Allowed

Sri Honnashettappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2022WP/26758/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnata High Court allowed writ petitions seeking registration of municipal khata for lands previously under acquisition. The court held that since the Principal Secretary revivied the acquisition notification for the specific lands, the Town Municipal Council is obligated to register the khata in favor of the petitioners despite pending appeals challenging the broader order regarding other la

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 to register the khata in favor of petitioners for the lands in question within six weeks, subject to satisfying other legal requirements.

Sri Honnashettappa Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.26758 OF 2015 (LB-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.26760 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

¶7

IN WRIT PETITION NO.26758 OF 2015:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1. SRI. HONNASHETTAPPA S/O. DODDASHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT KUVEMPUNAGAR, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT PIN CODE – 573 116. (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)

¶10

2. SMT. S.T. RATHNA W/O. SRI. HONNASHETTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT KUVEMPUNAGAR, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSSAN DISTRICT PIN CODE – 573 116.

¶11

(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)

¶12

3. SMT. H. GEETHA W/O. SRI. R.S. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.18, VIJAYANAGARA,

¶13

¶14

4^TH STAGE, 1^ST PHASE, MYSORE – 570 017. 4. SRI. M. HEMANTHA S/O. SRI. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/T NO.18, VIJAYANAGARA, 4^TH STAGE, 1^ST PHASE, MYSORE – 570 017. 5. M. CHAITHRA D/O. SRI. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT NO.18, VIJAYANAGARA, 4^TH STAGE, 1^ST PHASE, MYSORE – 570 017. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI MAYANNA B.L, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE – 560 001 REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT PIN – 573 116. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI K.R.NITHYANANDA, AGA FOR R1, SRI M KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

----

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO ISSUE OR CHANGE KHATA IN RESPECT OF MUNICIPAL

¶18

¶19

KHATA NO.4780/4477 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SY NO.275/4A SITUATED AT DAKSHINA NALA GRAMA, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, MEASURING 0.18 GUNTAS IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS RESPECTFULLY, AS PER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS DTD 5.9.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-J BASED ON PARTITION DEED DTD.21.8.2012 VIDE ANNEX-H AND LETTER DATED 21.08.2014 BEARING NO.BOOSWAJI.09/95-96 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN, VIDE ANNEXURE-Q.

¶20

IN WRIT PETITION NO.26760 OF 2015:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

SRI B M NAGARAJAPPA S/O MALLAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT KUVEMPUNAGAR, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT PIN CODE - 573 116. ...PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI MAYANNA B.L, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE – 560 001 REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶26

2. THE CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOLENARASIPURA,

HASSAN DISTRICT

PIN CODE – 573 116.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.R.NITHYANANDA, AGA FOR R1, SRI M KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶32

-----

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO TRANSFER THE MUNICIPAL KHATA NO.4899/4566/C IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SY NO.268/3 SITUATED AT DAKSHINA NALA GRAMA, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, MEASURING 400 SQ.FTS. IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER, AS PER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD31.10.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AS PER THE SALE DEED AT ANN-H AND LETTER DTD 21.08.2014 BEARING NO.BOOSWAJI.09/95-96 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN, VIDE ANNEXURE-P.

¶34

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

The petitioners in W.P.No.26758/2015 are the owners of

¶37

the land bearing Sy.No.275/4A and petitioner in W.P.No.26760/2015 is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.268/3 measuring 0.18 acres and 0.04 acres respectively, both situated at Dakshina Nala Grama, Holenarasipura Taluk.

¶38

¶39

2. These lands in question among other lands were notified and acquired for the purpose of Urban development of Dakshina Nala Grama, Holenarasipura Taluk.

¶40

3. Petitioner No.1 (for convenience referred to as Honnashettappa) in W.P.No.26758/2015 challenged the acquisition of the lands in question before this Court in W.P.No.33199/1997 and other connected petitions which came to be dismissed on 25.11.1998.

¶41

4. The Government of Karnataka issued the notification under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short “Act”) de-notifying the acquisition of lands in question and other lands. Pursuant to the issuance of notification, the office bearers of TMC and others challenged the said notification in W.P.No.32570/2000 which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1.3.2002. Being aggrieved by the said order, SLP came to be filed before the Apex Court and the said SLP came to be disposed of in view of the submission made by the Government that they would withdraw the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act.

¶42

¶43

5. The Government of Karnataka in view of the

¶44

undertaking given before the Apex Court, withdrew the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act against which, Honnashettappa filed W.P.No.19088/2007 and also other owners filed connected petitions before this Court, wherein, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions by order dated 15.10.2008. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petitions, Honnashettappa and others filed W.A.No.1806/2008 and other connected appeals before the Division Bench. The Division Bench set aside the order dated 15.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge and also the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka withdrawing the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act.

¶45

7. However, the Government of Karnataka was directed

¶46

to reconsider the proceedings at the stage prior to exercise of the power contemplated under Section 48(1) of the Act and pass an order clarifying whether the possession of the acquired lands have been taken or not and if the possession of the said lands were not taken as on the date of issuance of notification under

¶47

¶48

Section 48(1) of the Act, the de-notification order issued under Section 48(1) of the Act stands revived.

¶49

8. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.A.No.1862/2008 and other appeals, the Principle Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka ( hereinafter referred to as “Principal Secretary”), passed an order holding that the possession of the lands in question have not been taken and in view of the said order, the de-notification order passed under Section 48(1) of LA Act stood revived and as such the lands in question were withdrawn from acquisition. The order passed by Principal Secretary in respect of the lands in question has attained finality.

¶50

9. The Principal Secretary in his order has stated that some of the lands which were notified and acquired, possession was taken as on the date of issuance of the notification under section 48(1) of the Act resulting in confirming the order passed withdrawing the notification issued under Section 48(1) of LA Act. Taking exception to the same , the owners filed W.P.Nos.34297 and 37898-37902/2012 and other connected

¶51

¶52

petitions challenging the order passed by the Principal Secretary. The learned Single Judge by order dated 28.03.2014 quashed the order passed by the Principal Secretary and further revived the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent No.2-Town Municipal Council, Holenarasipura, has filed writ appeals in W.A.Nos.1238-1244/2014 and other connected appeals which are pending consideration and the Division Bench has stayed the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reviving the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act.

¶53

10. Petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Principal Secretary, stating that the possession of the lands in question have not been taken as on the date of issuance of the notification under Section 48(1) of the Act and further reviving the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the LA Act, have submitted an application with the respondent No.2-Town Municipal Council to register the katha of the lands in question in

¶54

¶55

their favour. The Respondent No.2 having not acted on the said applications , these writ petitions are filed.

¶56

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in the light of the order passed by the Principal Secretary and also the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act, denotifying the lands in question, the respondent No.2Town Municipal Council is under an obligation to register the katha in respect of lands in question in favour of the petitioners.

¶57

12. Mr.M. Keshava Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Town Municipal Council submits that the order passed by the Principal Secretary was set aside in its entirety and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of writ appeals filed by the respondent No.2-Town Municipal Council are pending consideration and as such the request of the petitioners for registering the katha in their favour in respect of the lands in question cannot be considered till the disposal of the writ appeals.

¶58

¶59

13. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State would reiterate the submission made by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶60

14. I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶61

15. It is undisputed fact that in pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1862/2008 and other connected appeals, the Principal Secretary, reconsidered the matter afresh and passed an order holding that the possession of the lands in question were not taken as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 48(1) of the Act and as such the notification issued under Section 48(1) of LA Act denotiifying the lands from acquisition stands revived. However, in the said order, it was held that the possession of some of the lands were taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 48(1) of the Act and it was further held that the order passed withdrawing the notification issued u/s 48(1) of LA Act in respect of lands, the possession of which were taken prior to issuance of the said notification is confirmed .

¶62

¶63

16. Owners of the said lands filed the writ petitions

¶64

before this Court challenging the order passed by the Principal Secretary confirming the order of withdrawal of notification issued u/s 48(1) of Act. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties quashed the order passed by the Principal Secretary, and held that the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act stands revived.

¶65

17. However, challenge to the order passed by the Principal Secretary was by the owners of the lands only with respect to the lands which were held that the possession of which were taken prior to the issuance of notification under Section 48(1) of the Act and not in respect of the possession of lands in question which were not taken as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 48(1) of the Act. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the order passed by the Principal Secretary is only confined to the extent of holding that the possession of the lands which were taken prior to issuance of the notification under Section 48(1) of the Act.

¶66

¶67

18. Petitioners were not parties to the said writ petitions

¶68

and as such it cannot be said that the order passed in favour of the petitioners is also quashed. Petitioners have acquired a right under the order passed by the Principal Secretary and as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the order cannot be said to be binding on the petitioners and is not a judgment in rem as contended by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶69

19. The Respondent No.2 having accepted the order passed by the Principal Secretary reviving the notification issued under Section 48(1) of LA Act in respect of lands in question are under an obligation to register the Khata in favour of the Petitioners and cannot deny the same under the guise that the order passed by Principal Secretary is quashed in its entirety and the legality of the said order is the subject matter of writ appeals which are pending consideration. It also pertinent to state that the notification issued under Section 48(1) of LA Act in respect of lands in question was revived by virtue of order passed by

¶70

¶71

Principal Secretary and not by the order passed by the learned single judge .

¶72

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶73

Order

¶74

Writ petitions are allowed . The respondent No.2 is directed to register the khatha in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands in question subject to the condition that the petitioners satisfy other requirements of law. The said exercise shall be concluded within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

Sri Honnashettappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Honnashettappa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Swamy R T Vs State by Santhebennur P.S.

Nandeesh Chikkanna Vs M/S. Magma Fincorp Limited

Sri Dinesh Shetty Vs the Station House Officer

Saifuddin Mohammed Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B M Nagarajappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Suadela Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka