IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL Nos.3863-3865 OF 2012(LA-RES) AND WRIT APPEAL Nos.5085-5087 OF 2012 AND WRIT APPEAL No. 5088 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
1. SRI THAMMANNAIAH SON OF LATE D SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT CHANDRAMOULESHWARA TEMPLE, SIDDALINGAPURA, MYSURU-570 003.
2. SRI BOREGOWDA SON OF GAVISIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NAGANAHALLI NEW EXTENSION, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-570 008.
3. SMT LATHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NAGANAHALLI NEW EXTENSION KASABA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK-570 008.
4. SMT BHAGYA WIFE OF RAVI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NAGANAHALLI NEW EXTENSION KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK-570 008.
….APPELLANTS (BY SRI. T N RAGHUPATHY, ADVOCATE AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR HOUSES SITES, MYSORE DISTTRICT MYSURU.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE SUB DIVISION MYSURU.
4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MYSORE SUB DIVISION MYSURU.
5. SRI VIJAYENDRA SON OF LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 6. SRI RAJENDRA SON OF LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENTS No.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT NAGANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK -570 008.
7. SRI N D KRISHNA SON OF DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NAGANAHALLI NEW EXTENSION KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK-570 008.
8. SMT N D SRIMATHI WIFE OF SRI RAVI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NAGANAHALLI NEW EXTENSION KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK-570 008.
9. SMT CHANNAMMA WIFE OF KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NAGANAHALLI NEW EXTENSION KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK-570 008.
….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3 SRI. B J SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 SRI. MANMOHAN P N, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT 5 AND R-6 R-7 AND R-9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.06.2013, NOTICE TO R-8 IS DISPENSED WITH) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION Nos.6431-6437 OF 2010 (LA-RES) DATED 22.05.2012.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 22.05.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.6431 to 6437 of 2010 in dismissing the writ petitions, the writ petitioners have filed these appeals.
2. The case of the writ petitioners is as follows :
They claim to be the allottees of the site formed by the State Government in Sy.Nos.530, 531 and 534/1, 534/2 of Naganahalli Village, Mysuru Taluk. The allotted sites measure about 20 x 30 ft. each. The said survey numbers were the subject matter of acquisition by virtue of the preliminary notification dated 3.9.1981 and the final notification dated 7.3.1983. Acquisitions were questioned by the land owners namely respondent Nos.5 and 6 in W.P.No.24045 of 2000. The writ petition was allowed on 11.07.2002. The acquisition notifications were quashed. Thereafter, the land owners filed O.S.No.120 of 2003 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mysuru. The instant writ petitioners were made as defendants to the said suit. It is only after receiving notice in the said suit, that the writ petitioners came to know regarding the proceedings that have taken place. Thereafter they filed the instant writ petitions seeking to review the order dated 11.07.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24045 of 2000. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that there is a delay of eight years in filing the writ petitions. However, it was held that since the petitioners are subsequent allottees of the sites, it is open for them to file an application for allotment of alternative sites before the State Government. Aggrieved by the said order, the Writ Petition have filed the instant appeals.
3. Sri.T.N.Raghupathy, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. That the question of delay cannot be held against the petitioners/appellants. That there is an infringement of the legal rights of the appellants.
That, undisputedly the appellants are holders of the sites in question. They have been allotted sites by the concerned authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are either trespassers or they do not have any right, title or interest over the land in question. That they are required to be heard before the learned Single Judge to consider the petition on acquisition.
4. The same is disputed by Sri.P.N.Manmohan P.N. learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6. He contends that there is a delay of eight years in filing the petitions. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petitions on that ground. That, so far as the merits is concerned, a suit in O.S.No.120 of 2003 has been filed seeking possession. Therefore, much water has flown after the order was passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24045 of 2000. He further pleads that the alleged allotments made in favour of the petitioners are bogus and that the authorities who have granted them had no authority to do so.
5. Heard learned counsels.
6. The undisputed facts are that the lands involved were acquired by the State Government. Sites were formed and allotted to the writ petitioners. They have been in existence in the constructed houses ever since the year 1991. Much after a lapse of almost 17 years, the land owners challenged the acquisition. The first writ petition (W.P.No.24045 of 2000) was filed challenging the acquisition. The writ petition was allowed and the acquisition proceedings were set aside. We do not find any material on record to indicate that in the said writ petition, any reference was made to the writ petitioners herein. The material on record would indicate that subsequent to the issuance of the final notification in the year 1983, lands were developed and allotted to the petitioners. Therefore, even as on date the writ petition was filed, the writ petitioners herein were already in possession of not only the sites but also the constructed houses. Therefore, necessarily they should have been heard before the acquisition proceedings were considered by the learned Single Judge. Apparently they were not made as parties either deliberately or otherwise.
7. We have considered the plaint which has been produced herewith. There is no reference in the plaint averments as to when the writ petitioners herein entered into the properties in question. There is no reference as to how and in what manner the plaintiffs viz. the respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein came to know of the defendants. Therefore, all these matters are doubtful in nature. Be that as it may, it is suffice for us to hold that the legal rights of the petitioners have been affected by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24045 of 2000 on 11.7.2002. Without hearing the petitioners, the said order could not have been passed. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitions require to be allowed.
8. So far the delay in filing the instant writ petitions is concerned, we are of the view that sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay. It cannot be said that the delay occasioned is of a huge magnitude that would dilute the right of the petitioners to challenge the orders that have been passed against them. Even otherwise, the order passed in the writ petitions is a void order. We are also obvious of the fact that the earlier writ petition was filed after a lapse of 17 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners herein alone could be accused of the delay and not the respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein.
9. Under these circumstances, we keep open all the questions for determination by the learned Single Judge including the question with regard to the validity of the allotment of sites to the writ petitioners.
10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.5.2012 passed in W.P.Nos.6431 to 6437 of 2010 is set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.07.2002 passed in W.P.No.24045 of 2000 is reviewed, recalled and restored to file. All further proceedings, if any, subsequent to the order dated 11.7.2002 passed in W.P.No.24045 of 2000 are hereby set aside.
The appellants are directed to be impleaded as respondents 4 to 7 before the Learned Single Judge. Both the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the land in question till the disposal of the writ petition.
In view of the long pendency of the matter, the learned Single Judge is requested to decide these matters as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE rs