Disposed

S.B.Shreedhara Gowda v. Shimoga Municipal Corporation

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2022WP/8916/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Private land was used for a municipal layout without lawful acquisition. The court directed compensation for the remaining 135 sq. mtrs. under the 2013 Act, treating the judgment day as the preliminary notification date, payable within three months. It awarded costs and disposed of the petition while retaining compliance monitoring.

What did the court decide?

Corporation directed to determine and pay compensation for 135 sq. mtrs. under the 2013 Act within three months of receiving a certified copy; costs awarded.

S.B.Shreedhara Gowda Vs Shimoga Municipal Corporation — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.8916 OF 2015 [KLR-RES]

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S.B.SHREEDHARA GOWDA S/O B BORAYYA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O NANDINI BAKERY B.H. ROAD, VIDYA NAGARA SHIMOGA-577 201

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SHIMOGA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA-577 201

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

¶16

(I) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO IMPLEMENT THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.03.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE “A”.

¶17

(II) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO INITIATE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS,

¶18

¶19

WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND MEASURING 63.9 SQ.MTS., WHICH WAS FORMING A PART OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.31/21, MEASURING 4 GUNTAS (400 SQ.MTS.) SITUATED AT KALLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

One Syed Bashir S/o. Syed Kareem executed a sale deed in respect of 0-04 guntas of land in Sy.No.31 of Kallahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk in favour of one Sri.M.D.Hayath. After the land was sold to one M.D.Hayath, it appears that the land bearing Sy.No.31 was phoded into several numbers and the land purchased by M.D.Hayath was assigned Sy.No.31/21. This is evidenced by the fact that the name of Syed Bashir, who sold 0-04 guntas of land, is found in the RTCs of the year 1979-80 to 1983-84.

¶23

It may be pertinent to state here that vide M.R. No.53/2001-02, the name of M.D.Hayath was mutated in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.31/21, which

¶24

¶25

was an extent of 0-04 guntas. The fact that the RTCs stood in the name of M.D.Hayath is evidenced by RTCs which are produced as Annexure “E”.

¶26

Thereafter, on 09.10.2002, M.D.Hayath sold 0-04 guntas of land that he had purchased in Sy.No.31/21 in favour of the petitioner under the registered sale deed dated 09.10.2002. Pursuant to the said sale, the revenue entries were mutated in favour of the petitioner vide M.R. No.18/2002-03.

¶27

It appears that in the year 1980, forty-three items of land in Kallahalli village were acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (Karnataka Act No.18 of 1973) for the purpose of providing sites to houseless persons. In the said Notification, Sy.No.31/1 upto Sy.No.31/17 were notified at Sl.Nos.13 to 29.

¶28

It may be pertinent to state here that Sy.No.31/21 was not notified in the said Notification.

¶29

¶30

On the complaint of the petitioner that the land purchased by him had been utilised by the respondentCorporation without acquiring the same in accordance with law, proceedings were initiated by the Corporation.

¶31

The survey was conducted on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner and the Municipal Commissioner issued a communication dated

¶32

08.12.2005, which reads as under:

¶33

£ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÁ PÁAiÀÄð®AiÀÄ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ

¶34

¸ÀASÉå:¹3:¹.Dgï.¨sÀÆ.¸Áé.«.ªÀ.6:88-89 ¢£ÁAPÀ:8-12-2005

¶35

EzÀgÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀªÀjUÉ, F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹ªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ,

¶36

²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ «£ÉÆÃ§£ÀUÀgÀ 2£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀ §qÁªÀuÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ PÀ®èºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ jÃ ¸À.£ÀA.31:1 jAzÀ 31:17gÀ ªÀgÉ«UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ jÃ.¸À.£ÀA.44gÀ

¶37

d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÉÆß¼ÀUÉÆAqÀÄ EvÀgÉÃ MlÄÖ 80 JPÀgÉ 15 UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀgÀ»vÀjUÉ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À gÀa¹, «vÀj¸ÀÄªÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV F £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀªÁVzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉAiÀÄ°è, £ÀA.J¯ï.J.PÀÆå.Dgï.ºÉZï.J¸ï.18:96-77 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31-5-1980gÀAvÉ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¥ÀæPÀluÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj

¶38

¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è AiÉÆÃd£Á £ÀPÉë vÀAiÀiÁj¹, ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ°è ¤ªÉÃ±À£À gÀa¹zÁUÀ j.¸À.£ÀA.31:18 jAzÀ 31:57gÀ ªÀgÉV£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »A¢£À j.¸À.£ÀA.44gÀ°èAiÀÄ 124 JAzÀÄ «AUÀqÀuÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁ ªÀÄ£ÀªÀjPÉ

