Allowed

Smt. T.G. Nandini v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2024WP/54651/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners who purchased land through successive sales sought quashing of a 1992 ULC order against their vendor. Holding that State never took possession before repeal of the ULC Act, the court held all proceedings abated and quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Annexure-A order dated 06.08.1992 quashed; Tahsildar directed to enter petitioners' names in revenue records.

Smt. T.G. Nandini Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34688 WP No. 54651 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.54651 OF 2014 (ULC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. T.G. NANDINI W/O. M. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED 41 YEARS, R/AT MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, NEW POLICE STATION ROAD, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 036.

¶8

SMT. H.R. DAKSHAYANI W/O. A. SHIVANNA, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.45, KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE, VIA KADUGODI BETQ, BANGALORE – 560 067.

¶9

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI M. MARI HEGGADE S/O. MARI HEGGADE, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.103, GEETHANJALI LAKE VIEW APARTMENT, BENNIGANAHALLI, DOORAVANINAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 016.

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI G.R. VENKATESH MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34688 WP No. 54651 of 2014

¶17

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶18

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN LAND CEILING, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE – 560 020.

¶19

SRI C. MUNI REDDY S/O. CHIKKAPPANNA REDDY, AGED MAJOR, R/AT DODDANEKKUNDI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 036.

¶20

(RESPONDENT NO.4 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 20/10/2016)

¶21

SMT. M. SHANTHA KUMARI W/O. LT. COL. J. RAMASWAMY, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.VI/432-C, MARADU PANCHAYATH, BUND ROAD, MARADU POST, KERALA – 682 304. ... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI B.N. PUTTALINGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; V/O. DATED 20/10/2016 – R-4 IS DELETED)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED ORDER) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 06.08.1992 IN RESPECT OF SITE BEARING NO.2, CARVED OUT OF SY. NOS.182/5, 183/3 AND 4 MEASURING EAST TO WEST 60 FEET, NORTH TO SOUTH 80 FEET ADMEASURING 4800 SQUARE FEET OF DODDANEKKUNDI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK (NOW EAST TALUK) BANGALORE.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34688 WP No. 54651 of 2014

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioners are seeking to quash the order passed by respondent No.3 in ULC (11) 30/1985-86 dated 06.08.1992 vide Annexure-A in respect of petition property and to declare that the order passed by respondent No.3 has become redundant in view of provision of Section 3 (2) (a) and (b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (‘the Repeal Act, 1999’ for short).

¶29

Heard Sri G.R. Venkatesh Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Radha Ramaswamy, learned AGA appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3- State and Sri B.N. Puttalingaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶30

Respondent No.3 passed an order under Section 8 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (‘the Act 1976’ for short), on 06.08.1992 holding that respondent No.4 has violated the provisions of the Act and further directed to initiate action under Section 38 of the

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34688 WP No. 54651 of 2014

¶32

Act, respondent No.4 sold the suit schedule property in favour of respondent No.5 and respondent No.5 in turn sold the property in favour of the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners, having purchased the property from respondent No.5 vide registered sale deed dated 02.08.2013, got the katha transferred in their names and have paid taxes regularly. It is the submission of the petitioners that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has effected the entry in RTC notifying the larger extent of land is owned by respondent No.1 contrary to Section 3 (2) (a) and (b) of the Repeal Act, 1999.

¶33

The Act, 1976 to provide for imposition of a

¶34

ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations, for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urband land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering therein and with

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34688 WP No. 54651 of 2014

¶36

a view to brining about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good was the object of the Act, 1976.

¶37

The Act, 1999 was introduced to repeal the

¶38

Urban Land (Ceiling Regulation) Act, 1976. Section 3 (2) (a) and (b) envisages that any land is deemed to have been vested in the State Government under Section 3 (10) of the Principal Act, but the possession of which has not been taken by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the Government in this behalf or by the Competent Authority and any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land.

¶39

The provisions of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram¹ (Hari Ram) , the Apex Court observed that from the date of publication under notification sub-section 1 and ending with the dates specified in the declaration made in sub-section 3, there is 1 (2013) 4 SCC 280

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34688 WP No. 54651 of 2014

¶41

no question of disturbing the possession of a person, the possession, therefore, continuous to be with the holder of the land. The Apex Court further observed that mere vesting of the land under Sub-Section 3 of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or the possession has been taken before 18.03.1999 .

¶42

The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under Sub-Section 5 of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under Sub-Section 6 of Section. On failure to establish any of those situations, the land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act.

¶43

The Apex Court in the case of Mukarram Ali Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others²

¶44

2 (2007) 11 SCC 90

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34688 WP No. 54651 of 2014

¶46

(Mukarram Ali Khan) has held that all the legal proceedings stood abated including the proceedings, since the possession continued and the respondents did not take over the possession of the land from the petitioner. The Apex Court held that by virtue of Repeal Act, when the possession of the land has not been taken over by the respondent, all the proceedings including the impugned order would stand abated.

¶47

In identical circumstances, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri N.G. Narayanamurthy and others Vs. The State of Karnataka and others³ by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukarram Ali Khan has quashed the impugned orders.

¶48

A careful perusal of the material on record

¶49

would indicate that the possession of the petition land has not been taken over by the respondents and in light of the

¶50

3 W.P. No.29669/2009 D.D. 15.02.2024

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:34688 WP No. 54651 of 2014

¶52

decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Mukarram Ali

¶53

Khan and by virtue of repeal of ULC Act, all the proceedings including the impugned order stand abated and deserves to be quashed and the present petition needs to be disposed of and this Court pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55