The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of land for a housing society. The Court held the petition was barred by enormous delay and lack of a necessary party (the beneficiary society), rendering it devoid of merits regarding Section 24(2) restitution claims.
The writ petition was rejected, and costs were awarded.
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.
WP No. 1905 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 1905 OF 2016 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
WP No. 1905 of 2016
WP No. 1905 of 2016
ALL ARE RESIDING AT TUBRAHALLIPALYA, VARTURU HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE – 560 066.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G NATARAJ ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
WP No. 1905 of 2016
VISHVESWARAIAH TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. DECLARE THAT THE SCHEME CALLED "B.E.M.L., EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., (FOR SHORT SOCIETY)" RESPECTIVE LANDS WERE PUBLISHED AT SI. 29, 30 AND 31, (PAGE NO. 407), OF THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNX-C AND RESPECTIVE LANDS WERE PUBLISHED AT SI. 23 AND 24, (PAGE NO. 464) AND SI. 25, 26 AND 27 (PAGE 465) OF THE FINAL NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNXD, ARE LAPSED UNDER SECTION 24(2) OF THE ACT AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF/S THERETO, SO FOR AS PETITIONERS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the acquisition proceedings inter alia on the ground that the scheme in question having not been executed within the prescribed statutory period of five
WP No. 1905 of 2016
years, land should be restored to them. Petitioners have also invoked provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, for voiding the impugned notifications.
WP No. 1905 of 2016
(a) the Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 26.03.1990; it was followed by the Final Notification issued u/s 6(1) on 12.08.1991; award came to be passed on 29.10.1992. Possession having been taken on 14.09.1992, the Notification has also been issued under Section 16(2). This Writ Petition is filed on 12.01.2016. Thus, there is enormous delay & latches which remain unexplained and therefore, no relief can be granted to tardy and sleepy litigants;
(b) The award at internal page 3 itself mentions that the " BEML Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore" is the beneficiary of acquisition. A copy thereof is produced by the Petitioners themselves at Annexure-F2. That being the position, they ought to have
WP No. 1905 of 2016
impleaded the said Society as a Respondent. No explanation is offered from non-impleadment of this necessary party. Where the land is acquired for the benefit of a Co-operative Housing Society, if the scheme is substantially executed, the question of lapsing does not arise as held by this Court in a catena of decisions. Even otherwise, in the absence of a necessary party like the Housing Society, the contention of the kind cannot addressed by the Writ Court.
(c) The contention of the Petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the compensation having not been paid cannot be countenanced in view of latest decision of the of Apex Court in, AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. VS. RAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS, 2020 (8) SCC 129, inasmuch as the compensation is stated to have been deposited.
WP No. 1905 of 2016
In view of the above, writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40
3 issues framed by the court
Whether land acquired under the 1894 Act should be restored if the scheme was not executed within the statutory period under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Whether the absence of the beneficiary housing society as a respondent vitiates the writ petition.
Whether undisputed facts regarding compensation deposit defeat the claim of compensation non-payment under Section 24(2).
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority and Anr. vs. Ram Newaj and OthersRelied on¶63
AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. VS. RAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS, 2020 (8) SCC 129 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Gowramma and Others
The State Government
The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore District
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