¶39

¶40

ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀîzÉÃ ¸ÀzÀj AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÃ¥ÀðqÉUÉÆ½¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ CºÀð ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀÄ¨sÀ«UÀ½UÉ ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀAvÉ SÁvÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F »£Àß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¸ÀAzsÁ£À¸ÀÆvÀæªÉÃ¥Àðr¹¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjAzÀ, £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÁV £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ¬ÄAzÀ §zÀ° ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ«¹zÀ ¸ÀÆvÀæzÀAvÉ, PÉ®ªÀÅ ºÀPÀÄÌzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ §zÀ° ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ SÁvÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ CªÀjAzÀ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ ©lÄÖPÉÆlÖ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ PÁgÀuÁAvÀgÀ¢AzÀ SÁvÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. F »£Àß¯ÉAiÀÄ®Æè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÆvÀæPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀqÀzÉ EzÀÝgÀÆ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ ¤nÖ£À°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ £ÀA.£À.C.E.190:n.JA.r.98: ¢£ÁAPÀ:12-2-2004gÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¸ÁÜ¬Ä ¸À«Äw ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ZÀað¹ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¤tðAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀzÀ C¼ÀvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÜ¼À ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁr ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀÄ, ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÉÆÃf¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¨sÀÆ-ªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¯ÉPÁÌ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃj GzÉÝÃ²vÀ C¼ÀvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÜ¼À ¥Àj²Ã®£É PÁAiÀÄðPÉÌ EzÀgÀ°è vÉÆÃj¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ ºÁdgÁUÀÄªÀªÀjzÁÝgÉ. F PÁAiÀÄðPÉÌ vÀªÀÄä°ègÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ vÁªÀÅ ºÁdgÁV ¸ÀzÀj PÁAiÀÄðPÉÌ ¸ÀºÀPÀj¸À®Ä w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ. vÀ¦àzÀ°è ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ°è zÉÆgÉAiÀÄ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ªÀiÁ»w ºÁUÀÆ ®¨sÀå zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj PÁAiÀÄð ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸À¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ. PÁgÀt ¤ªÉÃ±À£À SÁvÉzÁgÀjUÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¹ÜgÀUÉÆ½¸À¨ÉÃQgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶41

¸À»/¥ËgÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ”

¶42

¶43

As could be seen from this noting of the Municipal Commissioner, the land bearing Sy.Nos.31/1 to 31/17 and Re.Sy.No.44 and other lands, totally measuring 80 acres 15 guntas, were notified. As stated above, while preparing a layout, it was noticed that the layout was formed in the land bearing Sy.Nos.31/18 to 31/57 and old Re.Sy.No.44 and 124 and sites had been formed thereon. In other words, the layout was formed in the lands apart from the notified lands i.e., Sy.Nos.31/18 to 31/57 and it is for this purpose, the Commissioner had issued Annexure ‘F’, calling for a spot inspection to be conducted to measure the lands.

¶44

This was followed by a Note put up by the Official of the Corporation, which reads as follows:

¶45

²æÃ J¸ï. ²æÃzsÀgÀUËqÀ ©£ï ¨ÉÆÃgÀAiÀÄå EªÀgÀÄ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ§½ UÁæªÀÄzÀ j.¸À.£ÀA.31:21gÀ 0-04 UÀÄAmÉ PÉëÃvÀæPÉÌ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀÅzÀgÀ ¸ÀÜ¼À ªÀiÁ»wAiÉÆA¢UÉ EzÀgÀr ªÀgÀ¢¹zÉ.

¶46

¶47

j.¸À.£ÀA.31:21gÀ DPÁgÀ§AzÀ£À «¹ÛÃtð MlÄÖ 0-04 UÀÄAmÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ. RgÁ§Ä gÀ»vÀªÁV RÄ¶Ì d«ÄÃ£ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÀ Dgïn¹ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ²æÃ J¸ï. ²æÃzsÀgÀUËqÀ ©£ï ¨ÉÆÃgÀAiÀÄå EªÀjUÉ SÁvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶48

¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀAzsÁ£À MqÀA§rPÉAiÀÄÆ CVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. DzÁUÀÆå AiÉÆÃd£Á £ÀPÉëAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå: 458, 432, 432J, 433, 420 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀ¸ÉÛ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ gÀ¸ÉÛ ºÉÆgÀvÁV G½zÉ¯Áè ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ vÀ:SÉÛAiÀÄ°è vÉÆÃj¹zÀAvÉ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæ «vÀj¹zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸ÀÜ¼À ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀvÉAiÀÄ°è ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå 458gÀ MlÄÖ 144 ZÀzÀgÀ «ÄÃlgï ¥ÉÊQ 72 ZÀ.«ÄÃlgï PÉëÃvÀæªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj »¸ÉìAiÀÄ°è §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F PÉëÃvÀæªÀÅ SÁ° ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß ²æÃzsÀgÀUËqÀ-CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ CzÉÃ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ°è G½zÀAvÀºÀ 72 ZÀ.«ÄÃlgï PÉëÃvÀæªÀÇ ¸ÀºÀ SÁ° ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ j.¸À.£ÀA.31:20gÀ »¸ÉìAiÀÄ°è §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶49

j.¸À.£ÀA.31:20 gÀ°è MlÄÖ 0-05 UÀÄAmÉ PÉëÃvÀæ«zÀÄÝ RgÁ§Ä gÀ»vÀ 5 UÀÄAmÉ, RÄ¶Ì d«ÄÃ£ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÀ Dgïn¹ C£ÀéAiÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀ £Á®ÄÌ d£À ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀÄªÀgÀUÉ SÁvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶50

1. j.¸À.£ÀA.31:20gÀ ¥ÉÊQ 458gÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ 72 ZÀzÀgÀ «ÄÃlgï PÉëÃvÀæzÀ SÁ° ¸ÀÜ¼ÀªÀÅ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ Dgïn¹ CªÀgÀÄ ºÀPÀÄÌ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶51

¶52

ªÀÄAr¹zÉ.

¶53

¸À»/- 11.5.2006 ¥Àæ.zÀ.¨sÀÆªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, ºÉZï.PÉ.ZÀ£Àß§¸ÀªÀAiÀÄå ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ ¸À»/-18/5 DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ”

¶54

Thus, as could be seen from above, this note was also approved by the Commissioner on 18.05.2006 as per the signature found on the document produced at Annexure ‘F” (at page 63 of the writ petition).

¶55

As could be seen from this note, the Corporation admitted that the land bearing Sy.No.31/21 measuring 0-04 guntas, as per Aakaara bandhana (DPÁgÀ§AzÀ£À), was standing in the name of the petitioner herein and the said extent of land was not acquired under any statute or by way of an agreement, however, as per the layout plan, site bearing site Nos.458, 432, 432A, 433 and 420

¶56

and a road had been formed in Sy. No.31/21, and sites

¶57

¶58

formed in 31/21, had also been distributed. The note also states that site No.458 measured 144 sq.mtrs. out of which, 72 sq.mtrs was vacant and was in the possession of the petitioner. It was also stated that the remaining 72 sq.mtrs. which was also vacant, was situated in Sy.No.31/20.

¶59

Thus, as on 11.05.2006, the Corporation admitted that 0-04 guntas of the land that the petitioner had purchased had been acquired and that five sites and a road had also been formed in the said area and the petitioner was in possession of an extent of 72 sq.mtrs. in No.458 and the remaining 72 sq.mtrs. in site No.458 was situated in Sy.No.31/20.

¶60

Thereafter, proceedings were placed before the Municipal Council on 05.06.2008 and the Corporation after discussion resolved as follows:

¶61

“wÃªÀiÁð£À:- «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀÄ¢üÃWÀðªÁV ZÀað¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ, CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ PÀ®èºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.31/21gÀ 0.04 UÀÄAmÉ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß F »AzÉ 1976gÀ°è £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¨sÀÆ

