AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—The present petition which was originally filed on behalf of three petitioners, at present it survives only in so far as the third petitioner is concerned. The petition in so far as petitioners No. 1 and 2 are concerned stands dismissed vide order dated 12.4.2010. The third petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, claims to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of land measuring 2 acres 37 guntas, in land bearing survey No. 17/4, with certain construction thereon, of Yellukunte, Begur hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
The said land along with other lands was notified for acquisition vide notification-dated 28.1.1985, u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''LA Act'', duly published in the Official Gazette on 1.2.1985, for the proposed formation of a residential layout for the benefit of the ITI Employees House Braiding Co-operative Society Ltd. A final declaration u/s 6 was notified on 24.1.1986.
However, it is claimed by the petitioner, that possession of the land remained with the petitioner as on the date of the petition. This position is sought to be demonstrated by reference to the several documents evidencing the handing over of possession of acquired lands to the third respondent Society from time to time and the fact that the land of the petitioner does not figure in those documents, namely, Annexure-E to the petition dated 13.12.1992, Annexure-F dated 18.1.2000 and Annexure-G dated 21.2.2000.
Though a notification u/s 16(2) of the LA Act is said to have been issued as on 16.10.1996, it is the claim of the petitioner that the same is belied by the fact that physical possession of the land continued to remain with the petitioner. Reliance is sought to be place on the "Order" said to have been passed by the Minister for Revenue of the State Government, as per Annexure-L to the writ petition, wherein it is categorically stated that the notification u/s 16(2) was defective in so far as the petitioner''s land and two other items of land are concerned, all of which are specifically defined with detailed boundaries, and directing that appropriate steps be taken to reverse all action pursuant to the said notification. It is also claimed that the Society had, in turn, by a letter dated 3.7.2004, Annexure-M, informed the State government that it had no objection to the said land being de-notified, as possession of the same had never been handed over.
It is also claimed that the above position is also endorsed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer who has also addressed a letter dated 22.11.2007 - Annexure-O, to the Revenue Department to state that the land in question continued to be in the possession of the land owner.
The petitioner has also produced a copy of a layout plan, Annexure- P, said to have been submitted by the Society to the Bangalore Development Authority for approval, wherein the lands in question have not been included and there was no proposal for forming sites over the said land.
It is thus contended that in view of there being abundant evidence to demonstrate that physical possession of the land never having been taken, the same did not vest in the State. It is therefore contended that any documents sought to be produced by the respondents, to the contrary are clearly not acceptable and are concocted.
On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondent-Society by way of Statement of objections, that the details of the acquisition proceedings with reference to the sequence of events is as shown in tabular form thus:
It is hence contended that the alleged representations said to have been made to the Revenue Minister as regards the withdrawal from the acquisition proceedings in respect of the several lands is inexplicable, subsequent to the possession of the land having been taken over as seen from the record. It is in that context that the Government had rejected the request and had directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to deliver possession of several lands to the Society vide letter dated 31.3.2004.
The respondent society is also said to have filed a civil suit, in OS 1741/1998 on the file of the City Civil Court Bangalore, as against the petitioner and had obtained an order of temporary injunction restraining interference with physical possession of the land in question and the same was in force, till it was decreed in favour of the Society by a judgment and decree dated 4.3.2009. Hence the petitioner claiming to be in continuous physical possession is clearly not acceptable.
It is contended that in so far as the alleged communication by a Minister to the effect that lands could be deleted from the acquisition proceedings can only be by exercise of power u/s 48 of the LA Act and subject to the limitation contained therein. In the absence of any notification under the said provision, the purported disinclination on the part of the Society to claim possession over the land, as sought to be projected by reference to certain correspondence is held not to be binding on the Society.
It is also pointed out that the challenge to the preliminary and final notifications of the year 1985 and 1986, respectively, is barred by delay and laches. Further, it is pointed out that the petitioner had approached the Civil Court in case No. LAC 148/2000, seeking enhanced compensation, which would clearly disable the petitioner from challenging the acquisition, as he would be deemed to have forfeited his right thereby.
It is contended that the lands had vested with the State and were handed over to the Society as early as in the years 1988 and 1996. The remaining lands which were sought to be handed over under the letters referred to in the petition, is hence a misinterpretation of the circumstance - by projecting that the lands referred to in those communications were the only lands that were handed over to the Society.
The commitment said to have been made on behalf of the Society by a purported letter dated 3.7.2004, is denied as binding the Society. It is claimed that the same was written by an errant office bearer, with interior motives and without authority to make any such commitment and that there are criminal proceedings initiated against him in that regard and hence the same could not be held against the Society.
The learned counsel for the respondent has filed a memo dated 29.11.2013, after the matter was reserved for orders, enclosing a copy of a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 16.12.2002, executed by the Society in favour of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), whereby the Society has relinquished its right and handed over areas of the land earmarked for roads, civic amenity sites, parks, water supply and sewerage mains - etc., on completion of the lay out works. The land in question - Survey No. 17/4 is shown as part of the lands earmarked for a park. There is also a lay out plan produced indicating the location of the said item of land in the said layout.
The learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri G.L. Vishwanath for the respondent have in addressing arguments on behalf of the respective parties have referred to extensive case law. It is however, found unnecessary to discuss the same with reference to the present case on hand. For on a consideration of the facts and circumstances with reference to the respective pleadings and the official records that are made available, this court is of the view that the tenability of the petition can certainly be decided on the face of it. It is not in serious dispute that the preliminary notification u/s 4 of the LA Act for acquisition of the lands for the benefit of the Society is dated 29.1.1985 and it was for a total extent of 33 acres, which included the land bearing Survey No. 17/4 of the petitioner. The final declaration u/s 6 of the LA Act was made on 24.1.1986. An Award has been passed in respect of the lands on 24.8.1987. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by several land owners of Yellukunte village by way of writ proceedings before this court in WP 14072-74/1986. The same were dismissed on 20.2.1991. So were yet another set of petitions in WP 6441-42/1986, which were dismissed on 8.4.1991.
The Award notice, in respect of the land in question, is duly acknowledged and referred to by the petitioner, in the application u/s 18(1) of the LA Act, filed on 23.1.1989. The petitioner had sought for enhanced compensation, in proceedings bearing No. LAC 17/85-86.
A notification is seen to have been issued u/s 16(2) of the LA Act, dated 16.10.1996, in respect of the subject property.
The Society had filed a civil suit in OS 1741/1998, before the Court of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, seeking a permanent injunction against the petitioner. The suit was said to have been decreed, after contest, as on 4.3.2009. There was an order of temporary injunction against the petitioner during the pendency of the suit. The same was challenged in appeal before this court, in its appellate jurisdiction, in RFA 533/2009. The same was disposed of in terms of a judgment dated 12.4.2012, which is extracted hereunder:
JUDGMENT
The suit schedule property was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings, which is not disputed by the appellants. However, acquisition proceedings are under challenge in an independent writ petition filed by the appellants. In which event, since the appellants'' possession is adequately protected by an order subject to the result of that writ petition, the present appeal, in the face of the appellants admitting the acquisition proceedings, would not survive for consideration and is accordingly rejected.
It is also to be noticed that a significant ground was sought to be raise by way of amendment to the writ petition, to the effect that a housing Scheme was not approved prior to the acquisition.
There is no serious dispute as regards the conduct of the petitioner in having sought for enhancement of compensation and his participation in the civil suit referred to hereinabove. Those circumstances would necessarily require the petitioner to explain his conduct in seeking to bring the present petition only in the year 2004. Though an explanation was sought to be canvassed that there was an active consideration by the Government, to withdraw from the acquisition in so far as the petitioner''s land is concerned by reference to the Annexures to the writ petition, which are already detailed hereinabove, and therefore the petitioner awaited the result thereof- the same is not a sufficient ground to overlook the inordinate delay in the challenge to the acquisition. (See: Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, & ILR 2013 Kant 3061 ).
The several documents annexed to the Writ petition, to assert that there were many documents to indicate that the respondents had admitted the position that the land in question could be deleted from the acquisition proceedings, is however, not explicable - as the record would disclose that such a circumstance was projected obviously on account of absence of complete information as to the status of the land, in the concerned authorities having expressed any opinion. In any event it is the settled legal position that there shall be a valid withdrawal u/s 48 of the LA Act - for any item of land to fall outside the scope of the acquisition proceedings. A mere communication by any official of the Government is not valid and the acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed on that ground. (See: Murari and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ).
The claim of the petitioner to continued retention of possession of the land in question is also not tenable in view of the civil suit, in which the Society had the benefit of an order of injunction from inception and the same having culminated in judgment and decree in favour of the Society.
In so far as the contention that there was no prior approval of the State government of a Scheme, is concerned, the record would disclose that there was such a prior approval conveyed as on 23.1.1985.
In the result the petition lacks merit and is dismissed.