IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.Nos.8550–8551 & 8552–8553/2016 (LA–KHB) BETWEEN :
1 . SRI MOHAMMED YOUSUF S/O MULOOR UMARABBA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O ARAFA, NEAR JAMMA MASJID UCCHILA, MULOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576101 2 . NAFEESA UMMAR BAIRY SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS SRI MOHAMMED YOUSUF S/O MULOOR UMARABBA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O ARAFA, NEAR JAMMA MASJID UCCHILA, MULOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576101 BOTH ARE REP BY GPA HOLDER ABDUL MUNAF S/O KHADAR BERY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.R.HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADV.) AND :
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, BANGALORE-560001 2 . SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT LAND ACQUISITION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 3 . SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANDESH KUMAR M., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI RAGHAVENDRA A. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION AS PER UNDER SECTION 4(1) & L.A. ACT AS PER ANNEXURE-H DATED 21.11.2007 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 6(1) UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, VIDE ANNEXURE-J DATED 29.08.2009, IN RESPECT TO SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ARE LAPSED, IN VIEW OF SECTION 24(2) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSFERENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RE-SETTLEMENT ACT, 2013.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners have assailed the Preliminary Notification dated 21.11.2007 issued under Section 4(1) and Final Notification dated 29.8.2009 issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act’ for short) in respect of the properties in question.
2. The petitioner No.1 claims to be the absolute owner of the property in question bearing Sy.No.16/4 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas, Sy.No.16/3 measuring 3 acres 40 cents, Sy.No.10/6A measuring 3 acres and Sy.No.70/4B2 measuring 2 acres of land in Korangarapadi village, whereas the petitioner No.2 claims to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.16/3 measuring 25 cents, Sy.No.16/3 measuring 50 cents and Sy.No.10/6A measuring 1 acre 69 cents of Korangarapadi village having purchased the same from their vendors on 2.4.2008. It is submitted that the petitioners being oblivious of the Notification dated 21.11.2007 issued under Section 4 of the Act had purchased the subject properties for a sale consideration and are put in possession of the same subsequent to which their names have appeared in the revenue records. It is contended that neither any award is passed nor possession of the property has been taken by the respondents. Hence, the acquisition of the subject properties itself is lapsed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per Annexures-R6 and R7 to the statement of objections filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 before this Court, the award has been passed against a dead person viz., Smt.Manorama S. Acharya who died on 23.01.2010 which alone is suffice to hold that no possession of the subject properties has been taken by the respondent authorities from the original owner. If any award is passed against a dead person, it is nullity in the eye of law. It is submitted that the photographs placed on record evinces that there is no development on the land in question. The revenue records indeed disclose the names of the petitioners which would demonstrate that no possession of the subject lands has been taken by the petitioners herein.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 inviting the attention of this Court to the order passed in W.P.No.44015/2011 (D.D.1.8.2013) submitted that in identical circumstances, the petitioner therein, had challenged the acquisition proceedings and the same came to be dismissed. Further, the Writ Appeal No.5626/2013 preferred by the petitioner therein was withdrawn. Learned counsel further submitted that indisputably the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser, as such, has no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Reliance is placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Poornaprajna House Building Co- operative Society Vs. Bailamma @ Dodda Bailamma & others reported in ILR 1998 KAR 1441.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are the subsequent purchasers of the lands in question. The Preliminary Notification was issued on 21.11.2007 under Section 4 of the Act, whereas the petitioners have purchased the said property on 2.4.2008 from their vendors. Final Notification was issued on 29.8.2009. Award is said to have been passed on 31.8.2010 and possession is taken on 11.10.2013 by the respondent Nos.1 and 3. Notification under Section 16(2) was passed on 5.11.2013. Annexures R-13 to R-19 depicts that the revenue entries are made in the name of Karnataka Housing Board. In terms of Annexure R-25 dated 22.7.2013, award amount is said to have been deposited before the Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, in Case No.4/2011-12. The documents placed by the respondents clearly indicate the action taken by the respondent Authorities in furtherance of the acquisition Notifications impugned herein.
7. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Poornaprajna supra, has categorically held that subsequent purchasers do not get any right and consequently has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. In the light of the said judgment, the challenge made to the Notification impugned by the petitioners-subsequent purchasers cannot be entertained and deserves to be rejected. This view is further fortified by the Cognate Bench ruling of this Court in W.P.No.44015/2011 dated 1.8.2013 wherein, relating to the very same Notifications, inasmuch as, challenge made by the subsequent purchaser, the writ petition has been rejected on the ground that no acquisition Notifications could be challenged by the subsequent purchaser.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions deserve to be rejected and are accordingly rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: