The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging rejection of incentive site allotment claims for land acquired in 1982. The Court held that no resolution existed for this specific layout, distinguishing it from other cases, and dismissed on merits for delay and laches.
Writ petition dismissed on merits and due to delay and laches.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.44288 OF 2014 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN:
PETITIONERS NO. 1 AND 2 ARE
MYSURU.
2
ALL ARE R/AT NO.4174, 9TH CROSS 5TH MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, MYSURU.
PETITIONERS No.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT 4174, 9TH CROSS GANDHINAGAR, 5TH MAIN MYSURU. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITYANANDA K R., AGA FOR R1; SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
3
ENDORSEMENTS DATED 28TH MAY, 2014 AND 10TH JUNE, 2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURES A AND B; AND ETC.,
IN THIS WRIT PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD, JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Petitioners herein have challenged the endorsements dated 28th May, 2014 and 10th June, 2010 issued by the respondent No.2 produced as Annexure-A and B in the present writ petition, inter alia, sought for writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to allot a site under incentive scheme implemented by respondent No.2, in terms of the order dated 02nd August, 2014 in WP No.49502 of 2013 and connected cases.
4
regarding the ownership of land inter se within the family of the petitioners and as such, the Land Acquisition Officer, referred the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the rights of claimants and same was registered as LAC No.138 of 1983. The said claim petition was concluded on 03rd February, 2005 holding that petitioners were the owners of the schedule land and as such, they are entitled for compensation. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioners have made representation on 24th June, 2008 (Annexure-E) seeking allotment of incentive sites, being land-losers. It is further stated that the said representation was rejected by order dated 10th June, 2010 (Annexure-B). It is the contention of the petitioners that in view of the law declared by this court in Writ Petitions No.15648-650 of 1995 decided on 04th March, 1998, the petitioners are entitled for incentive sites and same has been rejected by the respondent-Authority arbitrarily and accordingly, the petitioners presented this writ petition, challenging the order dated 10th June, 2010 (Annexure-B) and Endorsement dated 28th May, 2014 (Annexure-A) to this writ petition.
5
6
petitions No.15648-650 of 1995 and Writ petitions No.35158-59 of 2009 decided on 19th September, 2009. He further contended that the respondent-authorities cannot discriminate the people while considering the application made by the claimants seeking incentive sites, which is a legal right of the petitioners and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, he refers to the resolution of the respondent-Authority dated 01st April, 1987 and another resolution dated 22nd October, 1990, wherein the incentive site was allotted to the land losers and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court in this writ petition.
7
petition came to be filed in the year 2014 and there is no explanation offered by the petitioners regarding delay and therefore, in view of inordinate delay in approaching this Court challenging the impugned endorsements, writ petitions deserve to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
8
share the compensation to an extent of 3.31 guntas equally between themselves and the claimants 6 to 9 shall share compensation in respect of 5 acres of survey No.13 of Nachanhalli village equally (as per Annexure-C). Perusal of writ papers would further indicate that petitioners herein have made representation seeking incentive sites in lieu of acquisition of 5 acres of land by the respondent-Authority. The said representation was rejected by impugned endorsement dated 0.06.2010 (Annexure-B) on the ground of non-availability of the relevant Rules under the Act. Thereafter, the respondentAuthority has issued another endorsement dated 28th May, 2014, rejecting the claim made by the petitioners for allotment of incentive sites. The core question to be answered in this writ petition is:
“Whether the petitioners herein have made out
a case for allotment of incentive sites from the
respondent-Authority?”
