IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS.10265-10275/2012(LA-KIADB) BETWEEN 1. B.M. MANJUNATH S/O B MUDDA GANGAIAH. AGED 54 YEARS, KENGERI VILLAGE,KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560027 2. ARJUN RAI BHEYAN S/O JASAVANTH ROY BHEYAN, AGED 62 YEARS, C/O.V.V. BHEYAN, HEAD MISTER, C.S.T, BYLAKUPPE POST, HULEDAHALLI BRANCH, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 104 3. S.PUTTASWAMY S/O LATE SHANKAREGOWDA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT KILLARA VILLAGE, KARAGUDU HOBLI, MANDYA DISTRICT 4. T.P.RAMASWAMY S/O LATE PUTTARAMAIAH, AGED 49 YEARS, THOTANAHALLI VILLAGE, MULLUR HOBLI, CHENNAPATTANA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 5. R. YESHODA W/O. S.B.NARAYANA, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.64, 2ND CROSS, K.G.NAGAR, LAKSHMIPURA, BENGALURU – 560 019 6. B.N. TIWARDI S/O. JANG BAHADUR TIWARI, AGED 59 YEARS, R/AT 84/7, 7TH CROSS, PAPANNA BLOCK, 5TH MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560032 7. H.S.VISHAKANTHEGOWDA S/O LATE SRIKANTE GOWDA, AGED 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.231, 15TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, 2ND STAGE, WEST OF CORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560086 8. S.RAMU S/O,SRIKANTHI GOWDA, AGED 68 YEARS, HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI,T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 9. M.PREMA D/O. MARAMKEEGOWDA, AGED 45 YEARS, MUDDEGERE VILLAGE, MULLUR HOBLI, CHENNAPATTNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 10. B.SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE BALLEGOWDA, AGED 65 YEARS, NARANAGOWDA STREET, KOTE R.K.GATE, CHENNAPATTNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 11. M.RAGHAVENDRA S/O. M.S.MADU, AGED 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, ‘A’ CROSS, BASAPPA GARDEN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003 (NOTE: THE P-7, P-8 AND P-10 DO NOT CLAIM BENEFITS OF SENIOR CITIZEN) ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.DEEPAK.D.C, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1,3,4,7 TO 9 & 11;
SRI.L.M.RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO. 6) AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, BENGALURU REVENUE DEPARTMENT 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER, BENGALURU 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU 4. THE THASHILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU 5. V. RAJENDRA NAIDU AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. V.CHINNABBA NAIDU, NO.105/B, 3RD CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, B.S.K 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560085 6. S.B.VENKATASWAMI NAIDU AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. SUBBAIAH NAIDU, NO.15, KITTUR CHANNAMMA CROSS ROAD, 11TH CROSS, BENDRENAGAR, KADIRENAHALLI, B.S.K 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560070 7. SRI. KIRSHNA CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.1, 4TH MAIN, SHESHADRIPURAM, NEHARU CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560020 REPRESENTED BY JIGNESH 8. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, BENGALURU 9. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD., REGD., OFFICE AT NO.1, MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 (NOTE: AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 19.04.2012) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BASAVARAJ.V.SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 8;
SRI.DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1,3 & 4; SRI.SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R7; M/S.KING & PARTRIDGE FOR R9;
R5 & R6 SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ACQUISITION DATED 21.12.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AWARD PASSED ON 21.12.2006 WHICH SUCH OTHER THE COURT DEEM FIT RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM TAKING POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY OR ALTERING THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY OR REDELIVERY POSSESSION OF PROPERTY WHICH SUCH OTHER ORDER THE COURT AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioners claiming to be the land losers in the subject land acquisition that culminated into an award dated 21.12.2006 at Annexure-A are calling in question the said award seeking a Writ of Certiorari, on several grounds.
2. After service of notice, the respondents entered appearance through their counsel and submit that these writ petitions in their present form and substance are not maintainable and even otherwise also more than a decade having lapsed since the acquisition, the petitioners are liable to be non-suited on the ground of laches and delay, there being no explanation offered for condoning the same.
3. The learned counsel opposing these writ petitions points out from the order sheet wherein the petitioners had undertaken to file an application seeking amendment of these writ petitions so that the contention urged on behalf of the respondents would be looked by way of additional averments. To facilitate the filing of such application, time was granted on several occasions and till date no such application is filed nor any explanation is offered as to why the said application cannot be filed.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents also points out from the order sheet dated 23.10.2018 and 29.10.2018 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and this Court as well had granted time for the petitioners to withdraw these petitions and such a memo is not filed even today; nor such a stand is retracted, by showing some cause.
5. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are dismissed both on merits and delay & laches.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS