Dismissed

Smt. Krishnamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2023WP/40102/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging land acquisition under the 1894 Act, the High Court held that proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act since the award amount was deposited in the Treasury and possession was notified. The Court dismissed the petition, noting the scheme was implemented.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed was dismissed.

Smt. Krishnamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.40102 OF 2016 (LA-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

1 . SMT. KRISHNAMMA

¶8

WIFE OF LATE MUNIYALLAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

¶9

1(a). SMT. M. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE KRISHNAMMA

¶10

W/O LATE ASHOK

¶11

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT 1^ST CROSS, EJIPURA,

¶12

MINES ROAD

¶13

CHIKKATHAYAPPA COMPOUND VIVEKANAGAR (POST) BENGALURU-560047

¶14

1(b). SMT. M. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE KRISHNAMMA W/O LATE SRINIVAS

¶15

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶16

R/AT NO.58, SRIRAMAPURA OPPOSITE MARAMMA DEVI TEMPLE JAKKUR (POST), YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU-560064

¶17

1(c). SMT. LALITHAMMA D/O LATE KRISHNAMMA

¶18

-2-

¶19

W/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST CROSS ROAD R.B. MANSION, KUVEMPU NAGAR HOSKOTE TOWN 562114

¶20

2 . SRI. M. GOPAL SON OF LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR, KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶21

3 . SRI. M. RAJU @ AJANNA SON OF LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YERS, RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR, KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYANAGARA POST, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶22

4 . SRI. M. RAVINDRA SON OF LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR, KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶23

5 . SMT. JAYAMMA WIFE OF LATE CHIKKAMUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR, KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶24

-3-

¶25

6 . SRI. C. MUNIRAJU SON OF LATE CHIKKAMUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR, KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶26

7 . SRI. C. MANJUNATH SON OF LATE CHIKKAMUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR, KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶27

8 . SMT. GOWRAMMA WIFE OF LATE JUNJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR, KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶28

9 . SRI. J. VENKATESH SON OF LATE JUNJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR, KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶29

10 . SRI. J. MANJUNATH SON OF LATE JUNJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR, KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶30

-4-

¶31

11 . SRI. J. MUNIKRISHNA SON OF LATE JUNJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVINAGAR, KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, R.M.V. II STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 094. (BY SRI. CHIDANANDA P, ADVOCATE)

¶32

... PETITIONERS

¶33

AND

¶34

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶35

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶36

3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER III FLOOR, V.V. TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶37

4 . M/S. NTI EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., (NAME CHANGED TO M/S. NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.) G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS SOCIETY APARTMENTS, NO.51,9^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION,

¶38

-5-

¶39

BENGALURU-560 080, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶40

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIDHAR N HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. SURESH S LOKRE, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SHRAVAN S LOKRE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ENTIRE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED BY R-1 TO 3 UNDER PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 04.01.1985 AT ANNX-D AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 23.09.1986 AT ANNEX-E STANDS LAPSED IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND IS SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AND ETC.

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.08.2023 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petitioners, claiming to be owners of three pieces of land measuring 9 guntas each are before this Court seeking a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’ for short) have stood lapsed,

¶45

-6-

¶46

insofar as the petition schedule properties are concerned and for other relief.

¶47

Preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, was issued on 04.01.1985 and final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, was issued on 25.09.1986. It is the contention of the petitioners that a suit for partition was filed amongst the family members in O.S.No.417/1985 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and in terms of the compromise decree drawn by the Civil Court, on 17.04.1985, Sri Muniyellappa, Sri Chikkamuniyellappa and Sri Junjappa were allotted 9 guntas of land each in Sy.No.62/2 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore. The petitioners claim through the said three persons. It is admitted by the petitioners herein that they had earlier filed W.P.Nos.9673-9675/2011 and 23467/2011 seeking to quash the acquisition notifications and the award dated 28.01.1989 and 31.01.1989. They had also challenged the notifications dated 12/15.04.1991 and

¶48

-7-

¶49

04/06.11.1992 issued under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act. However, it is the contention of the petitioners that after the new Act viz., The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2013’ for short) was enacted and provision was made in Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, deeming certain acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, as lapsed, the petitioners are before this Court seeking such declaration in terms of the prayer made in the writ petition.

¶50

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 24 of Act, 2013, are fully attracted in the present case. It is contended that although the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1985 and notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A Act was issued on 18.04.1991 and 17.12.1992, nevertheless, actual physical possession of the lands belonging to the petitioners were never taken. The

¶51

-8-

¶52

petitioners continue to be in physical possession of 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/2. It is contended that no material is available on record to show that physical possession was actually taken in terms of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and

¶53

Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 . It is contended that no panchanama was drawn to show that physical possession of the lands in question were taken.

¶54

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further contend that the original records which are placed before this Court do not evidence the fact that notice before passing the award and notice calling upon the petitioners to receive the compensation were either issued or served on the petitioners. Learned Counsel submits that although award notice dated 31.05.1991 is found in the original records, calling upon Sri Muniyellappa, Sri Chikkamuniyellappa and Sri Junjappa, to receive the

¶55

-9-

¶56

compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘SLAO’) nevertheless, no material is available on record to show that such notice was served on such persons. Once again, attention of this Court is drawn to the decision in Indore Development Authority (supra) and it is submitted that the Apex Court has held that unless the award amount is deposited into the Treasury in the name of the persons in whose favour the award is drawn, it cannot be concluded that the award amount has been deposited in accordance with law. It is submitted that although the learned Additional Government Advocate has furnished the original records showing the deposits made into the Treasury at the hands of the SLAO, nevertheless, it does not disclose the fact that the award amount in respect of each of the claimants viz., Sri Muniyellappa, Sri Chikkamuniyellappa and Sri Junjappa were deposited in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that since the petitioners have established that

¶57

-10-

¶58

neither possession is taken nor award amount is paid to the petitioners, this is a clear case of declaring the acquisition proceedings deemed to have lapsed, in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

¶59

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri Suresh S.Lokre, appearing for the fourth respondent-NTI Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., submits that a total extent of 184 acres 1 gunta of lands were acquired for the benefit of the fourth respondent-Society. Award was passed in the year 1989, more particularly in respect of the lands in question on 31.01.1989 and possession was taken on 18.04.1991 and 17.12.1992 and to evidence the said fact, a notification was published in the Official Gazette in terms of the State amendment viz., sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act. The fourth respondent-Society proceeded to secure necessary permission and sanctioned layout plan at the hands of the Planning Authority and thereafter, formed the layout and distributed sites to the

¶60

-11-

¶61

members of the Society. That being the position, it would be impermissible for the petitioners to contend that possession of 27 guntas of land are not taken or that layout has not been formed on the land in question. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that although it may be true that a portion of the land in question may appear to be vacant, nevertheless, on facts it has been clarified that a portion of the lands in question has been earmarked as ‘park’ and the same is fenced. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that the lands in question are not developed. The work of developing a park on the land in question could not be completed in view of the pendency of this writ petition. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that since award is passed, possession is taken and the scheme has been implemented, the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, are not attracted in the present case.

¶62

-12-

¶63

Learned AGA has furnished the original records, at the asking of this Court. While pointing out to the original records, the learned AGA submits that the records clearly indicate that award was passed in respect of Sy.No.62/2 on 31.01.1989 and the compensation amount have been deposited in the Treasury. An award notice dated 31.05.1991 was issued to Sri Muniyellappa, Sri Chikkamuniyellappa and Sri Junjappa calling upon them to receive the compensation amount. This would clearly meet the requirements, even in terms of the law laid down in

¶64

Indore Development Authority (supra).

¶65

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners,

¶66

learned Senior Counsel for the 4^th respondent–Society, learned AGA for the respondent-State, Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer and perused the petition papers. This Court has also looked into the original records furnished at the hands of the learned AGA.

¶67

-13-

¶68

It should be noticed that this writ petition was filed on 25.07.2016 and the grounds have been prepared based on the decision of the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Another (2014) 3 SCC 183 . Heavy reliance is sought to be placed on the said decision, wherein it was held that deposit of the award amount in the Government Treasury would not amount to payment of compensation, unless it is paid to the interested person or deposited with the reference court. However, since the decision in Pune

¶69

Municipal Corporation was reconsidered in Indore Development Authority (supra) by a Constitutional Bench and it was held that Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, carves out an exception to Section 24(1)(b), where two negative conditions have been prescribed, therefore, even if one condition is satisfied, there is no lapse and such an interpretation logically flows from the 1894 Act read with the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. In that view

¶70

-14-

¶71

of the matter, it is clear from the records, that an award notice dated 31.05.1991 was issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, calling upon Sri Muniyellappa, Sri Chikkamuniyellappa and Sri Junjappa to receive the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It can therefore be presumed that since the claimants did not receive the compensation, the award amounts are found deposited in the State Treasury. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners, even in respect of the award amount not being paid to the petitioners, cannot be accepted. Moreover, notifications dated 18.04.1991 and 17.12.1992 have been issued and gazetted in compliance of the State amendment viz., subsection (2) of Section 16 of the Act, which would evidence the factum of taking possession in accordance with law. Therefore, on both counts, the writ petition should fail.

¶72

More importantly, the acquisition proceedings were

¶73

initiated for the benefit of the 4^th respondent–society and its

¶74

-15-

¶75

members. The layout has been formed and a Relinquishment Deed dated 31.05.2008 was executed by the 4^th respondent-society in favour of Bangalore Development Authority, relinquishing the roads, parks, open spaces, and civil amenity sites in favour of Bangalore Development Authority. Of course, a Rectification Deed dated 18.12.2009 was also executed by the 4^th respondentsociety, since some structures were found in some of the areas that were earlier relinquished in favour of BDA, as a consequence of which alternative vacant lands were handed over. These actions and documents would clearly evidence the fact that the purpose for which the lands were acquired have been fulfilled and the lands in question cannot be restored in favour of the petitioners.

¶76

Further, as noticed earlier, the petitioners had earlier filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition notifications, the award and notification issued under Section 16(2) and the said writ petitions were dismissed.

¶77

-16-

¶78

This writ petition is filed to avail the benefits flowing from the provisions contained in the Act, 2013, more particularly, Section 24(2). In this regard, it has to be noticed that the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, in Indore Development Authority (supra) clearly held that Section 24 of Act, 2013, cannot be used to revive dead and stale claims and concluded cases. The provisions of Section 24 do not invalidate the judgments and orders of the court, where the rights and claims are lost and negatived. There is no revival of the barred claims by operation of law. Thus, stale and dead claims cannot be permitted to be canvassed on the pretext of enactment of Section 24.

¶79

In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. However, since it is found on verification of the original records that the award amount has been deposited in the State Treasury, the petitioners are free to seek disbursal of the award amount, in accordance with law.

¶80

-17-

¶81

Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶82

Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶83

All the original records shall be handed over to the learned AGA forthwith.

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

JT/DL

Smt. Krishnamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Krishnamma 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

H. K. Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka

K S Shivaraj Vs State of Karnataka

D P Raju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M M Jayaramu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S Mahadevappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Muthige Rajegowda Vs the Union of India