9
(¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀéEZÉѬÄAzÀ ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀPÁÌV ¥ÉÆæÃvÀìºÀzÁAiÀÄPÀ AiÉÆÃd£É)
¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 1991 i.e., Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Incentive Schemes for Voluntary Surrender of Land), Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules" for short). Rule 3 of the Rules provides for allotment of sites. Rule 4 of the provides conditions for allotment. For ready reference, Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules, in vernacular, is extracted hereinbelow:
”3 . ��ೇಶನಗಳ ಹಂ��ೆ .- ಕ�ಾ�ಟಕ ನಗ�ಾ�ವೃ�� �ಾ���ಾರಗಳ ( ��ೇಶನಗಳಹಂ��ೆ ) �ಯಮಗಳ� , 1991 ರ� !ರುದ � ಾ$ಏ�ೇ ಒಳ'ೊಂ)ದ*ರೂ ಮತು, 4 �ೇ �ಯಮದ ಉಪಬಂಧಗ1'ೆ ಒಳಪಟು2 �ಾ���ಾರವ3 ಭೂ ಅಜ��ೆಯನು7 ತ89ತ'ೊ1ಸುವದೃ;2<ಂದ _,_ ಈ�ಯಮಗ1'ೆ >ೇ9ಸ?ಾದಅನುಬಂಧಗಳಪ��ಾರ ಭೂ@ಾ�ೕಕ�'ೆ A�ೕBಾCಹಕ�ಾ$ .-
(i) ಭೂ ಅಜ��ಾ ಅ��ಯಮ 1894 ರ 9 �ೇ ಪ�ಕರಣದ Eೕ�ೆ'ೆ �ೕಡ?ಾದ �ೋGೕH'ೆ ಉತ,ರ�ಾ$ ಅವನು ಸ8ಇJೆK<ಂದ �ಾ��ಾರದ ಪರ�ಾ$ ಸದ9 ಅ��ಯಮದ Eೕ�ೆ'ೆ Lೆಪ3MG ಕNೕಷನರು ಅP�ಸQೇ�ಾ$ರುವ ಭೂNಯನು7 Rಾವ3Sೇ ಇತರ ಆUೇಪVೆಗ1ಂದ ಮತು, Rಾವ3Sೇ ಅನ�ಕೃತ �@ಾ�ಣ�ಂದ ಮುಕ,�ಾ$ರುವ ಮತು, �ಾ���ಾರದ� �Wತ�ಾಗುವ ಸದ9 ಭೂNಯನು7 Lೆಪ3MG ಕNೕಷನರ>ಾ8�ೕನ�ೆX ಒYZHದ� , ಅಥ�ಾ
(ii) ಅ��ಯಮದ 35 �ೇ ಪ�ಕರಣದ Eೕ�ೆ'ೆ ಅವನ ಭೂNಯನು7 �ಾ���ಾರವ3 >ಾ8�ೕನಪ)H�ೊಂಡ� , ��ೇಶನಗಳನು7 ಹಂಚಬಹುದು :
ಪರಂತು , ಅಂಥ ಭೂNಯ ಸಂಬಂಧದ� ಇಬ^ರು ಅಥ�ಾ _ೆಚು` ವMa,ಗಳ� ಜಂGRಾ$@ಾ�ೕಕತ8 _ೊಂ�ದ*� , ಈ�ಯಮಗ1'ೆ ಅನು>ಾರ�ಾ$ಅಂಥಎ?ಾ
10
ವMa,ಗಳ� ಸ8ಇJೆK<ಂದ >ಾ8�ೕನBೆಯನು7 ವWH�ೊಟ2 _ೊರತು , ಅವರ �ೈa Rಾ�ೊಬ^9'ಾಗ�ೕಹಂ��ೆಯಅಹ�Bೆಯು�ಾ�ಪ,�ಾಗುವ3�ಲ .
!ವರVೆ .- ಈ�ಯಮಗಳ�ಾ�ರಂಭ�ೆX ಮುಂJೆ ಭೂ >ಾ8�ೕನBೆಯನು7 ವWH�ೊಡದ ಒಬ^ ವMa,ಯನು7 ಎ?ಾ ಅನ�ಕೃತ �@ಾ�ಣಗ1ಂದ ಮುಕ,�ಾ$ ಮತು, >ಾ8�ೕನ�ೆX ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ2 ಎ?ಾ ಆUೇಪVೆಗಳನು7 , ಅಂಥ " ಆUೇಪVೆಗಳನು7 �ಾMRಾಲಯದ� ಸ� Hರ� ಅಥ�ಾ ಇಲ �ರ� WಂBೆ'ೆದು�ೊಂಡ ತರು�ಾಯ ಅಂಥ ಭೂNಯ >ಾ8�ೕನBೆಯನು7 ಅಂಥ�ಾ�ರಂಭದತರು�ಾಯಸ8JೆK<ಂದವWH�ೊG2ರುವ�ೆಂದು eಾ!ಸತಕXದು* .
