N. Narasimhaiah vs The Union of India and Others

Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar

Petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or direction, directing the respondents, jointly and severally to hand over 32 guntas of land in Sy.Nc.,.,117/1, out of 1 acre 36 guntas of land, situated in B.Narayanapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk;

ii) issue a writ the nature of mandamus or any other writ or direction, dircting the respondents jointly and severally to hand over 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.44/3, situated in B.Narayanapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobli,Bangalore South Taluk;

iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to notify the entire extent of land at prayers (i) and (ii) and demarcate the same by fixing the boundaries together with its measurements and the approach road, while handing over possession of portions of the property, as mentioned in prayers (i) and (ii) in terms of the order/direction in CA.No.6368/2011 by the Hors''bie Supreme Court of India. Certain other consequential reliefs are also sought for.

Certain lands including Sy.Nos.32, 44/3, 117/1, etc., were acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO). The petitioner claims to be the owner of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.32 and 44/3. The acquisition notifications were questioned by various land owners, including the petitioner. Ultimately, the matter has reached Apex Court in CA.Nos.6362, 6363, 6364, 6365, 6366, 6367 and 6368 of 2011. During the pendency of CAs. Before the Apex Court, a joint memo was filed by the parties as per the document at Annexure-D. The relevant clause for the purpose of disposal of this matter, reads thus:-

Appellants in CA.No.6368 of 2001 own 1 acre 36 guntas in Sy.No 32 and 12 guntas in Sy.No.44/3, i.e, 2 acreE, GB guntas in all. As per the formula adopted above, they are entitled for,38 guntas in Sy.No.32 and 06 guntas ire Sy.No.44/3, totalling to 1 acre 04 guntas. It is however agreed that appellants ra CA.No.6368 of 2011 will keep the entire 12 guntas in Sy.No.44/3 and receive the balance 32 guntas on northern portion in Sy.No.117/1 from UOI/DRDO in lieu cf 32 guntas in Sy.No.32 and the parties in WP.No.7696 of 2001 before the High Court of Karnataka have no objection to the same. "The Union of India/DRDO shall hand over possession to the appellants in CA.No.6368 of 2001 of the said land of 32 guntas in Sy.No.117/1.

Matters were disposed of by the Apex Court, by recording the joint memo filed by the parties. However, the joint memo filed by the parties was not acted upon by respondent No.1. Hence, this writ petition is filed for the aforementioned reliefs,

Though the petitioner has claimed number of reliefs in this '',wit petition, the concentration was only on prayer No.(ii). Hence, this Court directed Sri Kalyan Basax-raraj, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the first respondent to have his say in the matter.

Today, the affidavit of Sri MVLN Rao, Estate Manager, Estate Management Unit, DRDO is filed along with a sketch, by Sri Kalyan Basavaraj. The said affidavit reveals that 12 guntas in Sy.No.44/3 of R.Narayanapura Village, K.R.Pura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore could not be released in favour of the petitioner along with the appellants in CA.No.6368/2011 as the same was already utilized by DRDO for Defenc:e Research Project and DRDO is ready and willing to hand over the possession of the equivalent to 12 guntas in Sy.No.23/1, B.Narayanapura ViiiagA, K.R.Pura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The sketch showing the location of the said portion of 12 guntas in Sy.No.23/1 is also produced along with the affidavit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees for the terms mentioned in the affidavit filed on behalf of DRDO and he is ready to accept the area of 12 guntas in Sy.No.23/1, situated at B.Narayanapura Village, K.R.Pura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.

However, Sri Thammaiah, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 as well as Sri Kalyan Basavaraj, bring to the notice of the Court that not only the petitioner, but also certain other appellants in CA.No.6368/2003 are entitled to 12 Qantas of land to be handed over by DRDO. However, the same is disputed by Sri Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Be that as it may, the Land Acquisition Officer as well as respondents shall abide by the order of the Apex Court directing them to hand over 12 guntas of land in favour of the appellants in CA.No.6368/2001.

The joint memo clearly reveals that the appellants in CA.No.6368/2001 are entitled to 12 auntas of land. Therefore, it is for the Land Acquisition Officer to find out as to who are all the appellants in CA.No.6368/2001 and take action in accordance with law for handing over possession. In so far as prayer No.(i) is concerned, there is a serious dispute with regard to ownership of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.117/1 inasmuch as learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the land bearing No.117/1, but merely he is a Power of Attorney Holder. According to respondents 4 and 5, they are the owners of the said land. If it is so, no specific direction can be issued in this writ petition in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, no orders are passed with regard to prayer No.(i).

Hence, this writ petition is disposed of as under:-

a) The first respondent shall hand over 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.23/1, situated at B.Narayanapura Village, K.R.Pura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk to the Special Land Acquisition Officer - 3rd respondent.

b) The Special Land Acquisition Officer with the help of the jurisdictional surveyor shall specify the boundaries of 12 guntas in Sy.No.23/1. It is needless to observe that such 12 guntas of property to be handed over by the first respondent shall have access to the public road.

c) The Special Land Acquisition Officer-3rd respondent shall in turn take action to hand over such 12 guntas of property received by him to the appellants in CA.No.6368/2001 as directed by the Apex Court with notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7.

d) No order is passed in respect of prayer No. (i) in this writ petition.

e) The compensation also shag be paid in respect of 50% of the land lost by the petitioner and other land losers in terms of the order of the Apex Court, as per law.

The first respondent shall hand over the possession of 12 guntas of property as mentioned supra to the LAO within two months after getting the land surveyed in the presence of the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer, in turn shall complete other formalities pursuant to the aforementioned order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.