Dismissed

Mr. M L Sadashivayya v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023WP/25074/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged land acquisition notifications filed decades later. The Court dismissed the writ petition as highly belated and devoid of merits, citing established principles that delay defeats equity and allowing alternative use of acquired land.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected, and the matter was disposed of after noting the delay and lack of merit.

Mr. M L Sadashivayya Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 25074 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 25074 OF 2022 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. M.L.SADASHIVAYYA, S/O LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, 82, BEHIND DEVATHA PLASTIC MADANAYAKANAHALLI, MADAVARA, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE – 562 162.

¶10

SMT. GANGAMMA,

¶11

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

¶12

W/O M.L.SADASHIVAYYA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 82, BEHIND DEVATHA PLASTIC MADANAYAKANAHALLI, MADAVARA, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE – 562 162.

¶13

SMT. DRAKSHAYANAMMA, W/O S.M.JAYAMURTHI,

¶14

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NO.284, JANATHA COLONY, MADANAYAKANAHALLI, MADAVARA, BANGALORE – 562 162.

¶15

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA M.S., AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.88 10.3 CROSS, SUBHASH NAGARA, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL – 562 162

¶16

¶17

WP No. 25074 of 2022

¶18

SMT. NAGARATHNA,

¶19

W/O BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.19, NAGASANDRA COLONY, NEAR ROCK LINE STUDIO, RUKMINI NAGAR, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 073.

¶20

SMT. PUTTA HONNAMMA M.S., W/O MARUA SIDDAIAH M, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.78, MAHADESHWARA NILAYA, SADASHIVAIAH GARDEN, HANUMANTHA SAGARA ROAD, MADANAYAKANAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH – 562 123.

¶21

MR. LINGAPRABHU M.S., S/O M.L.SADASHIVAYYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 82, BEHIND DEVATHA PLASTIC, MADANAYAKANAHALI, MADAVARA, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE – 562 123.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA., ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶26

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶27

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DODDABALLAPURA DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA – 561 203.

¶28

3 - WP No. 25074 of 2022

¶29

JIRAMDAS EDUCATION TRUST, A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN TRUST ACT, 1882, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE

¶30

AT HITA NANDA II, 5^TH FLOOR, 48 LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶31

M/S. LICHFL CARE HOMES LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT BOMBAY LIFE BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR, NO.45/47, VEER NARIMAN ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

¶32

M/S. LICHFL CARE HOMES LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956, MADANAYAKANAHALLI, KUDURAGARI ROAD, BANGALORE – 562 162. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶33

THE CHAIRMAN, CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MADANAYAKANAHALLI, KUDURAGARI ROAD, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE NORTH – 562 123.

¶34

THE CHAIRMAN, VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, MADANAYAKANAHALLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE NORTH – 562 123.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.RD 190 AQB 51 DATED 23.11.1981 (ANNEXURE - A) AS NULL AND VOID AND ETC.,

¶38

¶39

WP No. 25074 of 2022

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Petitioners claiming to be the owners of lands in question are knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the Preliminary Notification dated 23.11.1981 and the Final Notification dated 17.02.1989 respectively at Annexures-A & B whereby the acquisition has been accomplished under the provisions of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that the lands that were acquired for a public purpose having been put to an alien private purpose have to be restored to the land owners. He also alleges that the lands till date having not being utilized for the purpose for which they were acquired, the acquisition is vitiated.

¶43

Learned AGA appearing for the respondentState and the LAO oppose the petition contending that the challenge is highly belated; once the land has been acquired by passing the award and taking possession, the

¶44

¶45

WP No. 25074 of 2022

¶46

same has vested in the State; the State being the owner thereof is entitled to use the land for any other public purpose as well. The compensation having already been paid after passing of the awards followed by the approval of the Government, the challenge is incompetent, more particularly when the acquisition was by consent. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA appearing for the official respondents, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made on behalf of the State and the LAO. The acquisition was accomplished way back in the year 1989. The challenge is being laid by filing the writ petition on 08.12.2022. Thus there is enormous delay of decades in approaching the court that too without no plausible explanation. The Apex Court in MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AHMEDNAGAR S. SHAH HYDER BEIG (2000) 2 SCC 48 has held that belated challenge to

¶48

¶49

WP No. 25074 of 2022

¶50

acquisition cannot be entertained inasmuch as the delay defeats equity.

¶51

Petitioners have produced copies of sale deeds dated 06.02.2004 at Annexure-C which specifically mentions about full details of acquisition and the payment of compensation as well. It is always open to the State to use the acquired land for other public purpose. Merely because, the land is being diverted for the construction of some commercial buildings, one cannot readily infer that it is not for public purpose vide decision of the Apex Court in C PADMA vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU (1997) 2 SCC 627 .

¶52

In the above circumstances, the petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected & accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Mr. M L Sadashivayya v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. M L Sadashivayya v. 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

Sri L Muniyappa Vs Government of Karnataka

M/S Reha Urban Infra Pvt. Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Nil

M/S Vijaya Commercial Credit Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Nil

Smt. Maheshwari Sampath Vs the State of Karnataka

K B Nagaraju Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Puttalingaiah Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer