Dismissed

Karnataka Police Employees House v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2021WP/26054/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Society challenged MUDA's notice demanding Rs.3,37,74,476/- towards enhanced compensation paid to land owners whose acquired land had been transferred to the society for a housing layout. The court held the society, as beneficiary of the acquisition, must bear the enhanced compensation, not the State or MUDA, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Karnataka Police Employees House Vs the State of… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.26054 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA POLICE EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY 3^RD CROSS, NETAJI NAGAR HALANA HALLI, T.N.PURA ROAD MYSURU - 570 028 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI NANJUNDE GOWDA.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI MAYANNA B.L., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER J L B ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1

¶16

(PHYSICAL HEARING);

¶17

SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 7.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANN-L.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.11.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner/Karnataka Police Employees House Building Co-operative Society (‘the Society for short) is before this Court calling in question a notice dated 7-03-2015 issued by the 2^nd respondent/Mysore Urban Development Authority (‘MUDA’ for short) directing payment of Rs.3,37,74,476/- to MUDA by the petitioner.

¶23

Sans details, facts germane for consideration of the lis are as follows:-

¶24

The petitioner is a House Building Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. With the object of providing housing sites to its members, the Society represented to the Government on 6.03.2006 requesting it to convey land in Sy.No.54 measuring 1

¶25

¶26

acre 32 guntas and Sy.No.68/1 measuring 6 acres 07 guntas which came within the precincts and control of MUDA. This land was acquired by MUDA by issuance of a preliminary notification on 15-7-1997 and a final notification on 18-01-2002. MUDA also had taken possession of the said land after issuance of final notification. Therefore, the land that the petitioners sought for the purpose of allotting sites to its members was the land belonging to MUDA. There were correspondences between Government and MUDA on the request made by the Society. On 17-01-2007 MUDA also communicated to Government that the land which the Society sought was convenient for the formation of a layout.

¶27

The aforesaid communications generated the beginning of the transfer of land to the hands of the Society from MUDA. Based upon the communication of MUDA dated 17.01.2007, aforesaid land had to be delivered in favour of the Society after collecting entire award amount that was paid to the land owners by MUDA. In turn MUDA on 19-09-2007 informed the Society

¶28

¶29

that in terms of Government’s communication the land was handed over to the Society and the Society was also directed to pay the amount of Rs.30,02,760/- which was the compensation that was paid by MUDA to the land owners in the year 1997. Pursuant to the said demand, the Society deposited the amount as demanded, after which, MUDA passed an order directing handing over of possession of the aforesaid land to the Society acknowledging receipt of amount demanded. On 07.11.2007 the Society was handed over physical possession of the land along with sketch of the land.

¶30

After all the necessities came about, MUDA also executed a registered sale deed in favour of the Society on 1.03.2008. On transfer of the land to the Society, the land owners in Sy.No.68/1 measuring 06 acres and 07 guntas filed a writ petition in W.P.Nos.1393–1397 of 2009 before this Court seeking to set aside the order dated 17-07-2007 which was Government’s communication to MUDA to transfer the land to the Society. This Court by its order dated 02-09-2010 dismissed

¶31

¶32

the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners therein to approach MUDA for any other benefit including the benefit of allotment of sites. The finding in the writ petition became final as the land owners did not challenge the same any further. Between 14-09-2009 and 20-12-2011 the Deputy Commissioner on application being made by the Society passed an order permitting conversion of land from agriculture to nonagricultural purposes and the revenue entries and other municipal entries were made in favour of the Society.

¶33

After the approvals and conversion, a layout plan was also submitted by the Society which was approved by MUDA. In terms of the approval of plan a layout was formed and sites were allotted to the members of the Society. On 28-06-2013 MUDA also released all the sites in favour of the Society and on several dates in the year 2013-14 the Society executed registered sale deeds in respect of the allottee members of the Society. It appears that sites were registered at the rate of Rs.208.35 per sq.ft., including development costs incurred for formation of the

¶34

¶35

layout. Therefore, formation of sites, allotment of sites, registration of sale deed in favour of members of the Society were all over by the year 2014.

¶36

Things standing thus, MUDA issues the impugned notice to the Society demanding a sum of Rs.3,37,74,476/- on the ground that the land losers had approached the reference Court seeking enhancement of compensation and the reference Court has enhanced the compensation pursuant to which warrants were issued in the execution petition and the MUDA had deposited entire amount determined by the reference Court which was sought to be executed. The Society replied to MUDA seeking all documents to furnish a suitable reply and there being no response from the hands of MUDA, the petitioner/Society has knocked the doors of this Court challenging the notice dated 7.03.2015 which demanded the aforesaid amount.

¶37

Heard Sri B.L.Mayanna, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional

¶38

¶39

Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri

¶40

T.P.Vivekiananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Government indicated to MUDA to hand over the land for formation of layout by the Society clearly indicating that whatever compensation has been paid by MUDA shall be recovered from the Society. As on that date Rs.30,02,760/- was the compensation that was paid to the land owners and the petitioner/Society had paid the same to MUDA. Sale deeds were executed in favour of the Society noticing the consideration and no other claim. Therefore, it forms a concluded contract between MUDA and the Society. No where MUDA or the Government had indicated that the petitioner will have to bear the compensation in the event it is enhanced. Plea of estoppels against MUDA is put forth by the Society and would seek that the notice dated 7.03.2015 be quashed.

¶42

On the other hand, Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel representing MUDA would submit that the petitioner

¶43

¶44

was aware that the land losers had filed writ petition challenging transfer of land to the Society and had sought enhanced compensation before the reference Court. Since the Society knew and is the beneficiary of such acquisition, the Society will have to pay enhanced compensation which MUDA had paid in terms of the order passed by the reference Court.

¶45

Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.

¶46

Prathima Honnapura would also toe the lines of MUDA and submits that it is the Society which is a private Society who has to pay the enhanced compensation for the land losers and neither the Government nor MUDA can be saddled with such payment.

¶47

In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that MUDA had defaulted before reference Court, they never appeared to contest compensation that was awarded by the reference Court or took the matter any further and would submit that the petitioner was never made

¶48

¶49

aware of any of the pending proceedings nor was party to any of the proceedings before any judicial or quasi judicial fora.

¶50

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶51

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record and the original file pertaining to the subject lis both maintained by MUDA and the State Government.

¶52

The aforementioned dates, events and subsequent facts are not in dispute and are, therefore, not reiterated. It is necessary to notice as to how the Society came in possession of the land in which layout is formed and sites are distributed to its Members. It is not in dispute that MUDA had acquired the property for public purpose. The Society submits a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 06-03-2006 seeking allotment of land from the hands of MUDA for formation of layout for allotment to its Members. The representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister dated 06-03-2006 reads as follows;

¶53

¶54

" ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¨AUÉ ¼À ÆgÀ Ä.À

¶55

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,

¶56

«µÀAiÀÄ: ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀgÀÄuÁ ºÉÆÃ§½ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54 ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.68/1 ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.218 MlÄÖ 12 JPÀgÉ 1 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ PÉÆqÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄ£À«.

¶57

F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzÀ ¥ÀlÖAvÉ vÀªÀÄä°è ©£Àß«¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀªÀÅ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀgÀÄuÁ ºÉÆÃ§½ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.53 jAzÀ 89 gÀªÀgÉUÉ 99 JPÀgÉ 5 1/2 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ §qÁªÀuÉ ¤«Äð¸À®Ä RjÃ¢ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. DzÀgÉ F ªÀÄzÉå ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54 gÀ°è 1 JPÀgÉ 32 UÀÄAmÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.68/1 gÀ 6 JPÀgÉ 3 UÀÄAmÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.218gÀ°è 4 JPÀgÉ 6 UÀÄAmÉ MlÄÖ 12 JPÀgÉ 1 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢Ã£À PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArzÉ. DzÀgÉ F d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA¨sÀAzÀ ¥ÀlÖ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀzÀ F d«ÄÃ¤£À ªÀÄzÀåzÀ°è EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖPÉÆlÖ°è. £ÁªÀÅ §qÁªÀuÉ ¤«Äð¸À®Ä C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶58

F d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢Ã£À ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ JPÀgÉ MAzÀPÉÌ 2,50,000 gÀÆUÀ¼ÀAvÉ, ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀÆwð ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀªÀÅ ¥ÀªÀw¸À®Ä §zÀÝgÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. F d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀUÀ¼À°è EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ §qÁªÀuÉ ¤«Äð¸À®Ä ¸ÁzÀåªÁUÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ®Ä ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ DzÉÃ±À ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀªÀÅ ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÀÛzÉ.

¶59

ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ.

¶60

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸À»/(£ÀAdÄAqÉÃUËqÀ) PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð.”

¶61

¶62

Pursuant to the said representation, a tippani was generated by the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister for examination of records for handing over 12 acres and 01 gunta of land to the Society. The tippani reads as follows:

¶63

²æÃ £ÀAdÄqÉÃUËqÀ r.J¸ï.¦ (¤ªÀÈvÀÛ), PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀÈºÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤. ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ WÀlPÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÄèPÀÄ ªÀgÀÄuÁ ºÉÆÃ§½ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54, 68/1, 218 MlÄÖ 12 JPÀgÉ 1 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©r¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃj ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀÄªÀjUÉ ¸À°è¹zÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ.

¶64

¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRå ªÀÄAwæAiÀÄªÀjAzÀ DzÉÃ²¸À®ànÖzÉÝÃ£É.

¶65

ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀÄªÀgÀ D¥ÀÛ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð."

¶66

Pursuant to and in furtherance of documents, a communication is issued to MUDA by the Secretary, Urban Development Department for examination and release of 12 acres 01 gunta of land in Sy.Nos. 68/1 and 218 of Lalithadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk for formation of layout in favour of the Society. The correspondences between MUDA and the State took place pursuant to the request of the Society. The aforementioned communications resulted in the Society

¶67

¶68

accepting any condition that would be incorporated with regard to the compensation that is paid for handing over of the land as was sought. The communication dated 09-02-2007 from the Society to the Urban Development Department reads as follows:

¶69

"«µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀÈºÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤. ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.¸ÀA.54, 68 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 218 gÀ°è MlÄÖ 12.01 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

¶70

¶71

F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¥ÀlÖAvÉ vÀªÀÄä°è ©£Àß«¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀAWÀªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ 17.06.2006 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRå ªÀÄAwæUÀ½UÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹ CzÀgÀ°è F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀÄUÀ¼À MlÄÖ 12.01 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ DzÉÃ²¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjzÉÝªÀÅ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ«ÄÃµÀ£Àgï ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ FUÉÎ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ £ÀªÀÄä §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CdªÀiÁ¬Ä¹ ªÀÄrzÁUÀ £ÁªÀÅ PÉÃ½zÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À ¥ÉÊQ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.218 gÀ°è 4.01 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ §¸ï r¥ÉÆÃ ¤ªÀiÁðtPÁÌV RjÃ¢¸À¯ÁVzÉ. G½PÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 68/1 gÀ 8.6 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ ¸ÀAWÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.22 gÀ 3.11 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 28/39 JgÀqÀÄ JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ PÉÆlÖ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ.

¶72

DzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀzÀ°è EgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÉ FVgÀÄªÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¸À®¢zÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä §qÀªÀuÉAiÀÄ d«ÄÃ¤£À ªÀÄzÀåzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ 12 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÃ½zÉªÀÅ. DzÀÝjAzÀ vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¸ÀÄªÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzÀåªÁUÀÄ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁ£ÀÄ¨sÀÆw¬ÄAzÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54 gÀ 1.38 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.68/1 gÀ 6.08 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54 gÀ 1.38 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ¸ÀAWÀªÀÅ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ zÀgÀzÀAvÉ 4,87,500.00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÉÊvÀ¤UÉ F »AzÉAiÉÄÃ PÉÆlÄÖ PÀgÁgÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArvÉÛÃªÉ. G½PÉ 68/1 gÀ 6.08 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ gÉÊvÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀÄªÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä §zÀÝgÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß

¶73

¶74

¸ÀºÁ£ÀÄ¨sÀÆw¬ÄAzÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ 8.06 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀ®Ä DzÉÃ²¸À¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

¶75

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹

¶76

¸À»/-

¶77

PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀÈºÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ WÀlPÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ."

¶78

A perusal at the communication from the Society to the Urban Development Department clearly indicates that MUDA was not completely in favour of handing over of land to the Society. It is noticed that the Society requests the Government to consider its claim sympathetically and would also be bound by the compensation that was granted to the land losers. The objection of MUDA which was noticed in the communication dated

¶79

09-02-2007 was on 17-01-2007 which reads as follows:

¶80

"¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ

¶81

£ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ E¯ÁSÉ «PÁ¸À ¸ËzsÀ qÁ:©.Dgï.CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgï «Ã¢ü ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 001.

¶82

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,

¶83

«µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀÈºÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤. ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54, 68/1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 218 gÀ°è MlÄÖ 12- 01 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ .

¶84

¶85

G¯ÉèÃR: ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå £ÀJE/124/ªÉÄÊC¥Áæ/2006 ¢£ÁAPÀ 17-06-2006.

¶86

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ²æÃ £ÀAdÄAqÉÃUËqÀ, PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀÈºÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤. ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ WÀlPÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀgÀÄuÁ ºÉÆÃ§½ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54, 68/1, 218 gÀ MlÄÖ 12- 01 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©r¹PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRå ªÀÄAwæUÀ½UÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£À« §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶87

ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54, 68/1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 218 gÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®°vÁ¢æ£ÀUÀgÀ MAzÀ£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉUÁV ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢Ã£À¥Àr¹PÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁVzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.68/1 ºÁUÀÆ 218 gÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ¨sÀÆ«Ä ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 54 gÀ 1- 38 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ¤£À ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶88

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀÄ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¯ÉÃOmï £ÀPÉëAiÀÄAvÉ PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ GzÉÝÃ±ÀUÀ½UÉ «ÄÃ¸À°nÖªÉ.

¶89

PÀæ.¸ÀA.	¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.	«¹ÛÃtð J. UÀÄA.	«ÄÃ¸À°nÖgÀÄªÀ GzÉÝÃ±À
1	54	1- 38	ªÀ¸Àw
2	68/1	6- 08	ªÀ¸Àw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GzÁå£ÀªÀ£À
3	218	4- 21	§¸ï r¥ÉÆÃ

¶90

¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ §qÁªÀuÉUÁV ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À¥Àr¹zÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 54gÀ°è 1- 38 JPÀgÉ ºÁUÀÆ 68/1 gÀ°è 6-08 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀå ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.218gÀ 4- 21 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶91

¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.218 gÀ 4.21 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ EzÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉUÉ ®UÀvÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÄÃ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀªÀgÀÄ w½¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉ¬ÄAzÀ 1 Q.«ÄÃ. zÀÆgÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. F §UÉÎ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹zÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß CªÀ¯ÉÆÃQ¸À§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶92

¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.68/1 gÀ 6-08 JPÀgÉ ºÁUÀÆ 54 gÀ°è 1- 38 JPÀgÉ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï E¯ÁSÁ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉUÉ ®UÀvÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï

¶93

¶94

£ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå £ÀCE/428/JAL©/98 ¢£ÁAPÀ 25- 09- 2000 gÀAvÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.28/39 gÀ 2- 00 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß 'r' £ÉÆÃn¦PÉÃµÀ£ï ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.22 gÀ 3- 11 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 22 gÀ 3- 11 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 28/39 gÀ 2- 00 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ªÀ»¹PÉÆqÀÄªÀ µÀgÀwÛ£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è 6- 08 JPÀgÉ ºÁUÀÆ 54gÀ°è 1- 38 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸À§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶95

¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ»wUÁV EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹ ¸À°è¹zÉ."

¶96

All these communications resulted in the Secretary to the Home Department again issuing a tippani on 11-04-2007 to grant the land as was indicated. The second tippani dated 11-04-2007 reads as follows:

¶97

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀÈºÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤., ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ WÀlPÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ½UÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ°£À ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼À µÀgÁªÀ£ÀÄß F ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ.

¶98

¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ°è PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÀgÀÄuÁ ºÉÆÃ§½, ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.54, 67:1, 68:1, 72 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.218 UÀ¼À°è MlÄÖ 20.25 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀÈºÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤., ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ WÀlPÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼À CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ½AzÀ ¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÝÃ£É.

¶99

ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀÄªÀgÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð.”

¶100

¶101

This resulted in the communication dated 17-07-2007 for transfer of land totally 08 acres and 02 guntas though the request of the Society was more and what was ultimately transferred was 08 acres and 02 guntas by communication dated 17-07-2007.

¶102

A perusal at the original file indicates that respective Departments have approved the request of the Society and placed the file before the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Hon’ble Chief Minister has concurred with the approval granted by the respective Departments. Thus, the land that was acquired by MUDA for public purpose was transferred on the direction of Government to the Society. Therefore, the Society becomes the beneficiary of such acquisition by MUDA. MUDA has only acted as per the directions of Government in transferring the aforesaid land to the Society.

¶103

The land owners who had lost their land pursuant to the acquisition in the year 2002 filed Writ Petition Nos.1393–

¶104

¶105

1397 of 2009, the moment sale deed was executed in favour of the Society, contending that the land was acquired for the benefit of MUDA and is now transferred to the benefit of the Society, Therefore, it was illegal and at the same breath the land owners had filed petition before the reference Court. This Court while noticing judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JASWANT SINGH dismissed the writ petition with liberty to approach the respondents seeking benefit of allotment of sites. The relevant observations in the order passed by the learned single Judge is as under:

¶106

“4. Admittedly, on 15-07-1997 Sy.No.68/1 was notified in the preliminary notification as per AnnexureA. The final notification was issued on 18-01-2002 as per Annexure-B. It is further admitted that under a notification dated 20-10-2005 as per Annexure-O, the possession of the lands had been taken. Further, the petitioners admit that they have received the compensation and are agitating for higher compensation. At this stage, the present writ petition is filed contending that there is diversion of the land use and the first respondent has enriched by selling the same. Identical issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES v. JASWANT SINGH AND OTHERS – (2003) 1 SCC 335 wherein it is held as under:

¶107

“9. Looking to the facts of the present case and conduct of respondents 1-5, the High Court

¶108

¶109

was not at all justified in ignoring the delay and laches and granting relief to them. As already noticed, respondents 1-5 approached the High Court by filing writ petition almost after a period of 17 years after finalization of the acquisition proceedings. They accepted the compensation amount as per the award and sought for enhancement of the compensation amount without challenging the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6. Having sought for enhancement of compensation only, they filed writ petition even three years after the appeals were disposed of by the High Court in the matter of enhancement of compensation. There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions. Merely because full enhanced compensation amount was not paid to the respondents, that itself was not a ground to condone the delay and laches in filing the writ petition. In our view, the High Court was also not right in ordering restoration of land to the respondents on the ground that the land acquired was not used for which it had been acquired. It is a well settled position in law that after passing the award and taking possession under Section 16 of the Act, the acquired land vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Even if the land is not used for the purpose for which it is acquired, the landowner does not get any right to ask for revesting the land in him and to ask for restitution of the possession…”

¶110

5. In view of law declared by the Supreme Court the petitioners are not entitled to question the impugned order at Annexure-G and the sale deed at Annexure-L. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶111

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY AND OTHERS V. BANGALORE

¶112

¶113

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OHTERS – (2010) 7 SCC 129 contend that the petitioners are entitled for certain benefits for allotment of certain plots. If that is so, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the respondents seeking benefit of allotment of certain sites as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bondu Ramaswamy’s case. If such a representation is given, then the respondents to consider the same in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court.”

¶114

That ended the claim of land owners with regard to acquisition proceedings. In the interregnum. the land is also converted for residential purpose by order of the Deputy Commissioner and sites were formed and distributed to the allotees of the Society.

¶115

The issue that springs after allotment of sites is to be noticed in the case at hand. The landowners had filed petitions before the reference Court. The reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to be paid to the land acquired. The enhanced amount that was paid by MUDA to the landowners is as follows:

¶116

"ªÀiÁ£Àå 4£ÉÃ C¢üPÀ »jAiÀÄ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ J¯ïJ¹ £ÀA.546/2006 eÁj ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå:731/2010 gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è 3-03 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ¤£À ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ gÀÆ.57,063/UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è oÉÃªÀtÂ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä F PÀÆqÀ ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï ¨gÉÆÃqï ZÉPï £ÀA.600296 ¢£ÁAPÀ:15.12.2020 gÀ£ÀÄß F PÀÆqÀ ®UÀwÛ¹ ¸À°è¹zÉ.

¶117

¶118

EzÀÄªÀgÉ«UÀÆ F ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹ ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 100 gÀµÀÄÖ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ oÉÃªÀtÂ EqÀ®VgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶119

PÀæ.¸ÀA.	ZÉPï ¸ÀASÉå	¢£ÁAPÀ	ªÉÆvÀÛ
1	584457	19.12.2011	1179000
2	825142	28.08.2012	1693024
3	302262	05.04.2013	1508848
4	325467	18.12.2013	899183
5	336225	07.08.2014	1310631
6	916904	04.05.2016	2321634
7	950745	19.10.2017	2243060
8	673125	17.07.2019	3000000
9	600296	15.12.2020	5057063
		MlÄÖ	19212446

¶120

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ vÀgÀÄvÁÛ, ¸ÀzÀj ZÉPï ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ §UÉÎ ¹éÃPÀÈwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ gÀ¹Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¹PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃjPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÁÛ, ¸Áé¢üÃ£À ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀÆtð ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¹ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjzÉ."

¶121

The amount determined by the reference Court was sought to be executed and accordingly warrant of execution was issued against MUDA by the executing Court. It is at that point of time MUDA issued the communication to the Society, impugned herein. The communication reads as follows:

¶122

"w¼ÄªÀ ½PÀ ¥É vÀ æ À

¶123

«µÀAiÀÄ: ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀgÀÄuÁ ºÉÆÃ§½ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ

¶124

¸À.£ÀA.54 gÀ°è 1-32 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 68/1 gÀ°è 6-07 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

¶125

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:£ÀCE.124 ªÉÄÊC¥Áæ.2006

¶126

¶127

¢£ÁAPÀ:17-7-2007.

¶128

F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ YÁÐ¥À£À ¸ÀªÀÄ

¶129

¸ÀASÉå.¢£ÁAPÀ:4-10-2007.

¶130

0=0=0

¶131

ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è 6-07 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À.£ÀA.54 gÀ°è 1-32 JPÀgÉ MlÄÖ 7 JPÀgÉ 39 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃR (1) gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ¸À.£ÀA.UÀ¼À°è£À ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß «vÀj¹zÀÝ°è ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀÈºÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ, ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀjAzÀ ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀ®Ä C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ F G¯ÉèÃR (2) gÀ F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ YÁÐ¥À£ÀzÀ jÃvÁå 30,02,760-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¹zÉ. ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀAvÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀUÉÆArgÀÄªÀ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è£À 6-07 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ 15,51,840-00 gÀÆUÀ½UÉ CªÁqïð ¤tð¬Ä¹ ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶132

¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è£À d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀAvÉ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ CªÁqïð ªÉÆ§®V£À §UÉÎ ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÁÌV ªÀiÁ£Àå 4£ÉÃ C¥ÀgÀ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£ÉÃ C¥ÀgÀ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶133

4£ÉÃ C¥ÀgÀ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ J¯ï.J.¹.£ÀA.546/2006 EPïì.£ÀA.731/2010 gÀAvÉ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è 3-03 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ¤£À ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ £ÀgÀ¸ÀAiÀÄå ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï wªÉÄäÃUËqÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ªÁgÉAmï ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ªÁgÉAmï£ÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:18-8-2014 gÀªÀjUÉ MlÄÖ 65,97,929-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ oÉÃªÀtÂ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¶134

1£ÉÃ C¥ÀgÀ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ J¯ï.J.¹.£ÀA.531/2006 EPïì.£ÀA.171/2011 gÀAvÉ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è 3-04 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ¤£À ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ aPÀÌwªÉÄäÃUËqÀ ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï wªÉÄäÃUËqÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ªÁgÉAmï ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ªÁgÉAmï£ÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:3-6-2013 gÀªÀjUÉ MlÄÖ 87,28,387-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ oÉÃªÀtÂ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¶135

¸À.£ÀA.68/1gÀ°è MlÄÖ 6-07 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀ¢AzÀ 15,51,840-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ MlÄÖ 1,53,26,316-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®PÉÌ oÉÃªÀtÂ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. CAzÀgÉ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ 1,37,74,476-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ oÉÃªÀtÂ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è 6-07 JPÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ

¶136

¶137

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ oÉÃªÀtÂ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ 1,37,74,476-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ CAwªÀÄªÁV E£ÀÆß EvÀåxÀðªÁUÀ¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ CAwªÀÄ DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤jÃQë¹ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸À¯ÁUÀÄªÀ CAzÁdÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 2,00,00,000-00 gÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ MlÄÖ 3,37,74,476 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ªÉÆ§®UÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀAvÉAiÀÄÆ ºÁUÀÆ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ¥ÀÄ£À: ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆ§®UÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀAvÉAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ w½¹zÉ. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ «¼ÀA§ ªÀiÁqÀzÉ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ªÉÆ§®UÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä w½¹zÉ."

¶138

The communication/notice is issued to the Society at the time when the executing Court had issued the warrant of execution.

¶139

Identical claims with regard to chosen landowners were satisfied by MUDA pursuant to the direction of this Court. Therefore, MUDA was left with no choice but to pay the compensation that was determined by the reference Court. The issue is who should bear enhanced compensation. There are three protagonists in the subject lis viz., Government, MUDA and the Society. Government directs MUDA to allot the land it acquired for itself i.e., public purpose to be handed over to the Society. Out of the three protagonists, MUDA has only been a communicator between the State and the Society. Though MUDA acquired the land for public purpose, on its own volition it has not handed over the land to the Society. The aforesaid

¶140

¶141

extracted communications emanated from the Society seeking transfer of land for formation of layout which resulted in the Government directing MUDA to transfer and MUDA transferring the lands for the benefit of the Society. The communication dated 17-07-2007 of the Government pursuant to which land were transferred is germane to be noticed and is extracted hereunder for the purpose of ready reference:

¶142

"«µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀÈºÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.54, 68/1gÀ°è£À MlÄÖ 8 JPÀgÉ 2 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

¶143

G¯ÉèÃR: vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå.J¯ïPÀÆå /(4)/¹Dgï/47/04- 05, ¢£ÁAPÀ:17.1.2007. ****

¶144

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀÈºÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀ¸Àw GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÉÌ PÉÆÃgÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ®°vÁ¢æ¥ÀÄgÀ ¸À.£ÀA.54 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À.£ÀA.68/1 gÀ°è£À MlÄÖ 8 JPÀgÉ 02 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃrzÉ.

¶145

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ¸À.£ÀA.UÀ¼À°è£À ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß «vÀj¹zÀÝ°è ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ UÀÈºÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjAzÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÝÃ£É."

¶146

(Emphasis added)

¶147

The condition that is imposed in the communication which led

¶148

to the transfer of land measuring 08 acres and 02 guntas to the

¶149

¶150

Society clearly mentions that compensation that is granted by MUDA to the landowners will have to be borne by the Society.

