Dismissed

N Venkatesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2023WP/16015/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition. The Court rejected grounds that the scheme lapsed and the land use purpose changed, noting the petitioner had accepted compensation and faced enormous delay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit of lapse of scheme or challenge acquisition having accepted compensation.

N Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 16015/2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 16015 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

N VENKATESH S/O LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT MUDDAIAHNAPALYA, VISHWANEEDAM POST, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE 560 091. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. L VENKATARAMA REDDY.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560 001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI.G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 16015/2014

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF BDA ACT, 1976 FOR THE SCHEME CALLED "FURTHER EXTENSION OF SIR.M.VISHVESHWARAIAH LAYOUT" WILL LAPSE UNDER SEC. 27 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS A NO VESTING OF THE LAND AND LAND IN QUESTION IS FREE FROM ACQUISITION SO FAR ITS RELATES TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE ANNEX-B FINAL NOTIFICATION DTD.31.10.2012.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the acquisition of land inter alia on the ground that the Scheme has not been executed; the land is put up to a purpose different from the one for which it was acquired for.

¶24

After service of notice, the Respondent – State and BDA having entered appearance through the learned AGA and the Panel Counsel, oppose the writ petition making submission in justification of the acquisition proceedings. Learned Panel Counsel argues that the acquisition having been completely accomplished, award having been opposed, the Government having approved

¶25

¶26

WP No. 16015/2014

¶27

the award, the compensation having been taken and the Petitioner having received a component of the compensation in a component and remainder of compensation is sought for pursuant to law declared in JUNJAMMA & ORS. vs THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ILR 2005 KAR 608. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶29

(a) The land was notified for acquisition vide Preliminary Notification dated 15.04.2002 which in all comprised 1684 Acres; after Objections were filed, the enquiry was held and was followed by the Final Notification dated 31.10.2002 comprising the land measuring 1337 Acres & 23 Guntas ; the award having been passed, the Government approved the same on 16.12.2002. The compensation was computed and fixed at Rs.48,48,241 of which, Petitioner has taken Rs.21,75,868/-. For the

¶30

¶31

WP No. 16015/2014

¶32

remainder of the compensation, it appears he is seeking benefit under the law declared in the JUNJAMMA’s Case. Therefore, all these facts militates against the grant of prayer made in the Writ Petition. It has been a settled position of law that where the land owner accepts the compensation without protest, he is not entitled to lay a challenge to the acquisition at all, vide Division Bench Judgment of this Court in V T KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ILR 1991 KAR 1183, Paragraph 14 of which reads as under:

¶33

"…This is clearly a case in which Writ Petition itself is not maintainable because admittedly he had filed an application claiming compensation for the land in question. It is well settled law that where a person asked for compensation he cannot maintain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, vide 70 Calcutta Weekly Notes, page 1100. Therefore, we agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge and dismiss the Writ Appeal."

¶34

(b) The second submission of the Petitioner that the

¶35

purpose for which the land was acquired, is different from the one that it has now been put to, does not merit acceptance in law inasmuch as, once the land is acquired,

¶36

5 - WP No. 16015/2014

¶37

the State becomes the owner thereof and it is always open

¶38

to put the land to some other public use unless the law otherwise provides. No law or any ruling to the contrary is notified to the Court. The Apex Court in V CHANDRASHEKARAN vs The ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, (2012) 12 SCC 133 at paragraph 31 has observed as under:

¶39

“In view of the above, the law can be crystallized to mean, that once the land is acquired and it vests in the State, free from all encumbrances, it is not the concern of the land owner, whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non-grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to only receive compensation for the same, unless the acquisition proceeding is itself challenged. The State neither has the requisite power to reconvey the land to the personinterested, nor can such person claim any right of restitution on any ground, whatsoever, unless there is some statutory amendment to this effect.”

¶40

(c) The last submission of the Petitioner that the statutory scheme has not been substantially executed and therefore, the Scheme has lapsed even if accepted would not result into an automatic invalidation of the acquisition

¶41

¶42

WP No. 16015/2014

¶43

concerned more particularly when the Petitioner is retaining the compensation. Learned Panel Counsel for the BDA submits that the Scheme has been substantially executed by developing SIR M Vishveshwaraiahnagar Layout. There is no reason to doubt this version at this length of time. Even otherwise, the enormous delay & latches with which the Petitioner is seeking invalidation of the acquisition proceedings come in the way of granting any relief to him. The law does not come to the aid of sleep & tardy. It hardly needs to be stated that delay defeats equity and ordinarily, where there is enormous delay with no plausible explanation, no indulgence of the Writ Court is warranted.

¶44

In the above circumstances, the Petition being devoid of merits is liable to dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Bsv

N Venkatesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Venkatesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Keppel Purvankara Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri.a S Palaksha Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Krishna Constructions India Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Yojaka India Private Ltd. Vs the Assistant General Manager

Smt. Gayathri Vs Union Bank of India