R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS.59529-539/2015 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN 1. Sri. H.T.Jayaramaiah S/o. Thammannappa Aged about 70 years, 2. Sri. H.P.Narayanaswamy S/o. Puttegowda, Aged about 50 years, 3. Sri. H.M.Krishnamurthy S/o. H.N.Munishamappa, Aged about 62 years, 4. Sri. Govindappa S/o. Thimmannappa, Aged about 60 years, 5. Sri. Srinivasamurthy S/o. Thammannagowda, Aged about 63 years, 6. Dr. Vijayakumar S/o. Gopalkrishna, Aged about 45 years, 7. Sri. H.P.Shanmukachari S/o H.R.Puttashamachar, Aged about 60 years, 8. Smt. Lalithamma W/o. Mutthachar, Aged about 65 years, 9. Sri. Vishwanathachar S/o. Ramachandrachar, Aged about 68 years, 10. Sri. H.R.Puttashamachar S/o. H.R.Ramachandrachar, Aged about 70 years, 11. Smt. Vijayakumari W/o H.R.Rajagopal, Aged about 55 years, All are Residing at Majara Hosahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
(By Sri Ashok Harnahalli, Senior Adv. for Sri. M. Shivaprakash, Advocate) AND 1. The Chief Secretary State of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Principal Secretary Department Of Industries And Commerce, State of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001.
... Petitioners 3. The Executive Member Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Khanija Bhavan, 5th floor, Bengaluru - 560 001.
5. Shrishma Fine Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Karnataka Ltd., R/o. at plot No.30, Industrial Area, Veerapura Post, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District – 561 203.
(Cause Title amended vide order dated 5.12.2018) ... Respondents (By Sri.Dildar shiralli, HCGP for R1 & R2 Sri. Ashok N. Nayak, Adv. for R3 & R4 Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, Senior Adv. for Sri. Nataraj Ballal, Adv. for R5) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records in respect of notification vide Annexure-F dated 26.03.1988 /05.05.1988 in respect of schedule lands situated in Majara Hosahalli Village, Doddaballapur Taluk; quash the proceedings initiate for acquisition vide notification dated 26.03.1988 and 05.05.1988 at Annexure-F by R-2 and all pursuant proceedings in respect of schedule lands and to declare that the notification issued be lapsed on account of non implementing the scheme and further to declare that the notification is invalid, since the possession continued with the petitioners same is protected under Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and etc., These writ petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners claiming to be the grantees of the Government lands in question are knocking at the doors of this Writ Court for quashment of the acquisition thereof on various grounds.
2. After service of notice the respondents 2 & 3 have entered appearance through the learned HCGP Shri Dildar Shiralli; the 3rd respondent-KIADB and 4th respondent-LAO have entered appearance through their panel counsel Shri Ashok N.Nayak; the 5th respondent-Company which claims to be in the possession of the land is represented by Shri Natraj Ballal. The KIADB and the 5th respondent have filed their independent Statements of Objections resisting the petitions.
3. Learned Sr. Advocate Shri Ashok Harnahalli appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner on record assails the acquisition on following grounds:
(a) the petitioners are all poor and small land holders and these small holdings are the only means of their livelihood and therefore taking away the lands amounts to taking away their means of livelihood and consequently the acquisition is bad;
(b) though the preliminary and final notifications were issued way back in the year 1988, the possession of the lands has been with the petitioners who having taken up the avocation of agriculture after the grant, have developed the same into garden lands and therefore acquisition of such lands ordinarily should be avoided;
(c ) the acquisition of the lands having been made decades ago for the purpose of developing industry, nothing has been done in the said lands till date and thus the very purpose having been defeated, the lands should revert to the petitioners who are in possession/cultivation; and (d) no compensation having been paid for the lands acquired and no possession having been taken, the acquisition is liable to be set at naught on principles akin to Sec.24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transperency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, regardless of its direct applicability.