¶151

Pursuant to this communication a sum Rs.30/- lakhs

¶152

was also paid by the Society to MUDA which MUDA claims to be the compensation that was granted to the landowners. Right of landowners to seek enhanced compensation was always live. It is not a cause that stood extinguished once the land was acquired by MUDA. These proceedings with regard to enhancement of compensation were pending adjudication even when the land was transferred to the Society. The Society cannot be seen ignorant or contend that it was never aware of the proceedings before the reference Court.

¶153

In the writ petition filed by the landowners the moment land was transferred to the Society, this Court dismissed the claim of the landowners on the ground that after having received the compensation and having filed cases for enhancement of compensation, it would not lie with the land losers to seek a

¶154

¶155

claim for retaining the land or seeking de-notification of the land. Therefore, on these two glaring circumstances and the condition that was stipulated in the communication dated 17-07-2007 clearly indicating that compensation is to be paid by the beneficiary i.e., the Society, the compensation, is trite, would include enhancement of compensation as it is the land owner to get adequate compensation for loss of his land.

¶156

Though the sale deed subsequently executed did not contain any clause with regard to payment of any other amount, it would not enure to the benefit of the Society to contend that it is a concluded contract between MUDA and the Society and no further claim can be made. The communication dated 17-07-2007, on the strength of which the Society had formed the layout was always a privy to the fact that the landowners have sought enhanced compensation before the reference Court. It was open to the Society to have impleaded itself into those proceedings before the reference Court. This is more so, as the

¶157

¶158

land that was acquired for public purpose was handed over for a private purpose of formation of layout.

¶159

As long as the beneficiaries of formation of layout or its Members hold the property, they are bound to comply with the payment of enhanced compensation as the landowners having exercised their statutory right have been granted enhancement in compensation. It is not the case of the petitioners that the issue of compensation to the landowners sprang after the land was transferred. The issue was at large by the landowners seeking enhancement in compensation. This is in fact noticed in the writ petition that was dismissed on the ground that land owners have sought enhancement in compensation.

¶160

To put it in simple terms, the Society and its Members are the present beneficiaries of acquisition of land though not acquired for its purpose and layout is formed by the Society for the benefit of its Members. Therefore, on a coalesce of all the aforesaid communications and in the peculiar facts of this case,

¶161

¶162

in my considered view, neither the State nor MUDA have to bear the enhanced compensation but only the beneficiary i.e., the Society.

¶163

The judgments are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that it is a concluded contract and what is found in the agreement cannot now be turned around. The case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. BOGHARA

¶164

POLYFAB PRIVATE LIMITED – (2009) 1 SCC 267 was interpreting the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The issues that fell before the Court were concerning jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal to arbitrate upon certain dispute and the interpretation of contract that was subject matter of such arbitration. The said judgment is not applicable to the fact situation. The other judgment relied on in the case of

¶165

SHRI SURENDRA NAYAK vs. A.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI - ILR 2016 KAR 4162 also would not lend any support to the petitioner as it was a dispute between the landlord and the tenant and estoppel was pleaded and considered. The said plea

¶166

¶167

of estoppel which the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to draw support from, would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶168

It is not on MUDA’s own volition that the land is transferred but it is on the directions of the State Government and repeated requests by the Society. Therefore, the Society is bound by the communication dated 17-07-2007 on the strength of which the entire formation of layout took place. The Society being the beneficiary of such acquisition will have to bear not only the compensation that was granted at the time when it took over the land, but the enhanced compensation that was awarded to the land owners.

¶169

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and is accordingly dismissed.

¶170

Sd/JUDGE

¶171

bkp CT:MJ

Karnataka Police Employees House v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Karnataka Police Employees House v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumari Swapna N Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Bk Panduranga Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Pattada Sri Guru Nanjeshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Sachin N G Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Police Vs State Rep. by Secretary

Aseem Naghman Vs the Secretary, Government of Karnataka