¶62

¶63

¸Áé¢üÃ£À ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À gÀa¹ ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¯ÉÃ-Omï£ÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj 0.04 UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¤.£ÀA.458gÀ C¼ÀvÉ 72 ZÀ.«ÄÃ., ¤.£ÀA.432-gÀ C¼ÀvÉ 27 ZÀ.«ÄÃ., ¤.£ÀA.432-JgÀ C¼ÀvÉ 13.50 ZÀ.«ÄÃ., ¤.£ÀA.433gÀ C¼ÀvÉ 10.80ZÀ.«ÄÃ., ¤.£ÀA.420gÀ C¼ÀvÉ 10.80ZÀ.«ÄÃ., £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ gÀ¸ÉÛ 265 ZÀ.«ÄÃ., M¼ÀUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤.£ÀA.458gÀ MlÄÖ C¼ÀvÉ 12.52+10.55/2x12.50 ZÀ.«ÄÃ EzÀÄÝ. MlÄÖ 144ZÀ.«ÄÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À.£ÀA.31/20gÀ°è 72ZÀ.«ÄÃ. §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj 458gÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß qÁ: ªÀÄºÁzÉÃªÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀjUÉ F »AzÉ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ¬ÄAzÀ ºÀgÁdÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤Ãr PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ²æÃ.J£ï.J¸ï. dUÀ¢Ã±ÀégÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ°è £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ RjÃ¢zÁgÀgÁzÀ qÁ: ªÀÄºÁzÉÃªÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ°è ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ CªÀjAzÀ RjÃ¢zÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.J£ï.J¸ï.dUÀ¢Ã±ÀégÀ¥ÀàgÀ£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀzÀ°è ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27-11-2007 gÀAzÀÄ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ, DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀqÉ¹zÀ dAn ¸ÀÜ¼À vÀ¤SÁ n¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj ²æÃ.J¸ï.©. ²æÃzsÀgÀUËqÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸À.£ÀA.31/21gÀ ¤.£ÀA. 458gÀ C¼ÀvÉ 40 x45 ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è vÀAw¨ÉÃ° ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ MAzÀÄ aPÀÌ ±Éqï ¤«Äð¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸Áé¢üÃ£À C£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ zsÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ²æÃ.J£ï.J¸ï.dUÀ¢Ã±ÀégÀ¥Àà CAzÀgÉ qÁ||ªÀÄºÀzÉÃªÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀjAzÀ RjÃ¢zÁgÀgÀÄ ¤.£ÀA.458gÀ°è ºÀPÀÄÌ £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉÆ½¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨sÀÆ ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£ÉUÉÆ½¸À§ºÀÄzÁV C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå: £ÀCE190 n.JA.r.98 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12-02-2004gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ PÀ®èºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.30, 31, 110, 111, 113, 119UÀ¼À d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ/¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀvÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÀArPÉ(2)gÀ°è PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶64

¶65

FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ E®èzÉÃ EgÀvÀPÀÌAvÀºÀ ¨sÀÆ«Ä ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ D eÁUÀzÀ°è ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖPÉÆ¼Àî¢zÀÝ°è CAvÀºÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è DAiÀiÁ ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À ªÀiÁqÀzÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß D eÁUÀPÉÌ gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹ PÀ®èºÀ½îAiÀÄ°è ¥ÁPïð eÁUÀzÀ°è FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ «£Á¬Äw ¤Ãr ¯ÉÃOmï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄAdÆj ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ F ºÀPÀÄÌ¥ÀvÀæzÁgÀjUÉ D eÁUÀzÀ°è ¤ªÉÃ±À£À PÉÆqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæzÁgÀgÀÄ EzÀPÉÌ M¥Àà¢zÀÝ°è CªÀjUÉ §rØ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ¤ÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

¶66

CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ PÀ®èºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.31/21gÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀªÁUÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ C®èzÉÃ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀgÁzÀ qÁ: ªÀÄºÁzÉÃªÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀjAzÀ RjÃ¢zÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.J£ï.J¸ï. dUÀ¢Ã±ÀégÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ°è ¸Áé¢üÃ£À ºÉÆAzÀzÉ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀqÉ¹zÀ dAn ¸ÀÜ¼À vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ RArPÉ (2) gÀAvÉ qÁ||ªÀÄºÁzÉÃªÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀjUÉ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¤ÃrzÀ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹ D eÁUÀPÉÌ §rØ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw¸À§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æÃ.J¸ï.©.²æÃzsÀgÀUËqÀ ©£ï ¨sÉÆÃgÀAiÀÄå EªÀgÀÄ ¸Áé¢üÃ£À ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ 40*45 eÁUÀPÉÌ ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄAvÉ ¨sÀÆ ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¤gÁPÉëÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæ PÉÆqÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ¤£À°è £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ¬ÄAzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ ¤«Äð¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üÃ£À ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ wÃªÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.”

¶67

14. This Resolution was further modified in the meeting held on 14.10.2009 which also reads as under:

¶68

“ wÃªÀiÁð£À: -«µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀÄ¢üÃWÀðªÁV ZÀað¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄªÀgÀ 72 ZÀ.«ÄÃ. eÁUÀPÉÌ §zÀ°AiÀiÁV £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ ¸Áé¢üÃ£À

¶69

¶70

¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄªÀ ¸À.£ÀA.31/20gÀ°è£À 72 ZÀ.«ÄÃ. eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ §zÀ°AiÀiÁV ¤ÃqÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ wÃªÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.”

¶71

15. A conjoint reading of these two resolutions would

¶72

indicate that the Corporation admitted that the land bearing Sy.No.31/21 belonged to the petitioner and had been acquired without recourse to the provisions of any law and the Corporation had also auctioned the property bearing Site No.458 in favour of one Dr.Mahadevappa, who had in turn sold it to N.S.Jagadeeshwarappa and the Corporation had taken a decision to cancel the sale deed in favour of Dr.Mahadevappa and return the money paid by him with interest.

