Petitioners challenged unauthorized occupation of 23 guntas of land by a bus stand. The Court held it cannot adjudicate disputed title or conduct roving enquiries under Article 226, rejecting reliefs due to lack of title proof and delay.
Writ petition dismissed; no relief granted. Petitioners directed to approach appropriate authority for redressal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.99 OF 2017(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
2
ALL ARE RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS ROAD, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR VISHWANATHANAGENAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 032.
PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 AND 5 TO 8 ARE ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, SRI GURUPRASAD.N S/O LATE.NAGARAJ.K AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS THE PETITIONER NUMBER 5 ABOVE. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VENKATESH S.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ACHAPPA.P.B, AGA FOR R1, SRI SURANA P.D, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO SURRENDER AND DELIVER THE POSSESSION OF LAND IN SY.NO. 317/1, OF DEVANAHALLI TOWN, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK MEASURING IN AN EXTENT OF 0 ACRES 23 GUNTAS WHICH IS IN UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF THE BUS STAND HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED ILLEGALLY, OVER THE LAND BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction to:
“i) Respondents to surrender and deliver the possession of land in survey number 317/1, of Devanahalli town, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk measuring in an extent of 0 acres 23 guntas which is in unauthorized occupation of the Bus stand has been constructed illegally, over the land belonging to the Petitioners.
ii) Or in the alternative to pay compensation for the said land at 4 times of the present prevailing market value for the extent of 23 guntas of the land in survey number 317/1 and further to.
4
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
Land in Sy. No. 317 of Devanahalli Town,
Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, measuring 2 acres 14 guntas belonged to Late K.Nagaraj, who was the son of the ex-Jodidhar of the Village called Navarathna Agrahara. Late M.Kempaiah having acquired the said lands in terms of the registered settlement deed bearing No.3104/54-55 dated 30.07.1953, and by virtue of the said settlement deed five sons of Late M.Kempaiah came to the possession of the land. After the death of late K.Nagaraj, petitioners who are his legal heirs came in possession of the said land. During the year 1955, the Land Acquisition Officer, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Bangalore vide LA case No.21/1955-56 CO No.PWB 5785-90/B1 5513 dated 05.10.1955 issued a notification for acquisition of the said lands for the construction of Police Quarters and called for the objections from the interested persons in
5
the lands, which belong to Muniswamappa S/o Hullur Kenchappa and Kempaiah S/o Muniappa is mentioned as Anubhavadhar in the Mysore Gazette.
6
for construction of Police quarters and it is claimed that Nagaraj was owner and Anubhavadhar of the land in question. Even according to the petitioner it is not known as to whether Nagaraj has taken the award amount or not and it is not the case of the petitioner that he is pressing regarding 36¾ guntas of land in Sy. No. 317 acquired during 1955 for the purpose of construction of Police quarters.
7
Mojanidhar, Devanahalli Sy. No. 317/1 to the extend of 23 guntas, as per Annexure-C.
8
guntas there is no encumbrance created in respect of the said lands in Sy. No.317/1.
Municipality land in Sy. No. 317 measuring 23 guntas is in possession of bus stand, 5 guntas of road and 30 guntas is police station. Hence, according to them respondent – KSRTC has utilized illegally private land of late K.Nagaraj, father of the petitioners herein and the said land belongs to the petitioners, which
9
requires to be handed over to them lawfully. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the extent of 23 guntas in Sy. No. 317/2A of Devanahalli Town is illegal and unauthorized occupied without their being any lawful land acquisition proceedings and without any notice to K.Nagaraj nor his legal heirs and without awarding any compensation to the owners.
10
11
12
any grievance with regard to the portion of the property, which has been acquired during the year 1955 for the purpose of construction of Police Quarters measuring 36¾ guntas of land in Sy. No. 317. But, however, remaining 23 guntas of land which is used as the bus stand and 5 guntas of land as road, the petitioners are seeking that since there is no acquisition or lawful taking over the possession by any of the Authorities, they continued to be the owners of the land and the said land has to be handed over to the possession of the petitioners. It is further contended that despite several representations and communications to the concerned Authorities, no action was taken and even based on the survey sketch prepared by the Mojanidhar of Devanahalli Town, the petitioners realized that 23 guntas of land has not been acquired with due process of law. Therefore, the learned counsel for petitioners contends that this piece of land lawfully belongs to the petitioners and the same deserves to be handed over to them.
13
14
the purpose of claiming right over the property and for the purpose of creating a cause of action to claim the right over the property. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioners have not produced single piece of document before this Court to show that they have title with regard to the Sy. No. 317 of Devanahalli Town. They have not produced the sale deed, they also not have produced any revenue documents or record of rights, phodi or RTC to show that they are the owner of the said land in Sy. No. 317 measuring to the entire extent and specifically to the extent of 23 guntas.
15
the instant writ petition is devoid of merits and is not maintainable as the disputed questions of facts are involved in the present writ petition.
16
describe, who is in possession and who are owners of the property.
17
consideration for the reason that the petitioners are not the owners of the property. According to them there is no clear identification of the property in question. Petitioners have not shown clear schedule to the properties or boundaries.
18
He further contends that petitioners are not aware as to where their alleged land is situated and have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a roving enquiry to be conducted by some of the Authorities to identify and hand over the possession of their land, which is impermissible in law.
19
20
are having title or possession over the property in question.
21
not go into the question of fact to decide the title and identification of the property in question in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the first prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition does not merit for consideration is liable to be rejected. Accordingly rejected.
It is needless to mention here that petitioners would be at liberty to approach appropriate authority for redressal of their grievance with regard to land in question.
22
All contentions urged herein are kept open.
Sd/JUDGE
VK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can go into disputed questions of fact to decide title and possession of land in a writ petition.
Whether a survey sketch prepared by the Upa-Lokayuktha can establish title to land without title deeds.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable after a delay of over 60 years without sufficient justification.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Subbalakshamma W/o Late K Nagaraj and others
The Secretary Transport Department
The Chairman and Managing Director KSRTC
Pradeep Singh Yerur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
