IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.15567/2009(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN SRI.G.C.RAMAIAH S/O LATE PALYADHA CHIKKANNA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES P1(a) SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE G.R.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK P1(b) SMT.BHAGYAMMA W/O SHRI VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC : AGRICULTURE P1(c) SHRI G.R.NAGARAJA S/O LATE G.C.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC : AGRICULTURE P1(d) SHRI G.R.CHIKKEGOWDA S/O LATE G.C.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC : AGRICULTURE ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ARAHALLI GUDDADAHALLI KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 1(e) SMT.R.SUJATHA W/O S.V.BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC : AGRICULTURE NEHRU NAGAR POST OFFICE ROAD YELAHANKA OLD TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR P1(a to e)) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE 3. THE TAHASILDHAR DODDABALLAPUR TQ. DODDABALLAPUR 4. SRI.MUNIYAPPA REDDY S/O VENKATAPPA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES R4(a) RAMAREDDY S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.196, PARVATHINAGAR, ATTIBELE VILLAGE & POST, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. R4(b) SRINIVAS.A.M, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS O.D.R.BUILDINGS R/AT PARVATHI NAGAR ATTIBELE, BENGALURU -562 107 R4(c) SMT.LAKSHMI W/O RAJU D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT KUNDALAHALLI GATE MARATHALLI (POST) BENGALURU R4(d) SMT.RUKMANI W/O VISHWANATH D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT CHIKKA BEGUR (VILLAGE) SUBHASHNAGAR DODDA BEGUR (POST) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATACHALAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R4(a & b) NOTICE TO R4(c) AND (d) IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 04.12.2017) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 18.5.2009 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN REVISION PETITION NO.131/2005-06 VIDE ANNEXURE-M.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Counsel for the petitioners files a memo along with three documents. First of the documents is in bringing to the notice of this Court that the subject matter of this writ petition which is land bearing Sy.No.45/2 measuring to an extent of 2 acres 52 guntas situated at Hobadenahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, is under acquisition by KIADB vide notice bearing No.KIADB/Bengaluru/Vi.Bhu.Swa.aa – 2/437/2010-11, dated 26.5.2010 issued under Section 28(6) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, where the name of the 4th respondent – Muniyappa Reddy is shown as kathedar and that of 4th respondent’s son G.R.Nagaraj as well as 4th respondent’s name is shown in the column mentioned for the persons in possession of the property. The second document is copy of notice in LAC.No.53/2013 on the file of Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Doddaballapur wherein the claimants are shown as Muniyappa Reddy and Others and respondent is the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The third document is order sheet in OS.No.32/1959-60 of 196-196 on the file of Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bengaluru, to indicate right of the petitioners’ vendor to the property in question.
2. With this, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the matter is now pending before the LAC Court where the compensation which is granted for acquisition of land in question is deposited, liberty may be reserved to the parties to agitate their right with reference to the title to the property in the said proceedings and secure necessary orders from the said Court for receiving compensation amount based on the title to the property to each one of them to the extent in their possession and ownership, for which the learned counsel for 4th respondent has no objection.
3. Accordingly, by placing the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to them to agitate their right in the LAC proceedings. In the said proceedings, the Civil Court shall decide title of both the parties independently based on the material available on record without being influenced by the orders passed by the revenue authorities in earlier proceedings.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-