Sri N P Diwakar Seth Vs the Special Land Acquisition Office

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DECLARE THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY IN S/Y 209 AND SY.NO.210 SITUATED AT MANANAVADI ROAD, MYSORE KASABA VILLAGE, MYSORE DISTRICT, VIDE P. NOTIFICATION NO.PLA.21/61-2 VIDE ANNX-A IS LAPSED ACCOUNT OF NON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHEME AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SCHEME IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY HAS BECOME IN OPERATIVE; DIRECT TO R-1 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIOENRS REPRESENTATIONS DTD 15.12.2004 VIDE ANNX-H AND J AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RE-CONVEY 2 ACRES AND 2.25 GUNTAS OF LAND ACCORDING TO RESOLUTION DTD 04.08.1965 BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY VIDE ANNX-B.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

A petitioner is before this Court seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of property in Survey Nos.209 and 210, situated at Mananavadi Road, Mysuru, Kasaba Village, Mysuru District, in terms of a notification issued then, for the purpose of acquisition, as lapsed and a

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34375 WP No. 9132 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

consequential direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner seeking re-convey of 2 acres 22.5 guntas of land, in the said survey numbers to the petitioner.

¶32

Heard Sri Rajarama Sooryambail, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M. Rajakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶33

Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

¶34

A notification comes to be issued by respondent No.1 -

¶35

the then City Improvement Trust Board (for short ‘the CITB), seeking acquisition of certain lands including the property of the petitioner, which was then in the hands of his father. Preliminary notification comes about on 17.01.1962 and a final notification is issued thereon. It is the case of the petitioner, that on 12.05.1964, respondent No.1, the then CITB has passed an award determining compensation to be paid pursuant to the said acquisition. Then comes a particular resolution of the CITB on 04.08.1965, indicating that the entire land of 8 acres and 30 guntas, which was sought for re-

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:34375 WP No. 9132 of 2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

conveyance by the father of the petitioner, cannot be reconveyed, but to an extent of 2 acres and 25 guntas can be reconveyed.

¶40

The representation submitted by the father of the petitioner was on 09.08.1965. The said representation is the dawn of hope of the father of the petitioner, that the lands would be re-conveyed and come back to him. The hope remained a hope and representations thereon were submitted since 1981. On 09.09.1983, the father of the petitioner had issued legal notice to respondent No.1. Later on 15.12.2004, submitted another representation seeking reasonable compensation and plethora of representations are submitted to the respondents. The CITB considering the representation dated 17.02.2012, has issued an endorsement. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the said endorsement and seeking re-conveyance of the land.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire case of the petitioner is based upon a communication dated 04.08.1965, through which the CITB had opined that about 2 acres 2.25 guntas could be re-conveyed

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34375 WP No. 9132 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

back to the hands of the father of the petitioner / petitioner. The re-conveyance did not happen. Therefore, he went on submitting representations and the representations were not acceded to and the petitioner now challenging the endorsement, seeks re-conveyance thereon.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Mysuru Urban Area Development Authority (then CITB) would take this Court through the statement of objections so filed, contending that the CITB then did not have the power to pass any resolution with regard to re-conveyance. Let alone the Board, even respondent No.2 does not have power under the Urban Development Authorities Act to re-convey the land, which is already a subject matter of acquisition and to which, an award determining compensation is already deposited before the concerned Court. In that light, he would seek dismissal of the petition on the score that the claim is stale and the petition is barred by delay and laches.

¶46

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 would also toe the lines of the learned counsel

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:34375 WP No. 9132 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2, in

¶51

so saying.

¶52

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

¶53

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The father of the petitioner was in possession of aforesaid lands in the afore-quoted survey numbers. The land becomes subject matter of acquisition by issuance of a preliminary notification on 17.01.1962, which was followed by a final notification. These are admitted facts. After the issuance of the final notification, compensation is determined and the award is passed on 12.05.1964. This is the averment made by the petitioner himself. After passing of the award, springs a resolution from the hands of the CITB. The resolution is communicated to the father of the petitioner, which is dated 04.08.1965. The communication reads as follows:-

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:34375 WP No. 9132 of 2019

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

The sheet anchor of the petitioner is the said

¶58

communication, pursuant to the resolution, which as on today is 60 years old. The father of the petitioner appears to have kept quiet and later on, for the first time submits a

¶59

8 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:34375 WP No. 9132 of 2019

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

representation in the years 1965, 1981, 1983, 1990 and again in the year 2004. These have been adequately answered by respondent No.2 – Mysuru Urban Development Authority, which succeeded to the CITB by the following endorsements issued on

¶63

20.08.1990 and 30.03.1996:

¶64

9 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:34375 WP No. 9132 of 2019

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

These endorsements have not been challenged. In the

¶68

year 2008, a legal notice is caused by the petitioner’s father upon the Officers of respondent No.2 seeking re-conveyance of the land, again referring to the very resolution or the communication of the year 1965. This is again replied to by respondent No.2 – Mysuru Urban Development Authority on 18.10.2008. The said communication is not challenged. Eight years thereafter, springs another representation on 17.06.2016, seeking re-conveyance of the land. Here again, the foundation of the representation dated 22.09.2016, is the resolution or communication dated 04.08.1965. This is replied to by the impugned endorsement dated 21.11.2016. Which reads as follows:

¶69

“ �ಂಬರಹ

¶70

�ಷಯ: �ೖಸೂರು �ಾಲೂ�ಕು, ಕಸ�ಾ �ೋಬ�, �ೖಸೂರು �ಾ�ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.209/2 ಮತು� 210 ರ 8-11 ಎಕ!ೆ ಜ#ೕ$ನ%� ಭೂ'ಾ%ೕಕ(�ೆ )ಡ�ೇ+ಾದ 2-22½ ಎಕ!ೆ ಜ#ೕ$ನ ,ಾ-.ೕನವನು0 +ೊ12+ೊಡು ವಂ�ೆ +ೋ(ರುವ ಬ�ೆ3.

¶71

ಉ5ೆ�ೕಖ:- $ಮ7 ಮನ� 89ಾಂಕ 22.09.2016

¶72

*******

¶73

�ೕಲ:ಂಡ �ಷಯ+ೆ: ಸಂಬಂ.2ದಂ�ೆ , ;ಾ�.+ಾರ+ೆ: ಭೂ,ಾ-.ೕನ<ಾ=ರುವ �ೖಸೂರು �ಾಲೂ�ಕು, ಕಸ�ಾ �ೋಬ�, �ೖಸೂರು �ಾ�ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ. ಸ.ನಂ.209/2 ಮತು� 210 ರ 8-11 ಎಕ!ೆ ;ೈ> 2-22½ ಎಕ!ೆ ಜ#ೕನನು0 �ಂ8ನ ನಗ!ಾ@ವೃ8B �ಶ-ಸDಮಂಡ� +ೈ�ೊಂಡ $ಣFಯದಂ�ೆ ಭೂ'ಾ%ೕಕ(�ೆ )ಟುH+ೊಡ�ೇ+ೆಂಬ ಉ5ೆ�ೕIತ $ಮ7

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:34375 WP No. 9132 of 2019

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

ಮನ�ಯನು0 ಪ(Kೕ%ಸ5ಾLತು. ಪ�,ಾ � ತ ಸ.ನಂ. 209/2 ಮತು� 210 ರ ಪMಣF �2�ೕಣF 8-11 ಎಕ!ೆ ಜ#ೕನನು0 ;ಾ�.+ಾರವN ಭೂ,ಾ-.ೕನ+ಾOPಯ1 ಭೂ,ಾ-.ೕನಪ12+ೊಂಡು 89ಾಂಕ 20.08.1965 ರಂQೇ ಸದ( ಜ#ೕ$ನ ,ಾ-.ೕನವನು0 ಪRೆದು ಪ(�ಾರಧನ ರೂ.19465/- ಗಳನು0 89ಾಂಕ 23.07.1985 ರಂದು ಪ�Uಾನ 2�V 9ಾWXಾಲಯದ%� YೇವZ ಇಡ5ಾ=Qೆ . ಆದP(ಂದ 1964-659ೇ ,ಾ%ನ%� ಭೂ,ಾ-.ೕನ<ಾ=ರುವ ಈ ಜ#ೕ$ನ ;ೈ> 2-22½ ಎಕ!ೆ ಜ#ೕನನು0 ಈಗ +ೈ)ಡಲು +ಾOPಯ1 ಅವ+ಾಶ�ರುವN8ಲ�<ೆಂದು _�2Qೆ .

¶78

It is for the first time, the endorsement dated 21.11.2016 is challenged by the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the resolution upon which he bases his claim is the resolution of the CITB dated 04.08.1965. If the father of the petitioner was well aware of the resolution and had knocked at the doors of the appropriate fora, it would be an altogether a different circumstance.

¶79

It is trite law that mere submission of the representation / s will not obviate delay and arrest time. The petitioner may have had equity in his favour at the relevant point in time. Delay defeats equity as well. Equity once stood with his father or the petitioner, has vanished today, on sheer negligence on the part of the father of the petitioner then or

¶80

11 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:34375 WP No. 9132 of 2019

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

the petitioner later, as the petition hinges upon plethora of representations submitted, all with gross delay.

¶84

Today, after long passage of the afore-quoted communication / resolution of the CITB, which the petitioner places entire reliance upon, cannot be given life by a stroke of pen. Law protects the diligent and not the indolent. The legality or illegality of the endorsement cannot be gone into, on the ground of sheer delay,

¶85

The writ petition lacking in merit, stands rejected.

¶86

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶87

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT:SS

Sri N P Diwakar Seth v. the Special Land Acquisition Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N P Diwakar Seth v. the Special Land Acquisition Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

South Indian Sugar Mills Association Karnataka ( Sisma K) Vs Union of India

Shri. Thimmarayareddy.K, Vs Shri.Chinnaswamy Reddy K

Mr R Kumar Vs Mr M J Thomas

Sri. Kempaiah Since Dead by Lrs., Maramma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Seetharam C N., Vs M/S Skytop Builders Private Limited

Puttalingaiah Vs Ganganna Dead by Lrs Sakamma