Sri M. Ramakrishnappa and Others vs The State of Karnataka, Department of Commerce and Industries and Others

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The Petitioners have impugned the preliminary notification dated 09.01.2007 (Annexure R) and the final notification dated 15.05.2007 (Annexure-S) issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) respectively of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

Sri Ranjan Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are the legal representatives of Munivenkatamma. He submits that the said Munivenkatamma is the owner of the said acquired land. On her death in 1996, the mutation entry in respect of the land in question was in the name of the first Petitioner Ramakrishnappa. In this regard, he brings to my notice the record of rights (Annexure-E) for the year 2006-2007. It is his specific grievance that the name of the first, Petitioner is not shown in the preliminary and the final notifications. When the record of rights shows the name of the first Petitioner, the subsequent acquisition notifications have to necessarily contain the name of the first Petitioner. On this short ground alone, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed, so submits Sri Ranjan Kumar.

Sri Ranjan Kumar submits that the Respondent No. 6 falsely and fraudulently claiming to be the general power of attorney holder of the Petitioners executed the sale deed in favour of the Respondent No. 5, who in turn has received the compensation amount on account of the compulsory acquisition of the land in question.

Sri Raikote, the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the issuance of impugned acquisition notifications, mutation entry and the record of rights (Annexure-E) are more or less around the same time. He submits that it is possible that the earlier record of rights did not contain the name of the first Petitioner. He further submits that the second Respondent - KIADB has already allotted the land to the third parties.

Sri Seshagiri Rao, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 submits that the Respondent No. 5 is a bonafide purchaser of the land in question. He submits that the Petitioners have executed the registered general power of attorney in favour of the Respondent No. 6. He further submits that based on the said registered document, the Respondent No. 6 has executed the sale deed in favour of the Respondent No. 5 after collecting the full sale transaction. He further submits that the Petitioners have filed O.S. No. 330/2008 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Devanahalli seeking, inter alia, the relief of declaration that the sale deed executed by the Respondent No. 6 in favour of Respondent No. 5 is bad.

I am not inclined to quash the acquisition proceedings. This petition is liable to be rejected on the short ground of delay and laches only. This petition is filed three years after the issuance of the acquisition notifications. When the third party interests have come in, the quashing of the proceedings is not warranted.

Further, the Petitioners'' grievance is not over the acquisition of the land as such but over the receiving of the compensation amount by the Respondent No. 5. Their concern can be addressed without interfering in the acquisition proceedings.

The tenability of the Respondent No. 3 disbursing the compensation amount to the Respondent No. 5 depends on the outcome of the suit proceedings. If the suit is decreed in favour of the Petitioners nullifying the general power of attorney document and the sale deed and if it is held that the Petitioners are the lawful owners of the land in question, it, is only then that the Petitioners become entitled to receive the compensation. In such an eventuality, the Respondent No. 3 may have to recover the amount from the Respondent No. 5 and give it to the Petitioners or to whoever is entitled to receive the amount. Conversely, if the Civil Court upholds the validity of the general power of attorney document and the sale deed, the question of the Respondent No. 5 returning the amounts and the question of the Petitioners receiving the same would not arise at all. The parties have to work out their remedies in the Civil Court where O.S. No. 330/2008 is pending.

With these observations, this petition is disposed of.