IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL Nos.415-416 OF 2017 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. RENUKAMMA WIFE OF LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, THIPPAGONDANAHALLI POST, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 120.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.S.VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR RAJIV GANDHI HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., 4TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 009.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT No.1 SRI. H G VASANTHA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.2 RESPONDENT No.3 IS SERVED) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITIONS 58675/2014 AND 10203/2015 DATED 09/10/2015.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.58675 of 2014 and 10203 of 2015, by which the petitions were dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. Even though there is delay in filing the appeals, we have heard the appeals on merit.
3. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to restore the remaining land i.e., 27 guntas out of 29 guntas of land in Sy.No. 172/2, 24 guntas and 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.172/3 in favour of the petitioner which is not utilized for the said purpose. The petitioner asserts that the land originally belongs to one Venkatanarasamma, who gifted the properties under gift deed dated 10.08.1967 in favour of her only daughter Narasamma. Narasamma had son by name Narayanappa, who died in the year 1995. The petitioner is wife of Narayanappa and daughter-in-law of Narasamma. The petitioner claims to be the sole legal representative of the family of Narasamma and RTC is effected in the name of the petitioner-Renukamma. The 2nd respondent notified the land for acquisition under preliminary notification dated 31.08.1989 and final notification dated 22.10.1990, Award Notice was issued to the parties on 05.03.1993. More than 6 acres of land of the petitioner were acquired for the purpose of “Housing Scheme”. Out of the acquired land except 29 guntas, other lands have been utilized and 191 houses have been constructed. Since, the respondents have not utilized 29 guntas, which information the petitioner obtained under Right To Information Act and requested for restoration. As the respondents failed to respond and to consider petitioner’s request, the petitioner filed the instant writ petitions seeking for a mandamus to consider her request.
4. The learned Single Judge on hearing both the sides, by order dated 09.10.2015 dismissed the writ petitions holding that once land vest with the State, the land owner would not be entitled for restitution of possession on ground that the land is not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner is in appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Perused the appeal papers.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge committed an error in rejecting the writ petition holding that the petitioner has no right to reclaim the land. It is contended that the learned Single Judge lost sight of the fact that, portion of the land acquired is unutilized and it is always open for restoration to the original owner when it is unutilized. Further it is contended that portion of the acquired land is not being utilized for any public purpose, as such, the petitioner is entitled for seeking restoration of the unutilized land.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State would support the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the land vested with the State and there is no question of restoration of unutilized land. Thus, prays for dismissal of the appeals.
8. The order of the learned Single Judge is neither perverse nor erroneous so as to interfere. The learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed a reasoned order. It is an admitted fact that the land in question was acquired for “Housing Scheme” by the 2nd respondent-Karnataka Housing Board under preliminary notification dated 31.08.1989 and final notification dated 22.10.1990. Award Notice was issued on 05.03.1993 and compensation in respect of the acquired land was received by the husband and mother-in-law of the petitioner. The land on acquisition and on payment of compensation vested with the State Government. Once the land having vested with the State, the question of restoration of land to the petitioner on the ground that the land is not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired would not arise. More so, in the present case more than 6 acres of the petitioner was acquired and out of that petitioner states that only 29 guntas of land was unutilized. Admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioner that possession has not been taken. Respondent-State having taken possession and the petitioner having received compensation, the acquired land vest with the Government free from all encumbrances. Hence, the petitioner would have no right to seek restoration of land. We are of the view that the petitioner/appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeals, I.A.No.1/2017 for condonation of delay stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SMJ