020) 8 SCC 129 , has been wrongly applied. So arguing he seeks voiding of the impugned order. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents opposes the appeal drawing attention of the court as to the observations in the INDORE DEVELOPMENT supra; she makes submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. She also presses into service the Doctrine of Res Judicata since the appellants had suffered dismissal of their writ petitions wherein similar challenge was made to the acquisition. She also highlights their culpable conduct as the sole ground for denying relief to the appellants. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. 5. The first contention as to the Doctrine of Deemed Lapse of acquisition proceedings does not avail to the appellants inasmuch as there is a wealth of material as to the possession having been taken by the Government has been handed to the respondent-ITI Society years ago. There is elaborate discussion by the learned Single Judge in this regard. There is already a finding suffered by the appellants in W.A.No.1468/2003 and other connected matters as to the ITI Society being in the possession of the subject lands and therefore, their contra contention is liable to be resjudicated. It is more so because the appellants further challenge to the order in the writ appeal in S.L.P.No.12501-12503/2009 has been negatived by the Apex Court on 1/10/2009. It is more so because the appellants further challenge to the order in the writ appeal in S.L.P.No.12501-12503/2009 has been negatived by the Apex Court on 1/10/2009. Learned Single Judge has rightly said about the same in addition to mentioning estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment & waiver. That being the position, the case of the appellants is miles away from the pressings of Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 6. The submission of the Mr.Bhat that the appellants have been continuing in the possession of their subject lands is liable to be rejected for yet another reason: the appellants themselves have produced the notification dtd. 16/1/1997 issued under Sec. 16(2) of the Erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is ordinarily treated as a conclusive proof of the possession of the acquired land being taken over by the State. There is absolutely no rebuttal material for discounting the contents of this notification. The Apex Court in INDORE DEVELOPMENT supra at para 274 has observed that once the land has vested in the State pursuant to the award followed by the transfer of possession, any re-entry in possession or retaining the possession is wholly illegal and that in such a situation Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act is not attracted. At para 278, it expressed its anguish by observing as under:- 'We have seen the blatant misuse of the provisions of Sec. 24(2). Acquisitions that were completed several decades before ... were questioned; cases filed were dismissed. References were sought claiming higher compensation and higher compensation had been ordered. Now, there is a fresh bout of litigation started by erstwhile owners even after receiving the compensation ... by submitting that possession has not been taken and taking of possession by drawing a panchanama was illegal and they are in physical possession. As such, there is lapse of proceedings' These observations equally apply to the case of appellants inasmuch as their challenge to the acquisition in W.P.No.12102/1990 was negatived vide order dtd. 13/9/1996. Added this fact has been suppressed by the appellants and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly invoked the principle of suppressio veri, in denying relief. 7. The acquisition in question was initiated vide preliminary notification dtd. 13/9/1996. Added this fact has been suppressed by the appellants and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly invoked the principle of suppressio veri, in denying relief. 7. The acquisition in question was initiated vide preliminary notification dtd. 1/2/1985 issued under Sec. 4(1) of the 1894 Act; final notification under Sec. 6(1) was issued on 27/1/1986; award came to be passed on 24/8/1987; the compensation amount has been deposited in the civil court; in W.P.No.764/1991 and other connected petitions, the Division Bench vide order 3/9/1996 had put its seal to these facts repelling challenge to the acquisition. Appellants' S.L.P.3765/1997, etc., came to be negatived by the Apex Court vide order dtd. 1/8/1997. The possession having been taken from the land owners, was handed to the ITI Society which had formed the layout with the BDA approval and admittedly, allotted the sites by registering the sale deeds. Many of these allottees are not before the court. Only a few of them appeared to have been arrayed. No explanation is offered for not arraying them as parties though they are 'Necessary Parties' in the light of decision in RAZIA BEGUM vs. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM, AIR 1958 SC 886 . 8. The finding of the learned Single Judge as to the enormous delay and laches cannot be interfered with. As already mentioned above, this acquisition proceeding was initiated on 28/1/1985 and 24/1/1986. Award was passed on 24/8/1987, the same was approved too. Compensation has also been deposited in the civil court as is mentioned in the very award itself. This acquisition was for the benefit of respondent ""ITI Society. The challenge to the acquisition in W.P.No.764/1994 was negatived vide order dtd. 3/9/1996 even S.L.Ps. came to be dismissed. Earlier to this, one Mr.Abbayya had also filed W.P.No.12102/1990 that was tagged with W.P.No.13302/1990 laying a challenge to the acquisition. Both were dismissed vide order dtd. 13/9/1996. W.A.No.1468/2003 and other connected matters came to be disposed off vide order dtd. 23/10/2008. As already mentioned above, these two are confirmed in S.L.P.No.12501/2009 vide order dtd. 1/10/2009. All these militates against the case sought to be made out by the land owners in this appeal. Granting relief to the appellants would disturb the long settled fact to the determent of public interest. 23/10/2008. As already mentioned above, these two are confirmed in S.L.P.No.12501/2009 vide order dtd. 1/10/2009. All these militates against the case sought to be made out by the land owners in this appeal. Granting relief to the appellants would disturb the long settled fact to the determent of public interest. That would also affect allottees of the sites in the subject layouts who are holding registered sale deeds but many of whom have not been arrayed as parties. In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been reluctantly made easy. Registry shall send a copy of this order to the fifth respondent-ITI Employees Housing Board Co-operative Society Limited and to all the private respondents by speed post.