Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1811 (KAR)

B. Lingaraj S/o S. Bhimappa v. State of Karnataka

2025-12-12

D.K.SINGH, TARA VITASTA GANJU

body2025
ORDER : 1. The writ petitions have been filed impugning the findings and recommendations of Justice K.N. Keshavanarayan Committee constituted in compliance of the judgment and order dated 27.09.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.51929/2014 connected with a batch of other petitions to examine the exclusion/de-notifications of the lands acquired for Arkavathi layout in the final notification 18.06.2014. The petitioners have purchased the sites through registered sale deeds from respondent No.4 - Co-operative Society before the preliminary notification was issued for acquiring the lands for the Arkavathi layout. The society represented that it had the ownership and title of the lands in question on the basis of the power of attorney executed by the original landowners and on these representations made by the Society, the petitioners bought the sites through the registered sale deeds. 2. The lands of the Society including which were transferred to the petitioners were acquired for Arkavathi layout. The representations made by the Society and the landowners came to be rejected by the Committee for exclusion of the land from the acquisition proceedings by the Committee. 3. While rejecting the representations of the Society and the petitioners for exclusion of their land from the land acquisition proceedings, the Committee has framed the following points: “1. Whether lands in question qualify for deletion from acquisition process in terms of the judgment of Division Bench and/or in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case as sought by the Society and its members or in the alternative whether any of the applicants who claims to be allottees of sites from the Society are entitle for allotment of alternate sites from BDA as per the scheme formulated in the judgment of Division Bench? 2. Whether, allottees from BDA of sites said to have been formed in the lands in question are entitled for direction as sought directing BDA to execute absolute sale deeds in their favour in relation to the sites allotted to them? 3. Whether, Applicant Smt. Narayanamma is entitled for direction against BDA as sought?” 4. While answering the first point, the Committee has said that there is no evidence placed either by the Society or its members to establish that a layout of residential sites was formed in the lands in question after obtaining necessary permission from the jurisdictional planning authority. 3. Whether, Applicant Smt. Narayanamma is entitled for direction against BDA as sought?” 4. While answering the first point, the Committee has said that there is no evidence placed either by the Society or its members to establish that a layout of residential sites was formed in the lands in question after obtaining necessary permission from the jurisdictional planning authority. It has been further said that the Society or its members do not have title over the lands and the compensation awarded for the acquisition of the lands should be paid to the original owners i.e., Smt.Narayanamma. 5. Sri.Manmohan P.N, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that mandate of Committee was not to go into the question of title, but, only to examine the validity/legality of the exclusion/de- notifications of the lands in the final notification dated 18.06.2014 and also to examine the wrong inclusion of the lands on proper application of the landowners who would have the title of the land was not required to be gone into by the Committee. 6. We find substance in the said submissions. Who should be entitled to get the compensation in question should be determined in an appropriate civil remedy to be undertaken by the petitioners and the Committee ought not to have commented on the said issue. There are disputed questions of fact involved in the case. Therefore, the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate remedy to decide the said disputed questions of fact. We, therefore, give liberty to the petitioners to agitate their rights in respect of their lands and the right to get compensation in an appropriate Court by invoking a civil law remedy. The observation made by the Committee while deciding point No.1 shall not be binding on the Court where the proceedings may be undertaken by the petitioners. 7. We also deem it appropriate that for a period of two months from today, the recommendation No.4, which reads as under, shall not be given effect to. “(iv) In the light of the finding rejecting the claim put forth by Society and its members, BDA to take up further steps pursuant to the proceedings dated 04.07.2016 in favour of Smt.Narayanamma, in relation to the allotment of developed sites in lieu of acquisition of lands in question.” 8. “(iv) In the light of the finding rejecting the claim put forth by Society and its members, BDA to take up further steps pursuant to the proceedings dated 04.07.2016 in favour of Smt.Narayanamma, in relation to the allotment of developed sites in lieu of acquisition of lands in question.” 8. We also observe that, if the petitioners are of the view that they have been defrauded by the Society or its Management Committee, they are free to take appropriate proceedings on the criminal side and the State should investigate the matter with all promptness and fairness and draw the appropriate proceedings. 9. The direction of the Committee in paragraph No.37 for the execution of 40% developed site in favour of Smt.Narayanamma shall also be kept in abeyance for a period of two months. With the aforesaid liberty and observation, the present writ petitions stand disposed of. All contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged in appropriate civil/criminal proceedings which may be initiated. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, pending I.As. do not survive for consideration and they are disposed of.