¶73

The Resolution also indicates that the Corporation had resolved that the petitioner would be granted conversion of the portion of the land measuring 40’x45’ which was in his possession and in respect of the lands in which a road had been formed, the same would be acquired.

¶74

¶75

17. By the modified Resolution dated 14.10.2009, it

¶76

was also resolved that in lieu of 72 sq.mtrs. of his utilised land, 72 sq.mtrs. of land in Sy.No.31/20, which the Corporation had acquired, would be allotted after obtaining prior approval from the Government. The Resolutions, ultimately be culminated in the issuance of an endorsement dated 31.03.2012. The said endorsement reads as follows:

¶77

“ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÁ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ, ²ªÀªÉÆU

¶78

£ÀA.¹3.¹.Dgï.05/1999-2000 ¢£ÁAPÀ:31-03-2012

¶79

»A§gÀº

¶80

«µÀAiÀÄ:-²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ§½ PÀ®èºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.31/20gÀ 60*60 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ CxÀªÁ 0-05 UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀzÀ gÉ«£ÀÆå ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjAzÀ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

¶81

G¯ÉèÃR:- PÀ®èºÀ½î ¸À.£ÀA.31/20gÀ C¼ÀvÉ 60*60 CrUÀ¼À gÉ«£ÀÆå ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:29-10-1999 gÀAzÀÄ ºÁdgï¥Àr¹gÀÄªÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ RÄ¯Á¸É ¥ÀvÀæ.

¶82

¶83

²æÃ. J¸ï.©.²æÃzsÀgÀUËqÀ ©£ï ¨ÉÆÃgÀAiÀÄå, «zÁå£ÀUÀgÀ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ, DzÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ, ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ PÀ®èºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.31/21gÀ°è 0.04 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ¤£À°è £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ ¯ÉÃOmï ¤«Äð¹zÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ ¤ªÀÄä gÉ«£ÀÆå eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄUÉ ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀÄªÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¹zÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀzÀ°è 72 ZÀzÀgÀ «ÄÃlgï ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß

¶84

¶85

£ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ ºÀgÁdÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ «¯ÉÃ ªÀiÁrzÀÝjAzÀ D eÁUÀzÀ §zÀ¯ÁV ¸ÀzÀj ¯ÉÃOmï£À°è PÀ®èºÀ½î ¸À.£ÀA.31/20gÀ°è gÀavÀªÁzÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå:458gÀ°è 72 ZÀzÀgÀ «ÄÃlgï ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁV £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ £ÀqÉ¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ.

¶86

¤ªÀÄUÉ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÀ®èºÀ½î ¸À.£ÀA31/20gÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå:458gÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ §UÉÎ. ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ «¹ÛÃtð 0-05 UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è£À F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ 4 d£À gÉ«£ÀÆå ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ vÀ¯Á 1¼ UÀÄAmÉ gÉ«£ÀÆå ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß RjÃ¢¹zÀÄÝ, EzÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üÃ£À DUÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:25-06-1997gÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¸ÀÆvÀæUÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÁV CzsÀðzÀµÀÄÖ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr G½zÀ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀÄªÀÅzÁV 4 d£À RjÃ¢zÁgÀgÀÄ M¦àUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ £ÉÆÃljAiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂÃPÀj¹ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶87

gÉ«£ÀÆå ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ «ªÀg

¶88

1. ²æÃªÀÄw.ºÉZï.ºÉZï.AiÀÄ±ÉÆÃzsÀªÀÄä	0.01	1/4	UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ¤ÃrzÀ20*40
2. ²æÃ. ºÉZï.ºÉZï. gÀ«PÀÄªÀiÁgï	0.01	1/4	UÀÄAmÉ 20*40
3. ²æÃ.JA.«. ±À²PÀÄªÀiÁgï	0.01	1/4	UÀÄAmÉ 20*40
4. ²æÃ.JA.«.¸ÀÄeÁvÀ	0.01	1/4	UÀÄAmÉ 20*40

¶89

¤ÃªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ vÀ¯Á 1¼ UÀÄAmÉ CAzÀgÉ 1361 ZÀ.CrUÀ¼À eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ ©lÄÖPÉÆlÄÖ vÀ¯Á 800 ZÀ.CrUÀ¼À ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ F §UÉÎ £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂAiÀiÁUÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ RÄ¯Á¸É ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÀ®èºÀ½î ¸ÀªÉÃð £ÀA.31/20 gÀ°è 0-05 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ¤£À SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ Dgï.n.¹ ªÀÄÆåmÉÃ±À£ïUÀ¼À°è ºÀPÀÄÌ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃj F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:15-09-2011 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉAiÀÄ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ,

¶90

vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:Dgï.Dgï.n.¹/¹Dgï:714/2011-12 ¢£ÁAPÀ:28-10-2011 gÀAzÀÄ

¶91

¶92

ºÀPÀÄÌ RÄ¯Á¸É ¥ÀvÀæ £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂAiÀiÁUÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸ÀzÉÃ PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß »A¢gÀÄV¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶93

vÀvÀìA§AzsÀ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ gÉ«£ÀÆå ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ¸ÀAzsÁ£À ¸ÀÆvÀæzÀAvÉ §zÀ° ¤ªÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ CªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ gÉ«£ÀÆå d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ®Ä w¼ÀÄªÀ½PÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:15-11-2011, 08-02-2012 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAwªÀÄ w¼ÀÄªÀ½PÉ 29-02-2012 ¸ÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj gÉ«£ÀÆå ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ FªÀgÉ«UÀÆ ºÀPÀÄÌ RÄ¯Á¸É ¥ÀvÀæ £ÉÆÃAzÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÀ®èºÀ½î ¸À.£ÀA.31/20gÀ «¹ÛÃtð 60x60 CrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä £ÀA.22(15)gÀ jÃvÁå ¤ªÀÄUÉ §zÀ°AiÀiÁV ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä wÃªÀiÁð¤¹zÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ RÄ¯Á¸É ¥ÀvÀæ £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂAiÀiÁUÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ F eÁUÀzÀ°è §zÀ°AiÀiÁV ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ vÉÆqÀPÀÄ GAmÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶94

DzÀÝjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¤ªÀÄä gÉ«£ÀÆå eÁUÀ PÀ®èºÀ½î ¸À.£ÀA.31/21gÀ°è£À 72 ZÀzÀgÀ «ÄÃlgï §zÀ¯ÁV £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉÆAzÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ°è 72 ZÀzÀgÀ «ÄÃlgï §zÀ° ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ PË¤ì¯ï ¸À¨sÉ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀÄAr¹ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ 72 ZÀzÀgÀ «ÄÃlgï §zÀ° ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÉA§ «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ.”

¶95

As could be seen from this endorsement, the Corporation informed the petitioner that the petitioner would be given 72 sq.mtrs. of land instead of promised 72 sq.mtrs. in Sy.No.31/21 after the matter was placed before the Council.

¶96

¶97

It is submitted that out of 0-04 guntas of land i.e., 400 sq.mtrs. that had been utilised by the Corporation, in respect of 265 sq.mtrs. in which a road had been formed, the petitioner was also paid compensation of approximately about Rs.3,20,000/- and the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation is pending adjudication in M.F.A. No.8971 of 2018.

¶98

It is stated that since, for 265 sq.mtrs. of land out of 400 sq.mtrs. compensation was given, the Corporation was required to either pay compensation for the remaining 135 sq.mtrs. of land or in the alternative, the Corporation was required to permit the petitioner to continue in possession of 72 sq.mtrs. of the land, which bore site No.458 and petitioner was to be given an alternative land in lieu of this remaining 72 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.31/20.

¶99

It is further stated that neither of the things have been done and as a result, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction to implement the

¶100

¶101

endorsement issued to him on 31.03.2012 or in the alternative for a direction to be issued to the respondent to pay compensation in respect of 63.9 sq.mtrs.

¶102

It is put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the utilisation of the land of the petitioner without due recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the Corporation had committed serious illegality and instead of mitigating this illegality, it has proceeded to compound the same by refusing to compensate the petitioner despite an endorsement being issued more than ten years ago. It is submitted that once the compensation in respect of 265 sq.mtrs. which had been utilised for the formation of road, was granted, the Corporation was dragging its feet for payment of compensation for remaining 135 sq.mtrs.

¶103

It is submitted that instead of paying the compensation or allotting alternative land, proceedings were initiated to set aside the Khata in favour of the petitioner by way of a suo motu appeal filed before the

¶104

¶105

Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, in which the mutation in favour of the petitioner vide MR No.18/2002-03 was impugned.

¶106

It is stated that the Assistant Commissioner, acting at the behest of the Corporation, also set aside the order of mutation made in favour of the petitioner, which constrained the petitioner to initially approach this Court by way of Writ Petition No.55960 of 2014, which was disposed off directing the petitioner to file a revision.

¶107

It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner also proceeded to dismiss the revision, as against which the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.28255 of 2019 before this Court and this Court after hearing the Corporation had proceeded to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and directed restoration of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records and thereby confirmed the right of the petitioner over the land bearing Sy.No.31/21.

¶108

¶109

It is also submitted that this order passed by this

¶110

Court in W.P. No.28255 of 2019 has not been challenged by the Corporation and has attained finality and as a consequence, it would not be open for the Corporation to put forth any contention regarding the entitlement of the petitioner over the land bearing Sy.No.31/21. It is therefore prayed that suitable directions may be issued to the Corporation to pay the compensation in respect of 135 sq.mtrs., in terms of either money or in terms of land.

¶111

Sri.Ashwin S.Halady, learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation, however, contends that the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. According to the learned counsel, the entire land bearing Sy.No.31/21 of Kallahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk was acquired on behalf of the Corporation for the purpose of distribution of sites vide notification dated 29.10.1976 and as per the said notification, Sy.No.31/21 was also acquired and

¶112

¶113

therefore, there was no question of the petitioner having acquired title over any portion of Sy.No.31/21.

¶114

In other words, it is his contention that since the land in question stood vested in the State Government by virtue of a declaration dated 31.05.1980, which is produced as Annexure-R1, the vendor of the petitioner had acquired no title. It is also stated that there was no land in existence for the petitioner to purchase in the year 2002.

¶115

It is also contended that in the matter of determination of compensation, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner by appointing Sri G.S.Gadadavar, the Assistant Director of Land Records and the Special Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and an enquiry was conducted, in which, it had been found that the petitioner had no title over any portion of Sy.No.31/21, so as to entitle him for compensation.

¶116

¶117

It is also submitted that the purchaser Sri N.S.Jagadishwarappa from Dr.Mahadevappa, who had succeeded in the public auction in respect of Site No.445, had also instituted a suit against the Corporation and the petitioner and the said suit was decreed and this indicated that the petitioner was not entitled for any compensation. It is also stated that the suit in OS.No.200/2006 filed by the petitioner against the said Sri N.S.Jagadishwarappa was also dismissed and these facts indicate that the petitioner had no title to claim compensation over any portion of Sy.No.31/21.

¶118

The facts narrated above, clearly establish that Sy.No.31/21, initially, belonged to one Syed Bashir and this Syed Bashir sold 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.31 in favour of M.D.Hayath. This land purchased by M.D.Hayath was assigned Sy.No.31/21 as evidenced by the revenue entries made out in his favour in respect of Sy.No.31/21.

¶119

¶120

It is, however, contended by the Corporation that the entire Sy.No.31 comprising of various sub-divisions including Sy.No.31/21 was acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites.

¶121

This argument of the Corporation deserves to the rejected on more than one ground.

¶122

Firstly, when the petitioner made a claim for being compensated after 2002, the Corporation conceded that he had title, entertained his claim, processed it and not only paid compensation in respect of the portion of the land which had been utilized for formation of road, but also promised to allot an alternative land to the petitioner.

¶123

However, thereafter, a contention is sought to be advanced that Sy.No.31/21 has, in fact, been acquired and reliance is sought to be placed upon the notification, which is produced at Annexure-R1. Annexure-R1, the

¶124

¶125

notification dated 31.05.1980 indicates that 43 items were acquired and in respect of Sy.No.31 only, the subdivided numbers i.e., 31/1 to 31/17 were notified. Admittedly, Sy.No.31/21 is not mentioned in this notification.

¶126

Nevertheless, the Corporation seeks to put forth the contention that in respect of Sy.No.31/17, the name of the khatedar has been shown as “Hissa 13 to 28 jointly” and by implication Sy.No.31/21 was also acquired. This kind of defence taken by the Corporation deserves to be deprecated in the strongest possible terms. If the Corporation claims that it has acquired Sy.No.31/21, the basic notion of justice demand that the Corporation produce the award for having paid compensation and for having taken possession in accordance with law.

¶127

As stated above, in the proceedings, which has led to the passing of a resolution, the Corporation in fact conducted a survey only because the Corporation

¶128

¶129

admitted that they had formed a layout in lands bearing Sy.Nos.31/18 to 31/57 which was not at all notified or acquired under the Act. After conducting the survey, the

¶130

file was also processed since it was clear that Sy.No.31/21 had not been acquired and yet a layout had been formed. This, ultimately, led to the passing of the resolution by the Corporation in favour of the petitioner and an endorsement was also issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶131

Thus, having admitted that Sy.No.31/21 was utilized for formation of a layout without it being acquired, the Corporation is now seeking to contend that it had acquired Sy.No.31/21 under a notification, though, as a matter of fact, the notification does not indicate that Sy.No.31/21 was acquired. This argument is, therefore, rejected.

¶132

Learned counsel for the Corporation also contended that in an enquiry conducted at the behest of the Deputy Commissioner, it had been found that the property

¶133

¶134

claimed to have been purchased by the petitioner did not

¶135

really exist and there were several discrepancies in the property which the petitioner claims to have purchased and as a matter of fact, the very acquisition of title by the petitioner of Sy.No.31/21 was doubtful. It is stated that the Enquiry Officer determined that there was discrepancy between the Sale Deeds of the petitioner’s vendor and the petitioner and this indicated that the petitioner had not acquired any title. This argument is also stated only for the purpose of being rejected.

¶136

40. Admittedly, the revenue record in respect of

¶137

Sy.No.31/21 did stand in the name of the petitioner’s vendor M.D.Hayath and on purchase of the said property from M.D.Hayath, the name of the petitioner was also entered in the revenue record. This entry in the revenue record in favour of the petitioner which was made in MR.No.18/2002-03 was sought to be challenged in a suo-motu appeal by the Assistant commissioner and was also set aside by the Assistant Commissioner on

¶138

¶139

19.06.2014. This order of setting aside the mutation in favour of the petitioner was also confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in revision. However, these orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were quashed by this Court in W.P.No.28255/2019 and the khata was ordered to be restored in favour of the petitioner.

¶140

Admittedly, this order passed in

¶141

W.P.No.28255/2019 has attained finality and has thus been accepted by the Corporation. In other words, once the Corporation accepts the fact that the petitioner’s name was entitled to be registered as a khatedar, it would not lie in the mouth of the Corporation to contend that the petitioner did not possess any right over Sy.No.31/21.

¶142

The argument that in an enquiry, there was serious doubt raised and a determination was made about the acquisition of title cannot also be accepted. It is to be stated here that the Enquiry Officer appointed by the

¶143

¶144

Deputy Commissioner had absolutely no jurisdiction to determine whether a title has been acquired by the petitioner over Sy.No.31/21 or not. The Enquiry Officer,

¶145

at any rate, did not have a right to sit upon the judgment over the flow of title in favour of the petitioner. So long as the flow of title and the petitioner's Sale deed was in existence and had also been accepted by the revenue authorities, the acquisition of title by the petitioner over Sy.No.31/21 could not be questioned either by the Corporation or by any Enquiry Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶146

As already stated above, the Corporation for over a period of ten years, accepted the fact that the petitioner was the owner of Sy.No.31/21 and gave him solemn promise that he would be allotted an alternative land. The Corporation, in fact, paid compensation in respect of that portion of the property which had been utilized for formation of road. The Corporation having made a

¶147

¶148

solemn promise cannot now be permitted to contend

¶149

that the petitioner had no title over Sy.No.31/21.

¶150

At the risk of repetition, it is to be stated here that under the notification vide Annexure-R1, the land bearing Sy.No.31/21 was not at all acquired. If the land bearing Sy.No.31/21 is not acquired, then the Corporation had no business to form a layout in Sy.No.31/21. It is to be stated here that the Corporation, having formed a layout in Sy.No.31/21 and allotted it to various members without acquiring it, is

¶151

fundamentally trying to usurp the land of a private citizen and after utilizing the same illegally, it is now trying to disown the title of the citizen over the said land. This conduct of the Corporation is simply put, unpardonable.

¶152

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the payment of compensation would have to be in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

¶153

¶154

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short,

¶155

“the 2013 Act”) and the date of preliminary notification would have to be considered as today. He seeks reliance on the Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of SRI P.G.BELLIAPPA Vs. THE COMMISSIONER,

¶156

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY passed in Writ Appeal Cross Objection No.2/2019 connected with Writ Appeal No.2535/2019 disposed of on 05.11.2019.

¶157

The said decision was a case in which the BDA had

¶158

illegally taken over possession of a private property without acquiring the same in accordance with law. The Division Bench in the said decision has directed the BDA to place the respondent therein in vacant and peaceful possession within a period of three months. However, the Division Bench also gave liberty to the BDA to take recourse to acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act by ensuring that preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act be issued within a period of three months.

¶159

¶160

In view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench

¶161

in the judgment cited above and since it has been established that the land bearing Sy.No.31/21 which belonged to the petitioner has been misappropriated unlawfully, the Corporation shall determine the compensation for 135 sq. mtrs. under the Provisions of the 2013 Act by considering the date of preliminary notification as today and ensure that compensation is paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶162

The Corporation for having forced the petitioner to litigate from 2012 till today, would be liable to pay costs of `2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh Only) to the petitioner. The said sum should be paid to the petitioner on or before 21.09.2022.

¶163

¶164