4. ಹಂ��ೆಯ ಷರತು,ಗಳ� - 3 �ೇ �ಯಮದ Eೕ�ೆ$ನ ಹಂ��ೆಯು , ಈ ಮುಂ�ನ ಷರತು,ಗ1'ೆ ಒಳಪG2ರತಕXದು*
( ಎ ) ಹಂ��ೆ ಪLೆದವನು , >ಾ@ಾನM ಪ�ವಗ��ೆX ಹಂ��ೆ'ಾ$ �ಾ���ಾರ�ಂದ �ಗ�ತ�ಾದ '( ��ೇಶನದ @ೌಲMದ ಪgBಾ� ಹಣವನು7 )’ ಸಂSಾಯ @ಾಡಲು ಬದ � ಾ$ರತಕXದು* ಮತು, �ಾಲ�ಾಲ�ೆX ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ�ಾ$ �ಾ���ಾರವ3 «¢ü¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀ Rಾವ3Sೇ ಇತರ ಶುಲXಗಳನು7 ಸಹ ಸಂSಾಯ @ಾಡಲು ಬದ � ಾ$ರತಕXದು* ;
( h ) ��ೇಶನವನು7 Rಾವ ?ೇಔjನ� ರ�ಸQೇ�ೆಂದು ಭೂNಯನು7 ಅP�ಸ?ಾ$Sೆkೕ ಆ ?ೇಔj ' 'ೆ ಆದMBೆ �ೕ) �ಾ���ಾರದ !�ೇಚ�ೆಯ Eೕ�ೆ'ೆ ಹಂಚತಕXದು* ಮತು, ಸದ9?ೇಔjನ� ಅಂಥಹಂaPÉAiÀÄÄ >ಾಧM�ಾಗ�ದ*�ೆ , ಸದ9 ?ೇಔjಗಳತರು�ಾಯರ�ತ�ಾದRಾವ3Sೇಇತರ?ೇಔjನ� ಹಂಚತಕXದು* ; ( H ) >ಾ8�ೕನBೆಯನು7 Lೆಪ3MG ಕNೕಷನ9'ೆ ವWH�ೊಡುವಭೂNಯ Eೕ?ೆ ತನ7 �ರು�ಾ�ಕ >ಾ8ಮM ಇSೆlಂದು �ಾ���ಾರ�ೆX ಮನದmಾ2ಗುವಂBೆ ಹಂ��ೆSಾರನು ರುಜು�ಾತುಪ)Hದ _ೊರತು , ಅವನು , ಈ �ಯಮಗಳ Eೕ�ೆ'ೆ ಹಂ��ೆಯನು7 ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÀPÀÄ̼ÀîªÀ£ÁVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è;
( ) ) ಅಂಥಭೂNಯನು7 ಇಬ^ರು ಅಥ�ಾ _ೆ�`ನ ವMa,ಗಳ� ಜಂGRಾ$ @ಾ�ೕಕತ8 _ೊಂ�ದ*�ೆ , ಈ �ಯಮಗಳ Eೕ�ೆ'ೆ ಹಂಚ?ಾದ ��ೇಶನ�ೆX ಅವರು ಒmಾ2$lೕ ºÀPÀÄ̼ÀîªÀgÁVgÀvÀPÌzÀÄÝ; À
11
( ಇ ) ಹಂ��ೆ ಪLೆದವನು ಈ'ಾಗ?ೇ _ೊಂ�ರುವ ಭೂN , Rಾವ3Sಾದರೂ ಇದ*�ೆ ಅದೂ >ೇ9 3 �ೇ �ಯಮದ Eೕ�ೆ'ೆ ಹಂ��ೆRಾದ ಭೂNಯ ಒಟು2 !H,ೕಣ�ವ3 , ನಗರಪ�Sೇಶಭೂ ( ಗ9ಷnಪ9Noಮತು, !�ಯಮನ ) ಅ��ಯಮ , 1976 ರ 4 �ೇ ಪ�ಕರಣದEೕ�ೆ'ೆ ���ಷ2ಪ)ಸ?ಾ$ರುವಗ9ಷn ¥Àj«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ÄÃgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è;
(J¥sï) ಹಂ��ೆಯು ಪgಣ� @ಾ�ಾಟ ಆqಾರದEೕ�ರತಕXದು* , ಹಂ��ೆ ಪLೆದವನು ಕ�ಯಪತ�ವನು7 ಪLೆಯುವ3ದ�ಾX$ ತಗಲುವ ಅವಶM �ೋಂದr ಮತು, ಇತರ �ೆಚ`ಗಳನು7 ಭ9¸ÀvÀಕXದು* . ”
the Resolutions dated 01st April, 1987 and 22nd October, 1990 referred to by the petitioners, are not applicable to the land which had been acquired by the respondent-Authority for the purpose for formation of Jayaprakash Narayan Layout during 1982-83. In view of the reference made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners with regard to Writ petitions No.15648-650 of 1995 (Annexure-F), the petitioners therein have called in question the correctness of notification dated 23rd December, 1991 issued under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 (for short hereinafter referred to as the ‘KUDA Act’) and the notification dated 12th December, 1992 issued under Section 19(1) of the KUDA Act. The aforementioned judgment is relating to formation of Layout
12
known as Vijayanagar Extension, IV Stage, II Phase. In the said Writ Petition the compensation was fixed by the respondentAuthority by mutual consent by entering into agreements with land owners and therefore, this Court, while considering the resolution dated 22nd October, 1990, at paragraph 8 of the judgment, held that the said resolution does not provide for allotment of sites to the land owners on preferential basis, free of cost as consideration for giving up their claim for higher compensation. In the said case, this Court directed the respondent-authorities therein to allot sites to such land owners whose lands have been acquired on preferential basis keeping in view the extent of land acquired and such other relevant consideration. Undisputably, the said judgment was relating to acquisition of land for the purpose of Vijayangar Extension, IV Stage, and the observation made by this Court in the operative portion of the order, reads as under:
“ iv. that in the event if the sites not being available in the layout formed out of the lands acquired belonging to the petitioners, the 2nd
13
respondent shall allot equally suitable site in any of the layout formed as far as possible very close to the layout formed out of the lands acquired belonging to the petitioners subject to the availability of sites and the commitment made by the Authority for allotment of sites to others who are similarly situated like the petitioners.”
14
equated with the Rules stated above. It is the case of the respondent-Authority that, the identical resolution referred to above, was not passed with regard to the claimants/land losers in Jayaprakash Narayan Layout. Undisputably, the subject land in the present writ petition has been acquired for the purpose of Jayaprakash Narayan Layout and therefore, the said resolution and the order passed by this Court in writ petitions referred to above, cannot be made applicable to the present case. In this regard, I have also noticed the decision of this Court in Writ petition No.14342 of 2010 (Annexure-H), whereby this Court, by order dated 26th April, 2013, directed the respondent-authorities to allot incentive sites as per the resolution dated 22nd October, 1990 and the impugned notification in the said writ petition was relating to the acquisition by the respondent-Authority to form layout, viz. Vijayangar Extension IV Stage. I have also examined the judgment of this Court in writ petitions No.3515859 of 2009 dated 19th September, 2011 and this Court has extracted the resolutions dated 01st April, 1987 and 22nd October, 1990 issued by the second respondent herein. Undisputably, in the said writ petition the land acquired was
15
situated at Basavanahalli Village, Mysore Taluk and not with respect to Jayaprakash Nagar Layout, Mysore. This Court, directed the respondent-Authority to allot incentive sites to the land owners based on the resolutions dated 01st April, 1987 and 22nd October, 1990. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that, no material has been produced by the petitioners to say that the orders passed by this Court were with regard to the land losers under formation of Jayaprakash Nagar Layout. Undoubtedly, the aforementioned resolutions have been passed by the respondent-Authority in respect of the specified layouts wherein large number of lands have been acquired for the purpose of formation of Layouts and also provides for granting sites under the scheme called "Incentive Scheme" to people who have lost their lands, in addition to the compensation that they were entitled to. The petitioners have also produced Official Memorandum dated 03rd June, 1992 (Annexure-L) whereby the incentive sites have been allotted in favour of land losers who had entered into an agreement with the respondent-Authority. The relevant subject of the official memorandum dated 03rd June, 1992 reads thus:
16
“«µAiÀ Ä: £ÁZÀ £À ºÀ ½î UÁæªÀ ÄzÀ ¸À ªÀ ð £É A.4,24,48,109,152©/154© gÀ °èÀ 7.07 JPgÀ d«ÄÃ£É £À Äß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ PÀ Ì ¥É gÀ ¸À àgÀ M¥À àAzÀ zÀ ªÀ ÄÃ¯É É PÆ¼É î¯ÁVgÀ ĪÀ §UÀ Î ¨sÉ Æ ªÀ iÁ°ÃPÀ jUÀ jAiÉ iÁ¬Äw zÀ gÀ zÀ °è ¤ªÀ Ã±É £À À ªÄAdÆgÁw §UÀ Î.É ”
(underlining supplied)
