The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition under the 1966 Act. The court held that the acquisition was lawful, compensation was paid, and the petitioner faced dismissible delay and laches without a clean hands doctrine excuse.
Writ petition dismissed; liable to pay exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to KALSA.
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. 46000 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 46000 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANJANAMMA, W/O LATE RAMAIAH, R/AT BANDIKODIGENAHALLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR C.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
WP No. 46000 of 2013
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3; MISS. KRUSHIKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
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 SITUATED AT BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK IN PURSUANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL NOTIFICATIONS DATED 03.11.2006 IN 7.5.2007 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANN-C & D IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court complaining against the acquisition of his land ad measuring 01 Acre situate in Sy.No.40 of Bandikodigehalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru North. In his Petition, he states that the acquisition proceedings commenced with the issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 03.11.2006 followed by the Final Notification dated 07.05.2007 issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, respectively.
WP No. 46000 of 2013
WP No. 46000 of 2013
parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) Acquisition of subject land under the provisions of the 1966 Act has a different scheme as compared to that under the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the 1966 Act, the land will vest in the State once the Final Notification issued under Section 28(4) regardless of payment of compensation or passing of the award either; so said the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 17600/2004 between NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA disposed off on 15.06.2011 . The Preliminary Notification dated 03.11.2006, gazetted on 04.11.2006; the Final Notification came to be issued on 07.05.2007 since it is an acquisition by agreement under Section 29(2) of the 1966 Act, arguably there is no scope for passing of the award. While adjudging such cases what the Court has to see is
WP No. 46000 of 2013
whether the compensation has been paid to the land owner or not, so that the intent of the Article 300A constitutionally guaranteeing property to the citizen is not abridged.
(b) In this case, the Respondent – KIADB has produced certain materials in its Statement Objections to show that there was no objection forthcoming prior to Preliminary Notification and that the land owner had entered into agreement under Section 29(2) dated 25.08.2008 and filed an affidavit on the same day. Copies whereof avail at Annexure R4 & R5. Thus, the acquisition of the land in question has been accomplished in accordance with the law, i.e., the 1966 Act.
(c) The Writ Petition has been filed on 01.10.2013 without whispering anything as to the encashment of the Corporate Bank cheque (Annexure R1) in question. If the land is acquired by agreement under Section 29(2), the question of Petitioner retaining the possession would not arise inasmuch as law declared by the Apex Court holds
WP No. 46000 of 2013
such a retention as amounting to unauthorized occupation,
the unauthorized occupier being nothing than a mere trespasser of first order. It has been a settled position of law that Writ remedy is equitable and those who seek refuge in Writ Jurisdiction should lay himself bare. A litigant has to approach the Court with clean hands, clean head and clean heart . Those who are not clean in this way cannot be permitted to bell the temple of justice. Petitioner has not only suppressed the receipt of the compensation but asserts that he still continues in possession of the property. He has not filed his rejoinder to the contentions taken up to the Statement of Objections and in the Additional Statement of objections till date. Therefore, learned Advocates appearing for the KIADB and State are more than justified in contending that the Petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs.
(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:
“…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 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…”
In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition being thoroughly devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed with
WP No. 46000 of 2013
exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the Petitioner to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KALSA)
within a period of four weeks.
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
proceedings or otherwise.
Sd/JUDGE
Bsv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether acquisition proceedings should be quashed given the delay and non-disclosure of compensation receipt.
Whether the petitioner can approach the Writ Court with clean hands despite retaining possession after payment.
Whether the petition is barred by delay and laches under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE vs. STATE OF KARNATAKAExplained¶34
W.A. No. 17600/2004 between NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA disposed off on 15.06.2011
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AHMEDNAGAR v SHAH HYDER BEIGExplained¶46
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AHMEDNAGAR v SHAH HYDER BEIG, 2000 (2) SCC 48 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Anjanamma
State of Karnataka
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
ITASCA Software Development Private Limited
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
