IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT APPEAL NOS.754-756 OF 2015 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI T.N. CHANNANANJAPPA ALIAS CHANNANJAIAH SON OF LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2. SRI T.N. PRAKASHAIAH SON OF LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
3. SRI T.G. PARAMESHAIAH SON OF LATE GURUSIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
4. SRI T.G. KUMARASWAMY SON OF LATE GURUSIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
5. SRI T.S. MARIYANNA SON OF LATE SIDDANANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
6. SRI T.S. GURULINGAIAH SON OF LATE SIDDANANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF THYAGATUR VILLAGE NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572223.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572 105.
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU-572 105.
4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GUBBI TALUK, GUBBI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 223.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2015 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.90-92 OF 2015 (LA-RES) AND ETC.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 20-1-2015 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition Nos.90-92 of 2015, the petitioners are in the appeal.
2. The case of the petitioners is that their lands were sought to be acquired in terms of the preliminary Notification issued in the year 1984 and the final Notification in the year 1986 under the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972. The acquisition was challenged by them in writ petition Nos.90-92 of 2015. By the order dated 20-1-2015, the petitions were dismissed. Thereafter, the instant petitions were filed on the ground that the acquisition has lapsed as no award was passed within two years as contemplated under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act and for consequential reliefs. The learned Single Judge came to the view that the petition is hit by the principles of constructive res judicata under Explanation IV to Section 11 of C.PC. Hence, the petitions were dismissed.
Assailing the same, the instant appeals are filed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the principle of constructive res judicata relied upon By the learned Single Judge is alien to the case. That the question of constructive res judicata does not arise. That the grounds urged in the subsequent writ petitions are quite different than that urged earlier. The same is disputed by the learned Government Advocate.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for. The grounds urged in the instant petitions were that the award has not been passed within the stipulated period. The said ground was not available to the petitioners as on the date they filed the earlier writ petitions. Earlier the writ petitions were only on the grounds of merits of the acquisition. The instant grounds of delay in passing the award could not have been taken by them in the earlier petitions. It is only by efflux of time that the appellants got the right to challenge the same on the ground of delay in passing the award. Therefore, the applicability of the principles of res judicta would not stand in the instant case. The plea of the petitioners as to whether the award has been passed belatedly or not is a question that requires determination by the learned Single Judge.
For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeals are allowed.
1) The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20-1-2015 in Writ Petition Nos. 90-92 of 2015 is set aside.
2) The writ petitions are restored to file.
In view of the long lapse of time, the learned Single Judge is requested to dispose off these matters as expeditiously as possible.
Pending I.As stand rejected.
Till the disposal of the writ petitions, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to possession.
The learned counsel for the respondents have not filed statement of objections. The respondents are permitted to file statement of objections.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Rsk/-