IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.50721 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN SMT B N THARAKUMARI W/O R SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A NO.9, 1ST FLOOR R K BLOCK, J C NAGAR BENGALURU-560 006 (BY SRI RAVIPRAKASH T AVIN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEKDAR VEEDI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER 4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN EAST WING, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -1 THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (BMRCL) I FLOOR, ARAVINDA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD ... PETITIONER BENGALURU-560 001 4. N SHANTAMMA, W/O N VAJARAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO.116, BENNIGANAHALLI, OLD MADRA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560016 5. SRI NAGAPPA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 6. SRI N DEVARAJ, S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 7. SRI N SRIDHAR, S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 8. SRI N SRINIVAS MURTHY, S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 9. SRI B N SANTOSH, S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 9 RESIDING AT DOOR NO.114, 1ST MAIN ROAD, BENNIGANAHALLI, OLD MADRAS, BENGALURU – 560 016.
* 10. SMT.P.LAKSHMI, W/O N.PALANI SWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 113, PROPERTY NO.1 BENNIGANAHALLI, K.R.PURA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 016 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 SRI P N NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI S KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FR R5 TO R9, SRI A M BALAJI AND K B ASHWINI, ADVOCATES, *SRI R.PRAMOD, ADV. FOR PROPOSED R10) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO REFER THE DISPUTE TO JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY WITH * Inserted vide Court order dated 26.07.2019 RESPECT TO PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR ACQUISITION IN LA/CITY SURVEY NUMBER GRAMA THANA AND NO.1 OF BENNIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU IN TOTAL TO THE EXTENT OF 320.50 SQ.MTS. WITH KIADB IDENTIFICATION NO.R1E-51 AND 605.51 SQ.MTS WITH KIADB IDENTIFICATION NO.R1E-5Q FOR LAYING METRO LINE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY, DEVDAS J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and in possession of property bearing Sy.No.1 situated at Benniganahalli, Bangalore North Taluk (now Bangalore East). The petitioner contends that her grandmother Smt.Yallamma, wife of Muniswamy acquired the property by way of Streedana and therefore Smt.Yallamma, was entitled to deal with the property at her wish. It is submitted that out of 1 acre 8 guntas in Sy.No.1, an extent of 10 guntas was acquired by the Railway Department for laying Selam Railway line. A copy of final notification dated 10.05.1965 is produced to substantiate this contention. However, it is submitted by the petitioner that in the Revenue records it has been wrongly mentioned that 28 guntas are acquired by Railway Department. The Revenue records therefore show that 10 guntas remained in the possession of Smt.Yallamma, after 28 guntas were acquired by Railways. Even in the judgment of the Reference Court in LAC No.298/1971, it is shown that 28 guntas in Sy.No.1, belonging to Smt.Yallamma is notified and acquired by Railways and as a result, compensation at Rs.4/- per square yard for 28 guntas of land, along with solatium at 15% and 5% interest on the excess compensation was awarded from the date of taking possession of the land.
2. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner’s mother had pre-deceased Smt.Yallamma and after the death of Smt.Yallamma, the petitioner being the granddaughter, succeeded to the properties of Smt.Yallamma. However, the names of the two brothers of the petitioner having been entered in the Revenue records pertaining to Sy.No.1, the petitioner filed O.S.No.4038/1987 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. During the pendency of the suit, one of the brothers Sri Shailendra Kumar passed away on 05.06.1990, issueless. The suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise decree entered into between the petitioner and her brother Sri Champaka Kumar. It is contended that as per the compromise decree, the entire extent of 10 guntas in Sy.No.1, fell to the share of the petitioner herein. Nevertheless, the Revenue records to the extent of 10 guntas in Sy.No.1 stand in the name of the petitioner and B.N.Champaka Kumar, the brother.
3. The second respondent-KIADB notified lands including Sy.No.1 of Benniganahalli, for the purpose of Metro Rail, in favour of Bangalore Metropolitan Rail Corporation Limited. It is contended by the petitioner that no notice was issued to the petitioner as required under Section 28(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KIAD Act’ for short). It is further contended that immediately after coming to know about the notification, the husband of the petitioner enquired in the office of the KIADB and it was only then that a notice dated 23.02.2018, under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act was issued by KIADB.
4. It is next contented by the petitioner that in the preliminary notification, the property in Sy.No.1 is identified as No.R1E-5Q and in the column of Khatedar, the names of the petitioner and her brother late Sri Champak Kumar were shown. The extent of land sought to be acquired was 605.51 sq.mtrs. The names of one Nagappa, S/o late Ramaiah, Smt.Lakshmi, W/o Palani Swamy and Smt.Shantamma, W/o Vajrappa Reddy, were shown in the ‘occupants’ column, with an extent of 6.82, 33.19 and 186.35 sq.mtrs., respectively reflected against each of the said names. The total extent was shown as 379.50 sq.mtrs.
5. On noticing these discrepancies, the petitioner got a notice/representation dated 03.05.2018 issued, calling upon the respondent-KIADB to pay compensation to the entire extent of 10 guntas in Sy.No.1. It was also contended that the petitioner being the owner in occupation of the entire extent of 10 guntas, except 40x50 ft. which was sold to Smt.Shantamma (respondent No.4), no other person was entitled for receiving compensation. Simultaneously, the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.8025/2018 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru against Nagappa and his sons, Rohini and her children, Shantamma, Lakshmi and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB. The prayer in the suit was to declare the plaintiff as owner of the suit schedule properties including Sy.No.1 (measuring 20 guntas), Gramtana No.1 bearing new Khata No.2A measuring 63.51 sq.mtrs. (as per KIADB notification No.R1E-SH.51), Gramtana No.1, Khata No.113/1 measuring 96.61 sq.mtrs. (KIDB No.R1E-5Q) and Gramtana No.1, Khata No.25/1 measuring 160.54 sq.mtrs. (KIDB No.R1E-SH.51) and for injunction.
6. In the meanwhile, the instant writ petition was also filed against the State Government, KIADB and Special Land Acquisition Officer, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent-SLAO to refer the dispute to jurisdictional authority with respect to payment of compensation for acquisition of Sy.No.1/Gramtana No.1. The private respondents at Sl.nos.4 to 9, who were arraigned as parties in the original suit, filed impleading applications seeking to come on record as respondents. The applications having been allowed, the parties were brought on record and all the respondents have filed their statements of objection.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the SLAO is required to refer the dispute regarding title and entitlement of compensation to the jurisdictional Court. It is submitted that Section 30 of the KIAD Act would provide that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will apply in the field not covered by the KIAD Act. It is further contended that the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are also applicable with respect to reference to the jurisdictional Court.
8. Per contra, it is contended by the private respondents that each of the respondents have been notified and compensation has been awarded by the SLAO, based on the title and entries in the Revenue records. It is moreover contended that the petitioner having already filed a suit seeking declaration of title before a competent Civil Court, clandestinely filed the instant writ petition seeking reference to the competent Court, without arraigning the affected parties against whom a suit was already filed. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has filed a memo dated 11.01.2019 stating that she has no objection for disbursement of compensation to the fourth respondent herein with respect to property identified as R1E-51. The fourth respondent has admittedly received the compensation.
9. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned Counsels representing the private respondents is that they were notified since they are the owners of the respective portions of property and they are legally entitled to receive compensation. To substantiate the contention, the respondents have produced copies of the documents of title and Revenue records. It is on the basis of such revenue entries that the SLAO has notified the private respondents. The only dispute that is sought to be raised by the petitioner is that even as per the title deeds of the private respondents, they have acquired properties in Sy.No.4 and not in Sy.No.1. It is therefore the contention of the petitioner that all the lands shown in Sy.No.1/Gramtana No.1 belongs to the petitioner and consequently she is entitled to receive compensation.
10. Having heard the learned Counsels and on perusing the writ papers, this Court finds that the petitioner has been shifting her stand every now and then, be it before the SLAO or before this Court. In the representations made before the SLAO, the petitioner asserts that she is the owner of 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.1 of Benniganahalli. It is also admitted that an extent of 40x50 ft. (2,000 sq.ft.) has been sold by the petitioner’s brother to the fourth respondent herein. By filing a memo dated 11.01.2019, the petitioner has conceded that she has no objection for the SLAO to pay compensation to respondent No.4. The Revenue records and the judgment dated 01.01.1973 in LAC No.298/1971, make it clear that 28 guntas in Sy.No.1 of Benniganahalli was acquired by the Railway Department and compensation was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.4/- per sq. yard. From the records, it is clear that out of 1 acre and 8 guntas in Sy.No.1, which earlier belonged to Smt.Yallamma, 28 guntas have been acquired by the Railway Department. What remains is 10 guntas and the Revenue records evidence this fact.
11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the decisions of this Court in Sri Poojari Peddanna Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1789 and in the case of Yallamma Vs. Shekharappa Reddy reported in LAWS (KAR) 2006 3 5, to contend that it was the bounden duty of the SLAO, under Section 28(2) of KIAD Act, to hold an enquiry for the purpose of collecting the information as to who are all the persons interested in the land. The Division Bench in Yallamma Vs. Shekharappa Reddy has held that in a matter where no prima facie case is made out by the objector or claimant, the case need not be referred to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The documents produced by the petitioner herein before this Court and before the SLAO and the averments made in the notice/representation would clearly evidence the fact that the petitioner is the owner of 10 guntas in Sy.No.1 and not 28 guntas as contended herein. Therefore, even as per the decision of the Division Bench, the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case so that the matter could be referred to the Civil Court under Section 30.
12. Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the contentions of the petitioner are contrary to the records. However, since the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.8025/2018 seeking declaration of title and injunction, this Court refrains from giving any further finding regarding the title. Needless to say that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court shall not venture into deciding disputed questions of facts. The interlocutory application in I.A.No.2/2019, filed by the petitioner seeking to amend the writ petition and permit the petitioner to challenge the acquisition notification, requires to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
13. The respondent-KIADB/SLAO cannot be restrained in disbursing the compensation to the private respondents herein, so long as they fulfill all other requirements. However, during the course of the arguments, the learned Counsels representing the private respondents have admitted and undertaken that if the suit filed by the petitioner herein is allowed and if it is found that the lands in Sy.No.1/Gramtana No.1 as notified by the KIADB belongs to the petitioner herein and not the private respondents herein, the private respondents shall refund the compensation to KIADB/SLAO.
14. The observations made hereinabove shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner herein in the Original Suit before the Civil Court.
15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE JT/-