Dismissed

Smt Shabi Rabi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2023WP/45955/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging land acquisition. The petitioner lacked litigable interest as the land vested in the State years ago, and she had failed to challenge the voidable sale deed in regular law. The court observed gross delay and suppression of material facts, dismissing the petition with exemplary costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to KALSA within four weeks.

Smt Shabi Rabi Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 45955 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 45955 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHABI RABI, W/O ABDUL MAZID, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUDENASAB PALYA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR C.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

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

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.3/2, III FLOOR, THIMMAIAH TOWERS GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALOORU-560 009.

¶17

M/S ITASCA SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED., NO.20, 18^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN,

¶18

¶19

WP No. 45955 of 2013

¶20

MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003. REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; MISS. KRUSHIKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION IN RESPECT OF PETITION LAND SY.NO.40 MEASURING 1 ACRE 16 GUNTAS SITUATED AT BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK IN PURSUANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL NOTIFICATIONS DATED 3.11.2006 AND 7.5.2007 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANN-G & H ISSUED BY R2.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioner – lady claiming to be the owner of land admeasuring 01 Acre & 16 Guntas in Sy.No.40 of Bandikodigehalli Village, Devanahalli Taluka, Bengaluru North, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the land acquisition proceedings that commenced vide Preliminary Notification dated 03.11.2006 followed by the Final Notification dated 07.05.2007 issued under Section 28(1) & Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, respectively.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 45955 of 2013

¶29

Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that the land in question could not have been sold and thus, the instrument of conveyance, i.e., Sale Deed being null & void, his client is entitled to have the same declared as such and consequently she is entitled to the compensation payable in respect of the subject land.

¶30

After service of notice, the State is represented by learned AGA and the KIADB has entered appearance though its Sr. Panel Counsel. The 4^th Respondent is represented by a private counsel. All they oppose the Petition contending that the Petitioner has no litigable interest in the subject property, her husband and son having sold the same vide registered Sale Deed dated 20.11.2004. They also contend that voiding of the Sale Deed cannot be done in Writ Jurisdiction. Petitioner is invoking the constitutional jurisdiction to play fraud on the true owner of the property that too without making him a party. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition with exemplary costs.

¶31

¶32

WP No. 45955 of 2013

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶34

parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶35

(a) The subject land was sold by Petitioner’s husband & son vide registered sale Deed dated 20.11.2004 in favour of Mr. Jagadeesh K.S. The land was notified for acquisition vide Preliminary Notification dated 04.11.2006 followed by Final Notification dated 07.05.2007. The Division Bench of this Court in NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA in W.A.NO.17600/2004, disposed off on 15.06.2011 , has held that Scheme of acquisition under the 1966 Act is a bit in variance with that of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the land vests in the State by the issuance of Final Notification regardless of payment of compensation or passing of the Award. Thus, it remains that the subject land has vested in the State.

¶36

¶37

WP No. 45955 of 2013

¶38

(b) The vehement submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Sale Deed of November, 2004 having been executed & registered within the nonalienation period, the same is null & void and therefore, it should be accordingly declared, is bit difficult to countenance. There is a long line of decisions of this Court & the Apex Court to the effect that the Sale Deeds cannot, ordinarily, be set at naught in writ jurisdiction. Bewilderingly, no prayer for voiding of conveyance has been made in the Writ Petition nor has the buyer of the said property been made a party eo nomine to the Writ Petition. Therefore, both on merits and because of nonimpleadment of a necessary party, contention for voiding cannot be advanced before the Writ Court, at all.

¶39

(c) Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner banks upon a decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.735/2023 between DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs NARVADA DEVI & OTHERS , disposed off on 09.03.2023 arguably to the effect that a buyer of the property post

¶40

¶41

WP No. 45955 of 2013

¶42

issuance of Preliminary Notification cannot lay a challenge to the acquisition. The Respondents do not have any quarrel with the said proposition of law. This Court is at loss to know the relevance of counsel’s reliance on this decision as it fails to advanced the case of Petitioner.

¶43

(d) There is force in the submission of learned advocates appearing for the Respondents that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay & latches inasmuch as, acquisition was initiated in November, 2006 and was accomplished by vesting of the land by virtue of final Notification of May 2007; Petition has been filed on 01.10.2013 and thus, there is enormous delay of years in approaching the Court. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the delay brooked. The Apex Court in MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AHMEDNAGAR v SHAH HYDER BEIG, 2000 (2) SCC 48, at paragraph 14 has observed as under:

¶44

“…While it is true that this extraordinary jurisdiction is available to mitigate the sufferings of the people in general but it is not out of place to mention that this extraordinary jurisdiction, has been conferred on to the law courts under Article 226 of the Constitution on a very

¶45

¶46

WP No. 45955 of 2013

¶47

sound equitable principle, Hence, the equitable doctrine, namely, delay defects equity has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The discretionary relief can be had provided one has not by his act or conduct given a go-bye to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet of law, the question of grant of an order as has been passed in the matter as regards restoration of possession upon cancellation of the notification does not and cannot arise…”

¶48

(e) The subject acquisition was accomplished by way

¶49

of agreement under Section 29(2) of the 1966 Act and the compensation has already been given to the buyer of the property as well. Petitioner has neither whispered anything as to this transaction of November, 2004 nor has she amended the Writ Petition after filing of the Statement of Objections & Additional Statement of Objections. In such a situation, the conclusion has to be drawn that the Petitioner is guilty of suppressio veri . Even now, no explanation is offered as to why Petitioner has derogated from this principle of equity, whilst seeking equitable relief at the hands of Constitutional Court. Therefore, learned advocates for the Respondents are more than justified in asking the Court to levy exemplary costs on the Petitioner.

¶50

¶51

WP No. 45955 of 2013

¶52

The Apex Court in SHRI K. JAYARAM vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2021 SCC Online SC 1194 had observed as under:

¶53

“…It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it...”

¶54

This apart, it is a well settled position of law that suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies him to any relief. Such a rule has been evolved by Courts in almost all civilized jurisdictions to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court and rulings in

¶55

this regard abound, one being S.J.S. BUSINESS ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 2004 SC 2421.

¶56

¶57

WP No. 45955 of 2013

¶58

In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition being thoroughly devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh) only payable by the Petitioner to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KALSA) within a period of four weeks.

¶59

It is made clear that failure to make aforementioned payment would attract an additional payment of Rs.500/for each day’s delay beyond four weeks. It is open to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KALSA) or to the Respondents to enforce this judgment in contempt

¶60

proceeding or otherwise.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

Bsv

Smt Shabi Rabi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shabi Rabi 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 M v Guruprasad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Sampangiramu Vs M/S Petronet Mhb Ltd.

Mr. Syed Fayaz Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.M.T.Kempegowda Vs the Commissioner

Sri Kothanur M Thammanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a Rajanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner