Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition notifications under the KIADB Act, 1966, holding that the petitioners were estopped due to long delay and had previously objected to the acquisition.
Petition dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.
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. 9279 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 9279 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI. L. MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY ITS LRs.
S/O SRI. LATE L.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT.NO.25/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD, KASTHURABANAGAR, MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 650 056.
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
WP No. 9279 of 2013
DEAD BY IS LRS.
4(a) SMT. SAVITHA P W/O LATE M.SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT. NO.14/1, 3RD MAIN RAOD, KASTHURIBANAGAR, GOVERNMENT ELECTRIC FACTORY, BENGALURU - 560 026.
4(b) SRI. SHASHANK. S, S/O LATE M.SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT. NO.14/1, 3RD MAIN RAOD, KASTHURIBANAGAR, GOVERNMENT ELECTRIC FACTORY, BENGALURU - 560 026.
D/O LATE M.SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT. NO.14/1, 3RD MAIN RAOD, KASTHURIBANAGAR, GOVERNMENT ELECTRIC FACTORY, BENGALURU - 560 026.
WP No. 9279 of 2013
R/AT.NO.25/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD, KASTHURABANAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 650 056.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NATARAJU T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
WP No. 9279 of 2013
BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRSENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R4; SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANN-C & D THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATIONS DATED 19.12.1998 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28[1] AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 8.4.2003 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28[4] OF THE KIADB [IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO SY.25/2 MEASURING 3 ACRES 21 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT KOMMAGATTA
WP No. 9279 of 2013
VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners claiming to be LRs of the deceased land owner are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Preliminary Notification dated 09.12.1998 issued under Section 28(1) and the Final Notification dated 08.04.2003 issued under 28(4) of the KIADB Act, 1966 so far as it relates to the land admeasuring 3 acres & 21 guntas in Sy.No.25/2 of Kommagatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka.
of the acquisition proceeding arguing that: the subject land is not notified for acquisition at all; the acquisition proceedings have been accomplished in gross violation of statutory procedure, no notice having been issued to his clients and lastly the Government itself has filed an affidavit before the Apex Court that the lands acquired are
WP No. 9279 of 2013
far in excess of requirement. He passionately submits that the property rights having been constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A, the acquisition proceedings cannot be taken up just for the askance of the KIADB. After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through its learned AGA and the KIADB is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel, who has filed the Statement of Objections and Addl. Statement of Objections resisting the petition. Both they oppose the petition making submission in justification of the acquisition, by controverting what is argued by petitioners side.
and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) The first contention of counsel for the petitioner,
the subject land has not been notified for acquisition cannot be sustained inasmuch as the original khatedars had filed their objections on 09.03.1999 & 12.03.1999
WP No. 9279 of 2013
contending that this is the only land on which the livelihood of the family depends. The said land is highly valuable in view of a lot of development that has come up in the vicinity and that the Government not being in a position to pay that higher compensation and therefore it should be deleted from acquisition. They had also filed a representation dated 17.12.2005 seeking due notification of the land stating that the layout having been formed, sites have been sold to several persons. Therefore the petitioners are estopped from contending that the said land was notified for acquisition or that there was no proper description of the land that disabled them from filing any objection to the acquisition proposal or that the land owner had no notice of acquisition.
(b) The second contention of the petitioners counsel that the Government has filed an affidavit before the Apex Court that the lands already acquired for KIADB are far in excess of requirement and therefore these lands are not required for the purpose for which they are sought to be
WP No. 9279 of 2013
acquired, is bit difficult to countenance. The affidavit dated 09.09.2008 was filed by the Chief Secretary of the Government in Civil Appeal No.3492-94 of 2005 between NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD., vs. SRI P.B.MAHISHI & OTHERS . It was in connection with the acquisition of huge lands for the formation of the corridor. A perusal of the said affidavit in no way supports the case of the petitioners herein since it was in connection with some other project. This apart, the acquisition now in challenge precedes a decade or so.
(c) The Panel Counsel for the KIADB is more than justified in contending that the challenge to acquisition is highly belated. The Preliminary Notification was issued on 19.12.1998; the Objections were filed by the Khatedars in 2nd week of March, 1999. The Objections having been rejected and the Final Notification came to be issued on 08.04.2003. Subsequently on 18.05.2009, the consent award came to be passed. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.NO.17600/2004 between NANDI INFRACTURE
WP No. 9279 of 2013
CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LTD., v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, disposed off on 15.06.2011, has observed that the land would vest in the State once the Final Notification is issued under Section 28(4) of the 1966 Act. In the meanwhile, there was a suit in O.S.No.5336/2005 by one of the family members -khatedars Smt. Muninarasamma and therefore, the compensation of Rs.31,50,000/- came to be deposited in the Court of Principal City Civil Judge at Bengaluru on 12.10.2009, which was preceded by Section 12(2) notice dated 09.09.2009. The Petition has been filed only on 20.02.2013. There is absolutely no explanation offered for
the long delay brooked. The Apex Court in MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SHAH HYDER BEIG, 2000 (20
SCC 48, has observed as under:
WP No. 9279 of 2013
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..."
(d) The vehement submission of learned counsel
for the Petitioner that the possession still having been not taken over from his clients, the acquisition should be deemed to have been abandoned, is bit difficult to countenance. As already observed above, the Scheme of acquisition envisaged under the provisions of 1966 Act is much different from the one contemplated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the sense, the land would vest in the State under the former, once the Final Notification is issued. The question of passing of award and payment of compensation is irrelevant, when it comes to vesting in the light of observations of the Division Bench in NANDI supra vide Paragraph No.24.
WP No. 9279 of 2013
In the above circumstances, this Petition being
devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it
is, costs having been made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging land acquisition should be dismissed on grounds of laches and delay?
Whether the petitioners are estopped from challenging land acquisition after filing objections and representations years ago?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. State of KarnatakaExplained¶70
NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LTD., v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, W.P. NO.17600/2004
Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder BeigExplained¶74
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SHAH HYDER BEIG, 2000 (20 SCC 48) · Who else cites this
S. Vasudeva and Others
Government of Karnataka and Others
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
