Dismissed

Hastimal Sisodia v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2023WA/1207/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-Judge Division Bench dismissed a writ appeal filed by a landowner repeatedly challenging land acquisition proceedings after they had been rejected on multiple occasions, deprecating the conduct as an abuse of the process of law and imposing exemplary costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- payable to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority.

Hastimal Sisodia Vs the Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.1207/2014 (LA-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

HASTIMAL SISODIA S/O LATE KUSALCHAND SISODIA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.105 C STREET, 6TH CROSS BANGALORE - 560 009 REP. BY ITS S.P.A. SWITH SISODIA. ...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI SARAVANA S, ADV.,)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE SECRETARY BANGALORE CITY HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD SEETHAPATHI AGRHARA BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, VISHWESWARIAH CENTRE III FLOOR, PODUIUM BLOCK BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

¶17

THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND ACQUISITION) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI SHASHI KRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI KIRAN J., ADV., FOR R-1; SRI B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R-2 TO R-5)

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 18282/2014 DATED 28/4/14.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

This intra court appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful petitioner challenging the order dated 28.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.18282/2014.

¶25

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the

¶26

parties and also perused the material available on record.

¶27

Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are, the appellant claims to be the owner of land bearing survey No.60/4 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas situated at Vajarahalli Village having purchased the same

¶28

¶29

for value consideration under the registered sale deed dated 30.11.1971. It is his case that land bearing survey No.60/4 totally measures 2 acres 9 guntas and the same was notified for acquisition in the year 1988 and preliminary notification was issued on 23.08.1988 in respect of entire extent of 2 acre 9 guntas of land and final notification was issued on 25.09.1989. The appellant allegedly got the land purchased by him converted from non agricultural purpose on 20.12.1989. Subsequently, a de-notification in respect of land bearing survey No.60/4 measuring 2 acre 9 guntas was issued by the State Government on 25.06.1999 and thereafter on 19.05.2000 a notification was issued withdrawing the denotification issued on 25.06.1999. The appellant thereafter filed W.P.No.14863/2001 challenging the acquisition proceedings. The said writ petition was dismissed and aggrieved by the same he had filed W.A.No.3057/2004 which was also dismissed and Review Petition filed thereafter was also dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant had filed S.L.P. No.14685/2012 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was withdrawn by him. Thereafter, the appellant once

¶30

¶31

again filed W.P.No.52524/2012 with a prayer to quash the acquisition proceedings and the said writ petition was dismissed on 06.03.2014 with liberty to file fresh petition if law permits. Thereafter, the appellant had filed W.P.No.18282/2014 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order impugned on the ground that the same does not merit consideration since the appellant had already approached this Court twice earlier and filing of fresh petition would amount to abusing the process of law. Being aggrieved by the said order passed in W.P.No.18282/2014, the appellant is before this Court.

¶32

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the possession of land in question had not been taken over and even the award was not passed within the prescribed time and therefore, acquisition has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He further submits that since the State Government had issued denotification in respect of entire extent of land on

¶33

¶34

25.06.1999 it was not open for them to withdraw the same subsequently on 19.05.2000. He submits that a fresh acquisition proceedings ought to have been initiated in respect of land which was de-notified and denotification cannot be withdrawn by issuing another notification subsequently. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. VIJAYA LEASING LTD. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY & OTHERS -

¶35

ILR 2005 KAR 2539 .

¶36

Per contra , learned Senior Counsel

¶37

appearing for respondents submits that the judgment in the case of VIJAYA LEASING LTD. (supra) has been setaside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS VIJAYA LEASING LTD. & OTHERS - (2013)14 SCC 737. He also submits that the conduct of the appellant is required to be deprecated by this Court having regard to the fact that he is involved in filing repeated petitions. He submits that in the earlier round of litigation, the matter was

¶38

¶39

considered on merits and therefore, it was not open for the appellant to once again file a fresh petition.

¶40

The material on record would go to show that the appellant had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.14863/2001 and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 27.05.2004 and in paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 15 of the said judgment it has been observed as follows:

¶41

"11. I have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. There is no dispute that the Preliminary Notification for acquisition of the lands was issued on 23.08.1988. From the material on record it is clear that the petitioner has filed objections before the land acquisition officer as per Annexure 'R-1' in the month of September, 1988. The Land Acquisition Officer has held an enquiry and has considered the objections and has over ruled the same, which is evident from annexure 'R-2'. Notices have also been issued thereafter to the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Act. Possession was taken on 07.04.1999 and a Notification under Section 16(2) of the Act was issued on 19th April, 1999. The RTC has been

¶42

¶43

changed consequent upon vesting as per Annexure 'R-6' on 28.07.1999. It is therefore clear that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts that the has filed objections and participated in the proceedings. It is well established that if the petition contains misleading, inaccurate statements or there are suppression of materials, the Court will not entertain the petition. I am of the view that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. He has deliberately suppressed the fact of his filing objections to the preliminary notification. on this ground alone petition in liable to the dismissed.

¶44

12. Secondly, there is an inordinate delay of 12 years in filing the petition. The petitioner contend that he came to know the acquisition proceedings in the third week of March 2001. It is clear from Annexure 'r-1' that he is aware of the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the petition for the inordinate delay of 12 days in filing the writ petition cannot be accepted.

¶45

15. In the present case also award was passed and possession was taken on 07.04.1999 and notification under 16(2) of

¶46

¶47

the L.A.Act was also issued. Necessary changes were also made in the revenue records. The petitioner having participated in the acquisition proceedings by filing the objections and approaching the Court by suppressing material facts after 12 years from the date of issuance of the notification is not at all entitled to any relief under the Article 226 of the constitution of India."

¶48

The said order was questioned by the

¶49

appellant in W.A.No.3057/2004 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court and Review Petition filed in R.P.No.413/2011 was also dismissed on 22.06.2012. Thereafter, the appellant had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.14685/2012 which was withdrawn with liberty to avail other remedy, if any. Thereafter, once again the appellant had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.18282/2014. The said petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition, if law permits. In the earlier proceedings initiated by the appellant, this Court has already upheld the proceedings of taking possession and therefore, the same cannot be reopened in the present proceedings. Therefore, his contention that the acquisition has lapsed in view of

¶50

¶51

Section 24(2) of the Act does not merit consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of INDORE

¶52

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. MANOHARLAL & OTHERS

¶53

- (2020) 8 SCC 129 at paragraph No.360 has observed as follows:

¶54

"360. We are also of the considered opinion that the decision in an earlier round of litigation operates as res judicata where the challenge to the legality of the proceedings had been negatived and the proceedings of taking possession were upheld. Section 24 does not intend to reopen proceedings which have been concluded. The decision in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal [Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613] is of no avail. Similar is the decision in Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar [Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar, (2012) 12 SCC 443 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 418] . No doubt about it that proceedings (i.e. the original acquisition, or aspects relating to it) can be questioned but within a reasonable time; yet once the challenge has been made and failed or has not been made for a reasonable time, Section 24 does not provide for reopening thereof."

¶55

10 8. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court

¶56

in the case of VIJAYA LEASING LTD. (supra) has been set-aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ( supra ) as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. Therefore, both the grounds urged by the appellant are not available for him.

¶57

Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petition does not merit consideration as the appellant has indulged in filing repeated petitions which would amount to abusing process of law. In spite of such observations made by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has chosen to challenge the said order before this Court.

¶58

The material on record would go to show that the appellant is before this Court in third round of litigation and his writ petition was dismissed on merits in the first round of litigation itself and the said order was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court and even special leave petition filed as against the said order was withdrawn with liberty to avail alternate remedy if, any.

¶59

¶60

Even, thereafter once again he filed fresh writ in W.P.No.52524/2012 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant herein to file a fresh petition, if law permits. In spite of such order, the appellant once again filed W.P.No.18282/2014. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge was therefore, fully justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the petition does not merit consideration. Even otherwise, both the grounds urged on behalf of the appellant are not available to him

¶61

From the above narration of facts, it is very clear that the appellant has indulged in filing repeated petitions in spite of this Court not entertaining the same. Though the challenge to the acquisition proceedings made by him was rejected in the first round of litigation itself, the conduct of the appellant in approaching this Court by filing repeated petitions is required to be deprecated and the same is required to dealt with iron hands, failing which the appellant will continue to file repeated petitions before this Court even in future. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that it

¶62

¶63

is a fit case to be dismissed by imposing exemplary cost. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶64

Writ Appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) and the appellant is directed to pay the amount of cost to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE Sd/JUDGE NMS

Hastimal Sisodia v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hastimal Sisodia v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C Rajamallaiah S/O. Late Venkaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer Vs Sri Gopal Reddy

Smt G Vasudha Vs R N Nagaraja

Late Sheena Poojary Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. M. Muniswamy Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri G C Narayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka Rep by Its Principal Secretary