AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioners are before this Court seeking for a declaration that the notification dated 23.02.2004 at Annexure-H to the petition is illegal and to quash the same. The petitioners No. 1 to 3 were initially before this Court seeking for the said relief. However, the respondent No. 4 who had sold the property to the petitioners No. 1 to 3 has been subsequently impleaded as petitioner No. 4.
The case of the petitioners is that the land bearing Sy. No. 21/5 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas (including Kharab of 1 gunta) situate at Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was purchased by the petitioners No. 1 to 3 under a registered sale deed dated 17.01.2004 executed by the petitioner No. 4. The petitioner No. 4 is stated to have purchased the said property from one Sri Anthonappa under a registered sale deed dated 26.04.1993. The names of the petitioners is stated to have been entered in the revenue register in the year 2006-2007 and thereafter continued. Prior to the same, action was initiated against the petitioner No. 4 u/s 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act alleging violation of Sections 79(A), 79(B) and 80 of the Act. In that regard, an order dated 11.07.1997 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner forfeiting the land to the Government.
The petitioner No. 4 herein challenged the said order in Appeal No. 79/2002 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by its judgment and decree dated 19.08.2002 had set aside the order of forfeiture dated 11.07.1997. In that circumstance, the ownership of the property had revived to the petitioners herein. However, in the meanwhile, the respondents had notified the property for acquisition to form the residential layout known as "Arkavathi Layout". The final notification was issued on 23.02.2004. The petitioners are therefore aggrieved by the said notification.
The case of the petitioners is that by the order dated 19.08.2002 of KAT, the petitioner No. 4 had succeeded in restoring and retaining rights to the said property and had thereafter sold the property to the petitioners No. 1 to 3. The respondents had not notified the name of either the petitioners No. 1 to 3 or that of petitioner No. 4 in the preliminary or final notification. It is pointed out that the name of the Government was shown as the ''Kathedar'' of the property as seen at Sl. No. 8 relating to the properties that were acquired in Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli. It is in that view contended that the very acquisition is vitiated inasmuch as the names of the property owners, namely the petitioners No. 1 to 3 had not been notified and the acquisition was completed in their absence.
The respondents have filed their objection statement. It is contended that the notification had been issued as per the revenue entries that were available and as on the date of preliminary as well as the final notification, the name of the Government was indicated in the revenue register and therefore the said name had been notified. It is contended that, if the petitioners had any right to the property, they should have secured the change of revenue entries and in such event, the respondents would have indicated the names of the petitioners. It is therefore contended that the petitioners cannot make out any grievance at this juncture insofar as the acquisition is concerned.
On this aspect of the matter, what cannot be disputed from the records is that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in fact passed its judgment on 19.08.2002, whereby the earlier order dated 11.07.1997 by which the property purchased by petitioner No. 4 was forfeited to the Government had been set aside. It is no doubt true that after the initial order of forfeiture was passed, the revenue entries had been shown in the name of the Government by the revenue authorities. Though it would be the position that the petitioners also had an obligation to seek for reversal of the entries on the order being passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 19.08.2002, what cannot also be lost sight is that the revenue authorities themselves were respondents to the said appeal and appropriate change should have been recorded.
At an earlier instance, when the reversal of revenue entry has been made based on the order of forfeiture, on the said order being set aside, the revenue authorities should have taken appropriate steps for reversal of the entries. It is no doubt true that insofar as the respondents they were justified in going by the revenue entries which existed as on the date of the notification. Notwithstanding the same, the question that would arise for consideration is as to whether the invaluable right of the petitioners to the immovable property could be denied only on that basis that the revenue entries stood in the name of the Government as on the date of the notification. When the petitioner No. 4 had purchased the property under the registered sale deed and as against such sale deed, the action was taken under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the petitioner No. 4 has succeeded in the proceedings before the Appellate Authority, certainly the right to the property by the petitioner No. 4 cannot be denied and it is to be restored. In such situation, when the petitioner No. 4 has sold the property to the petitioners No. 1 to 3 on 17.01.2004 under a registered sale deed, the said entry in any event should have been notified by the Sub-Registrar to the revenue authorities as contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In any event, as on the said date, the proceedings relating to the acquisition was under progress and the final notification was issued on 23.02.2004. Even in such circumstance, when this Court is satisfied by appropriate proceedings, the petitioner No. 4 had challenged the adverse order passed against him and the ownership rights in respect of the properties was restored and thereafter the sale was made in favour of the petitioners No. 1 to 3, in a normal circumstance, it was still open for this Court to set aside the final notification and thereafter direct the respondents to reconsider the matter by providing opportunity to the petitioners who were the owners of the property to put forth their contention as such right was available to them u/s 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
The question that would however arise for consideration herein is also as to whether such procedure needs to be adopted in the instant case. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, . By the exhaustive consideration made therein, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration several aspects of the matter relating to the acquisition for the same layout and notwithstanding the final notification being issued, certain directions have been issued by way of conclusion in Para No. 160 of the said judgment to provide relief to the land owners and also to protect the interest of the respondents by directing the nature of consideration in different circumstances which have been indicated therein.
Therefore, in the instant case, without even quashing the final notification, such directions which have been issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court would be applicable to the facts of the instant case. However, the question that may also require consideration is as to which of the directions indicated therein would be relevant to the present facts. The learned counsel for petitioner claiming that the direction in Para No. 160 (ii) would apply to the instant case has filed an Affidavit of the petitioner before this Court to state that the constructions had existed on the property in question even prior to their purchase and such construction was there for more than 30 years.
The respondents have filed their statement of objections by way of reply to the said affidavit contending therein that the sale deed dated 17.01.2004 under which the petitioners No. 1 to 3 claim to have purchased the property does not refer to the construction and this aspect would also have to be kept in view.
With regard to the factual situation on that aspect, certainly this Court will not go into that aspect at this juncture in a writ petition, since the same would have to be looked into by the respondents keeping in view not only the documents under which the petitioners No. 1 to 3 have purchased the property, but the fact situation existing keeping in view the nature of construction, if any that is available therein, age of construction etc., so as to find out, whether such construction in fact existed much prior to the preliminary notification or not. On deciding this aspect, the appropriate relief as available to the petitioners under Para 160 of the judgment in Bondu Ramaswamy''s case would be made applicable to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to proceed further with the acquisition proceedings as initiated, but to consider the case of the petitioners under the category where it would be admissible as stated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to above. In order to enable such consideration, the petitioners shall now file all the necessary papers and copy of this order with the respondents within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent No. 2 shall thereafter consider the case of the petitioners in the manner as directed herein above and thereafter come to a conclusion with regard to the nature of relief to be granted. Such relief would be available to the petitioners No. 1 to 3 jointly and the petitioner No. 4 shall be excluded, since the petitioners No. 1 to 3 have indicated that they have purchased the property from the petitioner No. 4. The consideration of the respondent No. 2 shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date of copy being filed with the respondents. The further action, if any to be taken in that regard shall also be concluded as expeditiously as possible.
Petitions are disposed of in the above terms