Dismissed

K.Vasudeva Raju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2023WP/7547/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of land. The court held that the acquisition was valid as it resulted in a consent award and possession had already been handed over. It ruled that challenging a consent award or seeking deletion of land after possession is impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

K.Vasudeva Raju Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 7547 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7547 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K.VASUDEVA RAJU, S/O VARADA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED

¶9

SMT. RAMALAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE K NARASARAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. MADHUSUDHANRAJU, S/O LATE K NARASARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. KISHORE, S/O K NARASARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶13

ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE R/AT NO PH-1, HBR PALACE, NO. 1 & 2, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST STAGE, 4^TH BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 043. …PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SOMASEKHARA K H.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, BANGALORE – 01.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 7547 of 2014

¶19

SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K G ROAD NEAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE -560 009.

¶20

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, 3^RD FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH CENTRE, BANGALORE-01.

¶21

THE SECRETARY, COFFEE BOARD EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD BANGALORE- 09.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.B N SURESH BABU., ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1,R2 & R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT HAS LAPSED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO VESTING OF THE LAND AND TILL TODAY THE PETITIONERS ARE IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. HENCE THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IS ABANDONED VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 22.8.1988 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 18.3.1989 VIDE ANN-B & C RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioners are invoking the jurisdiction of this Court

¶28

for laying a challenge to the acquisition of the schedule land measuring 01 Acre & 10 Guntas. They also seek deletion of the subject land from the acquisition process

¶29

¶30

WP No. 7547 of 2014

¶31

on the basis of the report submitted by the SLAO to the effect that the possession of the land still remains with the land owners only.

¶32

After service of notice, the State & its officials

¶33

have entered appearance through the learned AGA; the Respondent No.4 – Housing Society is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel who has field the Statement of Objections. Learned AGA & the Panel Counsel vehemently oppose the Petition contending that Petitioners are abusing the process of the Court; the acquisition having taken place decades ago, the possession was taken over and handed to the Housing Society which had already remitted the Compensation. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Society points out that the award is a consent award and therefore in the light of long line of decisions of the Apex Court, the consent awardee or anyone claiming under him cannot lay a challenge to the acquisition at all.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶35

and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is

¶36

¶37

WP No. 7547 of 2014

¶38

broadly in agreement with submission made on behalf of the Respondents and more particularly, leaned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the Housing Society. The Preliminary Notification dated 22.09.1988 was issued under Section 4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The khathedars had filed Objections to the acquisition which aspect is mentioned in the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court which had negatived the challenge to the acquisition in W.P.No.21109 & W.P.No.21110/1989 disposed off on 21.12.1993. Petitioners have suppressed all the relevant facts absolutely with no justification whatsoever. Even there, the land owners had lied that they had no opportunity of opposing the proposal for acquisition.

¶39

The Final Notification under Section 6(1) came to be issued on 18.03.1989 and it was gazetted on 30.03.1989. The same was put in challenge in the above Writ Petition which was dismissed on merits. The award came to be passed on 30.01.1990 and apparently it is a

¶40

¶41

WP No. 7547 of 2014

¶42

consent award. The Award Notice was sent to the khatedars on 12.12.1990. The possession of the land was taken and handed to the 4^th Respondent - Society on 12.01.1993. Even mutation of entries in favour of the Society also has taken place vide MR No.3/93-94 at the instance of SLAO only. Despite vehement submissions, no legal or factual infirmity would be pointed out from the side of Petitioners in this entire acquisition process. In fact, such a report has been got tailored to suit to the requirement of the Petitioners clandestinely.

¶43

The vehement submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners that the SLAO has sent report to the Government to the effect that the possession of the land remains with the Petitioners although there is some construction. He also points out that the said SLAO has said in so many words that the land is not fit for acquisition. It is strange that though the records unmistakably indicate the accomplishment of the acquisition and the possession of the land having been

¶44

¶45

WP No. 7547 of 2014

¶46

taken over, such a report has been issued by the SLAO,

¶47

despite at his own instance the mutation of entries having taken place in favour of the Society. Such things can happen only in “ Alice in Wonderland ”, to say the least. It is high time that the Respondent Government shall initiate stringent action against the said SLAO and submit report of disciplinary action taken against him within three months to the Registrar General of this Court.

¶48

6. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions has

¶49

held that a consent awardee under the Land Acquisition Act cannot lay challenge to the acquisition at all. The petitioners have suppressed the fact that the award in question has been passed with the consent of the land owners. This is a serious case of misleading the Constitutional Court. It is also well settled that once the possession has been taken by the acquiring body, the seeking of deletion of the land from acquisition process under Section 48(1) of the 1894 Act is impermissible. Therefore, the question of quashing the acquisition or

¶50

¶51

WP No. 7547 of 2014

¶52

directing dropping of the land from acquisition process

¶53

even remotely would not arise.

¶54

In view of the above, this Writ petition is liable to be dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only, collectively payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, within three months failing which, each day of delay will carry Rs.1,000/- as addl. cost.

¶55

Registry to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, by Speed Post immediately.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Bsv

K.Vasudeva Raju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vasudeva Raju 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

C N Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S Rajashekar Vs Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (Bmrcl)

M/S Indus Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Dr.K.Prabhudas Vs the Commissioner

Sri Syed Fayaz @ H Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.T. Venkatesh Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka