Dismissed

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

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2023WP/26123/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging land acquisition sought to quash a 1977 notification after buying the subject land in 2022. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the buyers lacked locus standi as subsequent purchasers with full knowledge of the prior acquisition and noting the challenge was highly belated.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and costs were awarded.

M/S. Krishna Constructions India Ltd. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 26123 of 2022

¶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 WRIT PETITION NO. 26123 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.224, 3RD FLOOR, SS COMPLEX, 14TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAILASH DUBAL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶9

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

¶10

M/S. SACHAYI MATE DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, HAVING OFFICE AT#004, JULTA, SURYA, ELITE UPPER PIPELINE ROAD, KUMARA PARK, BENGALURU - 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MRS. BINDU R. BAFNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶11

MRS. I. JANNET KAVITHA W/O. FRANCIS XAVIER PATRICK, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 48, 8TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, VIVEKANAGAR, FURTHER EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 047.

¶12

WP No. 26123 of 2022

¶13

¶14

M/S. CRANZBERRY PROJECT SKC LEO ONE LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, HAVING OFFICE AT #10, CANARA ENCLAVE, JIGANI ROAD, BANNERGHATTA, BENGALURU - 560 083, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR. SANJEEV HULSANDRA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶15

SURESH. B S/O. BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.786, 4TH CROSS, 11TH BLOCK, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. YESHU BABA R MISHRA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶21

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,

¶22

¶23

WP No. 26123 of 2022

¶24

KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE SCHEME OF GOKUL II STAGE RAJAMAHAL VILAS II STAGE ENVISAGED UNDER THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD 03.01.1977 BEARING NO.A2.PR.511/SLAO/76-77 WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES FOR HAVING LAPSED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners being the Property Developers claim to

¶31

have bought the lands in question by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 13.09.2022, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-B. They are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to the Preliminary Notification dated 3.1.1977 issued under the provisions of Section 17 at Annexure-A and the Final Notification dated 2.8.1978

¶32

issued under Sections 19(1) at Annexure-B, of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argues that the

¶33

¶34

WP No. 26123 of 2022

¶35

statutory scheme having lapsed for non-implementation, the acquisition has to be voided and land should be restored to his clients, who have been continuing in possession of the property. He also notifies to the Court a Coordinate Bench decision in W.P.No.41352/2001 between OFF SHORE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD vs. BDA, disposed off on 14.12.2012, wherein, the acquisition of the adjoining land has been set at naught and therefore, the same benefit should be extended to his clients.

¶36

On request, learned AGA appears for the State and learned Panel Counsel appears for the RespondentBDA. Both they vehemently oppose the Petition contending that: the Petitioners being the subsequent buyers of the acquired land, do not have locus standi to lay a challenge to the acquisition; the challenge is highly belated; the scheme in question has been duly executed & accomplished; third party interest has been created and allottees are not made as parties. Justice of the case

¶37

¶38

WP No. 26123 of 2022

¶39

warrants repulsion of the challenge to the acquisition than favouring it.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Respondents and therefore, declines indulgence. Firstly, the Petitioners do not have locus standi since they have bought the subject land by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 13.09.2022 with eyes wide open. Petitioners are not some peasants or pagans who have entered into the sale transaction with no exposure to the world at large. They are the property developers. This sale transaction they have concluded after the acquisition process has been accomplished by passing of the award on 22.9.1986 and taking of the possession on 27.10.1986. The Possession Notification u/s 16(2) has also been issued immediately. They seek to derive title under the registered Gift Deeds dated 2.1.2013 & 28.1.2013. Obviously, they are subsequent to the issuance of Preliminary & Final

¶41

¶42

WP No. 26123 of 2022

¶43

Notifications. The alleged land owners could not have made the gifts at all once the property was notified for acquisition. The case of the Petitioners who claim to have bought the subject lands from the donees under the gifts in question, is one of nemo dat quod non habet and therefore, they do not have locus standi to lay a challenge to the acquisition. The Apex Court in SHIV KUMAR AND ANOTHER vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, (2019) 10 SCC 229 at para 21, has observed as under:

¶44

“21. Thus, under the provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, challenge to acquisition proceeding of the taking over of possession under the 1894 Act cannot be made, based on a void transaction nor declaration can be sought under Section 24(2) by such incumbents to obtain the land. The declaration that acquisition has lapsed under the 2013 Act is to get the property back whereas, the transaction once void, is always a void transaction, as no title can be acquired in the land as such no such declaration can be sought. It would not be legal, just and equitable to give the land back to purchaser as land was not capable of being sold which was in process of acquisition under the 1894 Act. The 2013 Act does not confer any right on purchaser whose sale is ab initio void. Such void transactions are not validated under the 2013 Act. No rights are conferred by the provisions contained in the

¶45

¶46

WP No. 26123 of 2022

¶47

2013 Act on such a purchaser as against the State.”

¶48

Secondly, the challenge to the acquisition is highly belated. The Preliminary Notification was issued in January 1977; the Final Notification was issued in August 1978 and

¶49

thus, about half a century has lapsed. It is not that the Petitioners as already mentioned above did not know anything about the land acquisition, admittedly, they being the Property Developers. No plausible explanation has been offered for the delay brooked in approaching the Court. It hardly needs to be stated that the law does not come to the aid of sleepy & tardy. Justice of the case does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court since delay defeats equity.

¶50

Thirdly, there is no reason to doubt the version of the Respondents that the layout in which the Petition lands are comprised has been fully developed and that contention of the Petitioners' counsel to the contrary, is not true. The version of the Petitioners that they have been continuing in the possession of the subject lands,

¶51

¶52

WP No. 26123 of 2022

¶53

cannot be accepted when admittedly, the BDA has drawn the Possession Mahazar on 27.10.1986, at this length of time since they claim to have bought the land in acquisition from the erstwhile land owners who had not laid any challenge to the same. Once the land is acquired, the same vests in the State and therefore, Petitioners' contention of the kind cannot be countenanced.

¶54

The submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the subject case has quashed the acquisition of adjoining land and therefore, the same benefit should be extended to the Petitioners, is very difficult to countenance. Petitioners are referring to in W.P.No.41352/2001 that was disposed off on 14.12.2012, why the Petitioners or their predecessorsin-title from whom they have bought the property of the lands did not approach the court, is not at all explained. In fact, there is abundant scope for the argument that the Petitioners are speculative litigants.

¶55

¶56

WP No. 26123 of 2022

¶57

The photographs produced by the Petitioners at

¶58

Annexures-F, F1 & F2 indicate that the cement slabs have been recently put as a hedge to the property in question. Nothing is forthcoming as to who had put these slabs and when. It cannot be readily assumed that it is the Petitioners who have put the subject compound to the lands in question. In fact, the photographs themselves show that huge constructions have come up adjoining the compounded lands.

¶59

In view of the above, Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed, costs having been reluctantly made easy.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Krishna Constructions India Ltd. 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

N Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

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

Smt. Gayathri Vs Union Bank of India