Dismissed

Smt.Indumathi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2021WA/348/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ appeal challenging an order refusing to mutate land records. The court held that the appellant's father had voluntarily surrendered physical possession in 1996, validating the State's acquisition under Section 10(3) of the ULCR Act, thus barring further claims.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Smt.Indumathi Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.348 OF 2021(ULC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. INDUMATHI D/O B.M.KESHAVA RAO, AGED MAJOR R/AT FLAT NO.G-1, CHAITHANYA APARTMENTS, OPPOSITE TO GUJARATHI SCHOOL, ALAKE, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE URBAN, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OFFICE, D.K., MANGALORE-575 001.

¶17

THE TAHASILDAR MANGALORE TALUK

¶18

DK DISTRICT - 575 001

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 14/02/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.121/2019 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The captioned appeal is filed questioning the order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in

¶25

W.P.No.121/2019.

¶26

The appellant is questioning the impugned endorsement dated 27.08.2018 issued by the respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner declining to mutate the name of the appellant herein to the revenue records. The appellant is

¶27

¶28

claiming that she is in possession of the petition land and the same was originally owned by her father. It is the specific case of the appellant that though the State government issued a Notification under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the ULCR Act'), however, the State has not taken possession as contemplated under Section 10(5) of the ULCR Act. Therefore, the grievance of the appellant herein is that the respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner was bound to mutate the name of the appellant to the revenue records.

¶29

The learned Single Judge having examined the material on record and the rival contentions has recorded a finding that the appellant's father has admitted in unequivocal terms that the State has taken possession on 12.07.1996 which is much prior to the repealed ULCR Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge affirming the impugned endorsement dated 27.08.2018 declined to entertain the claim of the appellant herein.

¶30

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would

¶32

vehemently argue and contend before this Court that no notice is issued by the authority in regard to taking of possession till today and therefore, the alleged mahazar for having taken possession cannot be looked into. He would further submit to this Court that mainly because land stood vested with the State Government under Section 10(3) of the Act, that in itself would not amount to surrender or delivery of possession and this aspect is not dealt by the learned Single Judge.

¶33

To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Hari Ram¹ . Referring to this judgment cited supra, he would submit to this Court that the authorities have not at all issued notice in writing under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act

¶34

calling upon the owner to either surrender or deliver

¶35

1 (2013) 4 SCC 280

¶36

¶37

possession and therefore, he would strenuously argue and contend that physical possession of the land in question was never taken and therefore, the proceedings vesting the land in question with the State Government stands abated.

¶38

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate repelling the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant would take this Court to paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment and by referring to the said paragraph, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that possession was indeed taken on 12.07.1996, that is much before 18.03.1999 and therefore, the appellant has no semblance of right and title over the land in question and therefore, the endorsement issued by the authority and the order passed by the learned Single Judge are in accordance with law and would not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.

¶39

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

¶41

learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Perused the records.

¶42

The short point that would arise for consideration before this Court is, as to whether the voluntary surrender made by the father of the appellant who was the owner of the land in question would squarely fall under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act.

¶43

The material on record clearly indicates that the appellant's father handed over physical possession of the property on 12.07.1996 and this fact is admitted by the appellant's father in unequivocal terms. Therefore, we are of the view that the vesting of the land in question under Section 10(3) of the Act followed by voluntary surrender of physical possession would complete the process of taking possession by the authority consequent to vesting order.

¶44

If these significant details which emerges from the records are taken into consideration, then we are unable to

¶45

¶46

accede to the contentions raised by the appellant herein that the proceedings stood abated on account of failure of the part of the authority in securing physical possession of the land in question. In view of categorical admission made by the appellant's father, it is quite evident that the authorities have taken physical possession and therefore, the respondent/State has succeeded in establishing that there was voluntary surrender of vacant land and the same would confer right and title in favour of the State over the surrendered land.

¶47

Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Act has to be invoked by the authority only in the event, the owner refuses to comply with the order made under subsection (5) of the Act. Since in the present case on hand, there is voluntary surrender pursuant to the vesting order under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Act have no application to the present case on hand.

¶48

¶49

In view of categorical admission by the appellant's father admitting handing over physical possession, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra has no application to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

¶50

For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the

¶51

following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The writ appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶54

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶55

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Smt.Indumathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Indumathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chandrashekhar Vs Government of Karnataka

Kazeem Ahamed Shariff Vs Chief Secretary

Sri Venkatesha M Vs the Chairman

Mr. R. Venkataramana Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Nilesh Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka