Disposed

The Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Sri. D. R. Kannan

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2021WA/4315/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of writ appeals filed by a landowner and KIADB challenging a single judge order refusing to interfere when no acquisition occurred. The Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding acquisition and possession are civil in nature and cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Both writ appeals were disposed of. The parties were given liberty to file a civil suit to resolve the disputed questions of fact.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Sri. D. R. Kannan — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO. 2592/2018 C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.4315/2017 (LA-KIADB)

¶9

IN WRIT APPEAL NO.2592/2018

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

D. R. KANNAN S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA, C/O M.A. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT MARALABAGILU, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-562 110. REP. BY ITS SRI. SHIVAPAL, S/O KALASAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY.

¶12

.... APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE, DR. B. R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

¶17

¶18

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER, DR.B. R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI , BENGALURU 560 001.

¶19

TAHSILDAR, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU-562 110.

¶20

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA, PRESENTLY AT PAISHAT BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3 SRI.P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R-4)

¶23

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.2165/2010 DATED 08/06/2017 AND ETC.

¶25

IN WRIT APPEAL NO.4315/2017

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA, PRESENTLY AT PARISHAT BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. NOW AT NO.49, 5^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶28

.... APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI.P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.)

¶30

¶31

AND:

¶32

D. R. KANNAN C/O M.A.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT MARALABAGILU, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER, DR.B. R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI , BENGALURU 560 001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-2 TO R-4 SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADV. AND SRI.S.K.KALLEGOWDA, ADV. FOR C/R-1)

¶33

¶34

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 08/06/2017 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 2165/2010 AND ETC.

¶35

THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶36

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Writ Appeal No.2592/2018 is filed by one Sri. D.R. Kannan, the land owner and Writ Appeal No.4315/2017 is filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, against the judgment under challenge.

¶39

These appeals are arising out of the judgment dated 08.06.2017 in Writ Petition No.2165/2010 (D.R. Kannan Vs. The State of Karnataka, Chief Secretary, Department of Industry and Commerce) passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶40

The facts of the case reveal that, one Mr. Kannan has preferred the said writ petition before this Court stating that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.28 of Devanahalli Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Doddasane Village measuring 327 acres 30 gungs, and out of which, 3 acres of land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Authority for establishing Bengaluru International Air Port. It has been further stated that, after acquiring the land, no compensation was paid to the petitioner. Undisputedly, Sri.D.R. Kannan, the land owner earlier also filed a petition

¶41

¶42

in Writ Petition No.18321/2002 and it was disposed of by order dated 26.08.2003 with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to hold an enquiry under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and to pass an award in respect of the land in question. The Land Acquisition Authority has passed an order holding that the land of the petitioner has not been acquired at all and in those circumstances, the second round of litigation came into existence.

¶43

The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the reply filed by the respondent-Land Acquisition Authority, took a categorical stand that the respondents have not acquired even an inch of petitioner’s land and has disposed of the writ petition, against which, the present writ appeals are filed.

¶44

The learned Single Judge in Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 has held as under:-

¶45

“5. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the land of the petitioner having been lost to the respondents, he is entitled for compensation. But, however, since both the respondents, namely, the State and the KIADB have categorically stated before this Court that they are

¶46

¶47

not concerned with the land, the land may be returned to him. Both the counsels for the respondents submit that they have not taken possession of the land. The possession of the land continues with the petitioner.

¶48

6. In view of the categorical statement made by the State as well as the KIADB, I do not find it necessary to interfere in so far as the impugned order is concerned. However, a direction is issued to the respondent State as well as the 4^th respondent-KIADB to put the petitioner into possession of his land, if he has been dispossessed. The petitioner shall continue to enjoy his property free from any disturbance from either the respondent-State or the 4^th respondentKIADB.”

¶49

Against the aforesaid order, the writ petitioner

¶50

as well as the KIADB have preferred the appeals.

¶51

It has also been brought to the notice of this Court at this stage that, subsequently another notification was issued on 20.05.2008, which again does not exclude the land of the petitioner.

¶52

The record reveals that the land was never acquired at any point of time. Learned counsel has placed

¶53

¶54

reliance upon the judgment delivered in Vidya Devi Vs.

¶55

State of Himachal Pradesh and Another reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 . Paragraphs-12.3 to 12.6 and 14 of the said judgment read as under:-

¶56

12.3 To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai4, wherein this Court held that:

¶57

“6. … Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.”

¶58

(emphasis supplied)

¶59

12.4 In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, this Court held that: (SCC 9.526, PARA 21)

¶60

“21. If the right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest

¶61

¶62

such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed.”

¶63

(emphasis supplied)

¶64

12.5. In Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P. THIS Court recognized the right to property as a basic human right in the following words:

¶65

“30. It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property right is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view that liberty cannot long subsist without the support of property.

¶66

"Property must be secured, else liberty cannot subsist" was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the view that property itself is the seed bed which must be conserved if other constitutional values are to flourish is the consensus among political thinkers and jurists.”

¶67

(emphasis supplied)

¶68

12.6 In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat,7 this Court held as follows : (SCC p.627, para 48)

¶69

¶70

“48. …In other words, Article 300A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation.”

¶71

(emphasis supplied)

¶72

14. The State has submitted that in 2008 it had initiated acquisition proceedings in the case of an adjoining land owner viz. Shri Anakh Singh pursuant to a direction given by the High Court in C.W.P.No.1192 of 2004. The State initiated acquisition only in the case where directions were issued by the High Court, and not in the case of other land owners whose lands were compulsorily taken over, for the same purpose, and at the same time. As a consequence, the present land owner has been driven to move the Court in their individual cases for redressal.

¶73

This Court has carefully gone through aforesaid judgment, however, in the present case, the appellant-Land Owner come up with a plea that his land has been acquired, whereas the documents speak otherwise. The award does not include the land of the petitioner.

¶74

¶75

Therefore, as in these appeals, a purely disputed questions of facts are involved, the only remedy available to the petitioner-Land Owner is to file a civil suit, wherein the evidence can be adduced by both the parties. This Court cannot function as a Civil Court to decide the suit between the parties. The parties shall be free to file a Civil suit.

¶76

Resultantly, both the writ appeals are disposed of accordingly with a liberty.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

KGR*

The Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Sri. D. R. Kannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Sri. D. R. Kannan

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.M. Nagaraju Vs Chief Post Master General

The Managing Director, Vs Sri Dinashekar v

Raghuram Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs M. T. Krishnappa

Mr Praveen Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Munimaraiah Vs K S Eswaraiah