for the respondent-Authority that the incentive sites have been provided to the land losers who had entered into an agreement for awarding compensation under consent award. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Authority whereby some of the sites have been allotted in favour of the respective allottees/claimants who had entered into an agreement for awarding compensation under consent award. In the instant case, compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter, same was referred to the Reference Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that allotment of incentive sites by the second respondent-Authority is a policy matter of the second respondent-Authority, which is purely in the domain of the
17
second respondent-Authority to consider for allotment of incentive site, and further taking into consideration the respective layouts formed therein and in view of the fact that the respondent-Authority, has not allotted incentive sites to any of the land losers of Nachanahalli sector from whom the lands had been acquired for the purpose of formation of Jayaprakash Nagar Layout in the year 1982 and as such, I do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to direct the respondent-Authority to allot incentive sites in favour of the petitioners herein. If that is so, if any direction is issued in the present writ petition, the same would open pandora's box which would disturb the exchequer of the respondent-Authority. Therefore, as the acquisition proceedings of the Jayaprakash Nagar Layout, Mysuru was formed way back in the year 1987-88 and had reached finality and at the time of passing of the award by the respondent-Authority, there was no resolution by the respondent-Authority for allotment of incentive sites, I am of the view that the petitioners herein have not made
out a case for interference of this Court in the present writ petition and as such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned
18
endorsements dated 28th May, 2014 (Annexure-A) and 10th June, 2010 (Annexure-B). Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Be that as it may, the impugned endorsement rejecting the allotment of incentive site was made on 10th June, 2010 (Annexure-B) and the writ petition was filed in the year 2014 and no explanation was offered in the writ petition with regard to delay in filing the writ petition except challenging the reiteration of the same endorsement on 28th May, 2014, and as such, writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, accordingly writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
lnn
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners entitled to incentive sites for land acquired for Jayaprakash Narayan Layout formation.
Whether Section 30 reference precludes allotment of incentive sites under applicable schemes.
Whether writ petition suffering from delay and laches.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Unreported JudgmentDistinguished¶61
Writ Petitions No. 15648-650 of 1995
Unreported JudgmentDistinguished¶52
Writ petitions No. 35158-59 of 2009
Unreported JudgmentDistinguished¶91
Writ petition No. 14342 of 2010
8 provisions across 4 enactments
Sri. Mahadevu
Sri Ramu
Sri Jagara
Sri Devaraju
State of Karnataka
The Commissioner Mysore Urban Development Authority
E.S. Indiresw
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
