IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL WRIT PETITION No.21601 OF 2014 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN:
1. R.Raghu, Aged 41 years, S/o.Rajanna Avadhani, Trustee, Vyakti Vikasa Kendra, No.19, 39th Cross, 11th Main, 4th ‘T’ Block, Bangalore – 560 041, Rep. by its Spl. P.A.Holder Sri C.K.Ramaprasad S/o.C.K.Anantha Krishnaiah, Aged 40 years.
2. Smt.Gangu Belliappa, W/o.M.P.Belliappa, Aged about 69 years, Residing at Alanahalli Village, Mysore Taluk, Mysore – 570 023, Represented by GPA Holder Sri B.Mahesh, S/o.Late B.Basappa, Aged about 57 years, Residing at Door No.L-108, I Stage, Kuvempu Nagar, Mysore – 570 023. .. Petitioners (By Sri M.S.Bhagwath, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Dept.of Urban Development, Vikasa Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001, Represented by its Secretary.
2. Mysore Urban Development Authority, Jhansi Rani Lakshmi Bai Road, Mysore – 570 005, Rep. by its Commissioner.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore Urban Development Authority, Jhansi Rani Lakshmi Bai Road, Mysore – 570 005, Rep. by its Commissioner. .. Respondents (By Sri Vijaya Kumar A.Patil, AGA for R1: Sri T.P.Vivekananda, Advocate for R2 and R3) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the proposed acquisition proceedings initiated by virtue of preliminary notification dated 15.7.1997 vide Annexure-B and final notification dated 22.7.2006 vide Annexure-C issued by the R3 and R1 respectively are lapsed and defeated the object of the acquisition proceedings and also illegal in so far as the schedule land is concerned and to quash the impugned notification/proceedings dated 12.8.2010 issued by the R3 as unconstitutional and illegal and also declare the same as inoperative in Sl.No.1 of Annexure-E in so far as the petitioner schedule land is concerned and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner No.1 claims to be owner of 5 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.41/P6 (Old No.41) situated at Halanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District. He has filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that acquisition proceedings initiated as per preliminary notification, dated 15.07.1997 and final notification, dated 22.07.2005 (Annexures B and C respectively), have lapsed in so far as the land in question.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that grievance made by the first petitioner and the questions raised by him have been fully covered by the judgment rendered by this Court on 22nd March 2017 in W.P.Nos.18353-18357/2014 C/w. W.P.Nos.12231-12237/ 2014. Indeed, this aspect of the matter is not disputed by the counsel for respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes available a copy of the order passed in the said case.
3. I have perused the said order. The facts involved in the said case and the facts involved in the present case are similar in as much as the purpose of acquisition, the notification issued, both preliminary and final are the same. Except that the lands involved in this case belongs to the present petitioner, rest of the circumstances are similar in both the cases. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners is right and justified in contending that the first petitioner is entitled for similar relief in this writ petition also.
4. In the connected matter, this Court has passed a very detailed order. It has adverted to the facts involved whereunder preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 was issued on 15.07.1997 proposing to acquire 184 acres 28 guntas of land; however, Government sanctioned the project only for 83 acres 20 guntas and final notification was issued under Section 19(1) of the said Act for 74 acres 20 guntas. Out of the same, 65 acres 13 guntas of land were admittedly Government land and only 8 acres 37 guntas of land belonged to private individuals. It is an admitted fact that possession of the Government land measuring 65 acres 13 guntas was not handed-over to the MUDA. Therefore, no layout was formed. Thus, taking note of these facts this Court has held in paragraph 18 as under:
“18. From the date of acquisition of the land by issuing final declaration dated 22.07.2005, 11 years have lapsed. It is thus apparent that though the scheme had been formed for developing the lands into a residential layout, the MUDA has not been able to take over possession of the land and commence work regarding formation of layout, although preliminary notification was issued in the year 1997. There is an enormous delay of 8 years in issuing the final notification from the date preliminary notification was published. There is absolutely no explanation for such long and inordinate delay in issuing the final notification. There is also absolutely no justification for the delay that has been caused thereafter in taking up the work of formation of layout. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SHIMOGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA – ILR 2002 KAR 2078, final declaration under Section 19(1) has to be issued within a reasonable time and any inordinate delay in issuing the final notification would be unjust to the land owners and in such circumstances, the final declaration would stand vitiated. In the said decision, the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 17, by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of RAM CHAND & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – (1994) 1 SCC 44, has held that where payment of compensation has been pegged down to the date of preliminary notification and there is inordinate delay, the market value as on the date of the preliminary notification becomes a fraction of the market value prevailing at the time of passing of the award and taking of possession which would be unjust to the land owners. Even in that case, the Urban Development Authority, Shimoga had failed to explain the inordinate delay and there was absolutely no reason forthcoming for the delay of more than 3 years, and therefore, the final declaration issued was held invalid. Again, in
authority cannot take a plea that although it has not performed its duty within a reasonable time, it was of no consequence because the person who had been deprived of his right did not approach the Court within a reasonable period. The Apex Court in the said judgment has clearly laid down that powers conferred by act of Parliament must, as a general rule, be exercised within a reasonable time, otherwise the exercise of power gets vitiated. It has been also laid down that reasonable exercise of power includes exercise of power within a reasonable period.”
5. Subsequently, in paragraphs 20 to 23 of the said order, this Court has concluded as under:
“20. The question of locus standi in the present case will not arise for the simple reason that petitioner No.1 has already purchased a portion of the land in the year 1982 and has entered into an agreement of sale coupled with execution of General Power of Attorney in his favour way back on 17.12.1995. Based on the Agreement of Sale and the General Power of Attorney and as also the Sale Deed, he has put up construction of the Hospital and a Research Centre known as ‘Indus Valley Ayurvedic Centre’. Therefore, it is not as if petitioners have clandestinely taken up the venture of establishing the Hospital after the issuance of preliminary notification. At any rate, all the owners of the land have joined the petitioners in filing this writ petition. This is not a case where interest in the land has been acquired by the petitioners after the issuance of preliminary notification and therefore, petitioners have to resign to their fate. At any rate, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Nagubai’s case supra, such question regarding locus standi will not arise where the subsequent purchaser has approached the Court contending that due to inordinate delay in completing the acquisition proceedings, the acquisition stood lapsed.
21. It has to be noticed in this case that several lands situated in the vicinity of the land belonging to petitioners have been excluded from acquisition. It is specifically contended by the petitioners that in the layout plan, the land of the petitioners has not been included and that it has been included in the notification only to treat it as land bank. In fact, this approach of the acquiring body to treat the land as a land bank has been deprecated and found fault with by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 28.10.2015 passed in W.A.Nos.5752-56/2012 c/w. 6828- 32/2012. Indeed, the said judgment also becomes relevant and applicable in the context of the facts on hand because even in the facts of the said case, the planning authority did not show any intention of implementing the scheme by utilizing the lands acquired and it had resorted to acquisition only to create them as land bank. The Division Bench has opined that the development authorities were not created for the purpose of acquiring the land to treat them as land bank; if that were to be permitted, then any development authority could misuse the land acquisition proceedings by notifying and acquiring large extent of land which may run into several hundred acres for future development after decades for which it had to deposit the amount after several years.
22. In the facts of the present case also, not even a single acre of land has been utilized for formation of the layout though nearly 20 years have lapsed since the date of preliminary notification. There is absolutely no intention on the part of the acquiring body to utilize the land for formation of the layout. Major chunk of the land though belonged to the Government, in an extent of nearly 65 acres has not been handed over to the authority. Lands belonging to other private individuals have been excluded from the acquisition. Except about 5 acres 20 guntas all other private lands have been excluded. Therefore, effectively this is the only piece of land belonging to the petitioners for which the MUDA has come up with objections to the challenge laid, on the ground that petitioners have no locus standi and that the scheme has not lapsed. MUDA has kept quiet for two decades without implementing the scheme in any manner to any extent.
23. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is absolutely no reason why the MUDA shall be permitted to take up such unreasonable contention when it has failed to discharge its statutory duty of formation of layout even after lapse of 11 years from the date of issuances of final notification. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to deny the relief sought for by the petitioners. Petitioners are entitled to succeed. Even from the date of pre-notification dated 15.7.1997 there is delay of 7 years till the publication of final notification on 22.7.2005. This unreasonable and unexplained delay also vitiates the acquisition as held by the Apex Court in the case of RAM CHAND & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – (1994) 1 SCC 44.”
6. As already observed above, the facts involved in this case are similar to the facts involved in the connected matter disposed of on 22nd March 2017. Hence, the first petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for by him. Therefore, following the judgment rendered by this Court on 22nd March 2017 in W.P.Nos.18353-357/2014 and the connected cases and for the reasons stated therein, this writ petition is also allowed. The impugned acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question is declared as lapsed.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-