4. Learned Sr. Advocate Shri P.S.Rajagopal appearing for the learned counsel on record for 5th respondent-Firm and learned Sr. Panel Counsel Shri Ashok.N.Nayak resist the writ petitions on the following grounds:
(a) admittedly, acquisition is of the year 1988 and petitioners have approached the Court decades thereafter and therefore the petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches;
(b) the subject acquisition was made with consent; compensation has been paid to the khatedars and possession having been taken from the land owners was delivered to the KIADB which in turn has delivered to the original allottee from whom the 5th respondent-Firm has derived the title and possession under the Order of the Company Court; and (c ) the petitions are liable to be dismissed on the grounds of false averments as to non-payment of compensation and non- taking of possession when abundant material loaded to the case prima facie show the contrary; granting relief to the litigants who have approached the Court with soiled hands amounts to placing premium on illegality.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the petition papers and the objections. In my considered view the petitioners are liable to be non-suited for the following reasons:
(i) admittedly, the land belonged to the Government and petitioners are their predecessors in interest were the grantees vide Grant Certificates at Annexure- A series and the R.T.C. at Annexure-B series; however, such grants have fed the title to the grantees who have signified their consent for the acquisition by affixing their signatures on the possession certificates at Annexures-R-1 to R-25 to the Statement of Objections filed by the respondent-KIADB way back in the year 1988-1989. These certificates contain all the material particulars of the land, name of the khatedar and the amount of compensation. Thus the acquisition is by consent as distinguished from a compulsory purchase. These documents prima facie show that the khatedars have parted with possession of the lands after consensual acquisition;
(ii) the respondent 3- KIADB and respondent 4- LAO have filed copies of receipts of payment of compensation, the indemnity bonds and the agreements u/s.29(2) of K.I.A.D. Act, 1966. To all these documents the khatedars are the signatories and to the agreements the Governor of Karnataka is a party. These documents are decades old and there is no reason to doubt their authenticity merely because the petitioners now dispute them. All these documents again show that the acquisition was with consent; the compensation has already been received by the khatedars and possession has been parted with by the land owners decades ago;
(iii) the contention of the petitioners that the acquisition having been consented to by the land owners for the purpose of establishment of industry, the acquisition is liable to be set at naught, no such industry having been established, does not impress the Court inasmuch as there is no term in any one of the agreements or the indemnity bonds whereunder reversion of land is spoken of. Ordinarily, the acquiring body or the beneficiary of the acquisition gets absolute title to the lands after acquisition and no shades of right or retained by the khatedars to press their claim for reversion of the lands acquired;
(iv) the contention of the petitioners that these lands are the only means of their livelihood and taking away the lands virtually amounts to taking away the said means, is too far fetched an argument especially when the acquisition was by agreement u/s.29(2) of the K.I.A.D. Act and compensation therefor has already been received by the khatedars that too against indemnity bonds; and (v) the version of the petitioners that they have been continuing in the possession of the lands despite the alleged acquisition is legally inadmissible inasmuch as the Company Court vide Order dated 23.06.2015 in Co.P. No.55/1997 and other connected matters wherein the respondent-KIADB had filed C.A.No.497/2013, has approved the Scheme of Arrangement whereunder the 5th respondent-Firm Shrishma Fine Chemicals being a party to the proceedings has stood in the stead of original allottee M/s. Swamy Construction Company which was ordered to be wound up. This order of the Company Court being almost in the nature of an Order in rem vide decision of the Apex Court in the case of BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC., vs. SBI HOME FINANCE LTD., (2011) 5 SCC 532 at paragraph 41, binds the petitioners too regardless of they being parties or not, eo nominee, to the said order. The substratum of the said order inter alia being the possession and ownership of the lands being with the original allottee company and now with the 5th respondent- Firm, binds them as well.
6. The case of the petitioners that the acquisition was not by consent, no compensation has been paid and even today the land is in their possession, does not generate confidence when a wealth of material placed on record by the side of respondents, probabalizes a case to the contrary. In fact, the stand of the petitioners apart from being untrue is unconscionable too. They have not approached the Court with clean hands, clean head and clean heart. Therefore, no relief can be granted to such unscrupulous litigants in equitable jurisdiction by the Writ Court.
7. In the above circumstances, these petitions fail and all interim orders made therein stand dissolved.
No costs.
sd/- JUDGE DS