IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT APPEAL NO.8736 OF 2012(ULC) BETWEEN 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY UNDER SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUIDLING, BANGALORE 01 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE CITY DISTRICT COURT COMPOUND BANGALORE 560 009 3. THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 01 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI V SREENIDHI, AGA) AND 1. K GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S 1 (A)SMT.JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O K.GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 1(B) SRI.KOTTAGERE KRISHNAPRASAD S/O LATE K GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS (MAJOR) 1(C) SRI.KOTTAGERE RAMAPRASAD S/O LATE K GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS (MAJOR) S/O LATE K GOPINATH 1(D) SMT.K.RASHMI D/O LATE K GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS ALL RESPONDENT R1(A) TO R1(D) ARE R/AT NO 1357, 7TH MAIN ROAD, SRIRAMPURAM BANGALORE - 560021 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD SRIRAMPURAM BANGALORE 560021 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G R VENKATESH MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO R1(D), SRI M S PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.35140/2011(ULC) DATED 21/10/2011.
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The 1st respondent herein filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, declaring that he holds an extent of 16 acres and 10 guntas in Sy.No.9/2 of Laggere village and a residential house bearing door No.55 at Srirampuram, Bengaluru, admeasuring 638.62 square meters. The Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order under Section 9 of the Act, 1976, on 23.02.1981, determining that the 1st respondent is holding 63416.18 square meters of excess urban land, beyond the ceiling limit.
2. The 1st respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, in appeal No.13/1990 and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by order dated 28.08.1991. However, it is contended by the 1st respondent that liberty was granted to file an application for computing the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. W.P.No.407/1994 was filed by the 1st respondent herein and the same came to be dismissed on 03.02.1997. It is an admitted fact that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.407/1994 has attained finality, since the 1st respondent chose not to question the said order of dismissal.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that respondent No.1 made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner on 21.01.2001 seeking restoration of 16 acres and 10 guntas in Sy.No.9/2. Since, no orders were passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the 1st respondent filed W.P.No.51741/2003 seeking a direction to dispose of the representations dated 21.01.2001 and 23.01.2001. The said petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2004, by directing the State Government to pass orders on the representations filed by the 1st respondent herein.
4. The under Secretary to Government Urban Development department passed an order dated 17.06.2009 stating that the Government has decided to handover possession of 4 acres 20 guntas which had remained vacant and unused to the 1st respondent, on the condition that no compensation will be payable for the acquisition of the other extent of land. Thereafter, considering further representations made by the 1st respondent herein, the State Government passed an order dated 03.09.2010 that in addition to 4 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.9/2, which was to be returned to the 1st respondent and in lieu of 11 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.9/2, alternative land in Sy.No.21 of Hosahalli village of Jala Hobli, and Sy.No.46 of Dodda Jala village, Jala Hobli, totaling to 11 acres 30 guntas was directed to be granted to the 1st respondent.
5. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent herein had filed W.P.No.27834/2009 questioning the portion of the Government Order dated 17.06.2009, denying payment of compensation. The said petition was withdrawn on 12.01.2011. However, the 1st respondent filed another writ petition in W.P.No.35140/2011, seeking implementation of the Government Order dated 03.09.2010. By order dated 21.10.2011, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition while directing the State Government to give effect to the Government Order dated 03.09.2010, within a period of three months. It was also directed that if the State Government faces any difficulties in allotting the lands as mentioned in the Government Order dated 03.09.2010, any other suitable land may be granted to the 1st respondent herein.
6. It appears that the 1st respondent filed a contempt petition in CCC No.656/2012. However, the contempt petition is said to have been dropped by order dated 24.08.2012, being satisfied with the submission of the State Government. Thereafter, this writ appeal is filed by the State Government assailing the order dated 21.10.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.35140/2011.
7. Sri. V. Sreenidhi, learned Additional Government Advocate, at the outset, submitted that the 1st respondent herein is guilty of perpetrating fraud on the State and on this Court. During the course of the arguments, it was brought to our notice that the 1st respondent has succeeded in getting a Government Order dated 23.08.2012 issued, during the contempt proceedings and an extent of 11 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.21 of Hosahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, was directed to be granted in favour of the 1st respondent. Following the Government Order the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District proceeded to issue an order dated 25.08.2012 granting an extent of 11 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.21 of Hosahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, in favour of the 1st respondent herein. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent has furnished a copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.21 of Hosahalli village, which shows that an extent of 11 acres 30 guntas have been mutated in the name of the 1st respondent.
8. During the course of the proceedings, the 1st respondent Sri.K.Gopinath passed away and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the appeal itself has been rendered infructuous since, the directions given by the learned Single Judge to consider the representation has since been complied with and alternative land has been granted to the 1st respondent.
9. On going through the order sheets, we find that this Court, on 02.09.2013 has recorded the submissions of the learned Government Advocate that action is sought to be initiated against erring officials who had let down public interest. On 24.09.2013, while condoning the delay of 348 days in filing the writ appeal, this Court has recorded the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the matter has been referred to the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force and the Lokayukta for enquiry and all the original documents have been placed before the authority. On 20.06.2014, this Court has recorded the submission of the learned Government Advocate that efforts are being made to withdraw the Government Orders passed in favour of the 1st respondent. But, nothing further seems to have proceeded in this matter.
10. Prima-facie, on going through the record, we find that the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.407/1994 have attained finality. The submissions of the 1st respondent that the lands in question are agricultural lands and therefore they do not fall under the purview of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, have been considered and rejected in W.P.No.407/1994. The fact that the excess land were notified, possession was taken and subsequently a portion of it was allotted in favour of the 2nd respondent Karnataka Slum Clearance Board, are forthcoming from the records. It is also noticed that award seems to have been passed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that in view of the saving clause in the Repeal Act, the landlord is entitled for restitution of the excess land notified under the Act, cannot be countenanced.
11. However, this Court is of the opinion that since, the State Government has already initiated an enquiry into the matter, the same shall be proceeded with a direction to expeditiously conclude the enquiry, after hearing all parties concerned, including the officials responsible for letting down public interest. At any rate, the enquiry shall be concluded and an action taken report shall be placed on the file of this Court, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The authority conducting the enquiry shall give a finding as to the extent of land which is in the possession of the legal heirs of respondent No.1, including the land said to have been formed into a private layout. If the authority comes to a conclusion that the legal heirs of first respondent are entitled for alternate land, only such extent of land may -10-
be granted and at any rate the legal heirs of first respondent shall not be granted any alternate land beyond what they are legally entitled to. If compensation in accordance with law has not been paid to the extent of land utilized by the State Government, the same shall be paid to the legal heirs of first respondent, in accordance with law.
Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of this order shall be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Urban Development.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE DL/JT