High Court · 2012

4. Tahasildar Srirangapatna Taluk Mandya District

5. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Rep. by its Secretary No.14/3, II Floor Rastrothanaparishat Building Nrupathunga Road Bangalore – 560 001

6. Special Land Acquisition Officer Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Mysore Division KRS Road, Mysore – 570 016 … Respondents (Shri K.S.Mallikarjunaiah, HCGP for respondents 1 to 4 Shri Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for respondents 5 and 6) ***** These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notification dated 24.11.2006 and the final notification dated 15.5.2007 vide Annexures – O and P issued by respondent No.1 insofar as the petitioners are concerned, etc. These Petitions coming on for Preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:- (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1) ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, as well the learned Government Pleader.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the owner of the land bearing survey No.129/3 of Mogarahalli Village, Belugola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District measuring 1 acre 28 guntas. The second petitioner also claims to be the owner of the land which is in survey No.129/2 of the said village measuring 1 acre 27 guntas. These lands are said to have been converted for non-agricultural purposes. Originally, they formed part of land in survey No.129 (old No.30) of the very same village which measured 5 acres. This was granted land and the grantee was one Madegowda S/o Ningegowda, who had been granted the lands under the Land Grant Rules, 1969, dated 4.9.1974. This was the subject matter of a partition amongst the sons of late Madegowda and in terms of the division, it is claimed that the land in survey No.129 came to be (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1) phoded into 129/1 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas, 129/2 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas and 129/3 mesuring 1 acre 28 guntas, respectively. The petitioners had purchased the land in survey Nos.129/2 and 129/3 from the sons of Madegowda, under two sale deeds dated 16.10.1986. The RTC extracts for the period 1985-86, reflected the names of the petitioners, so also the mutation entries made in their favour and thereafter, the lands had been converted for industrial purposes as aforesaid by a further order dated 23.2.1987 and the petitioners had continued in possession as such. They had obtained sanction of plan for construction of godowns and the same had been let out to third parties. In the meanwhile, the proceedings had been initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District against the petitioners and others under the provisions of the Land Grant Rules alleging that the vendors of the petitioners had violated the terms of grant and ordered cancellation of the grant, as well as the sale deeds made and accordingly, an order had been passed, dated 21.2.2004. The petitioners being aggrieved by the same, had filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1) Tribunal which was ultimately disposed of in Appeal No.520/2004, dated 6.11.2009. The petitioners were further shocked to learn that the acquisition proceedings had also been initiated by the State Government for the benefit of respondent No.5 in respect of the very lands and that a final notification had been issued. It is that, which is under challenge in the present proceedings.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would seek to canvass that the petitioners having purchased the lands from the legal representatives of the grantee and thereafter having converted the same for non-agricultural purposes, have been in continuous possession of the same, notwithstanding cancellation of the grant, as well as the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. The same having been questioned in appeal, immediately thereafter there was an interim order of stay of operation of the cancellation and hence the petitioners are deemed to have continued in lawful possession till the appeals were allowed and orders of cancellation of sale deeds set at (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1) naught. Therefore, the acquisition in the meanwhile having proceeded as if the lands were government lands results in the petitioners being deprived of their property without notice of the acquisition proceedings and that is the primary ground on which the present petitions are filed.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents – Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, on the other hand would point out that immediately after the cancellation of the grant by the concerned, the land was shown in the revenue records as belonging to the State Government and it is only after the appeal that may have been filed by the petitioners was allowed in the year 2009, that the revenue records may have reverted to the name of the petitioners in respect of the land in question as on the relevant date, namely, the date of issuance of the preliminary notification. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board is required to proceed in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act viz. on the basis of the revenue records and the entries made (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1) therein as on the relevant date of the preliminary notification. The revenue record did not indicate the names of the petitioners. Therefore, they were not shown as the kathedars in the notifications. The complaint that they were not shown as the kathedars is hence not justified. As on the relevant date, the purchase made by the petitioners had been set at naught or the issue may have been pending in an appeal. For the purposes of acquisition proceedings, the same was irrelevant and the law is settled that the acquiring authority is not required to conduct a roving enquiry as to the history or nature of holding of the lands in question and it is the records as maintained by the local authority which would be relevant and hence, the petitioners, if they claim as the holders of the lands in question as on date, can at best seek compensation in the acquisition proceedings and that the challenge to the acquisition proceedings on the ground that they have not been notified, in spite of the petitioners being the acknowledged owners of the land, is not the contention that could defeat the acquisition proceedings. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)

5. In the above facts and circumstances, merely, on the ground that there was an order of stay, staying the operation of cancellation of grant and consequently, the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners, would not entitle the petitioners to claim that the acquisition proceedings are bad on account of the petitioners not being shown as the kathedars in the notification relating to the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents - Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, it is the relevant record as on the date of the issuance of the preliminary notification, which would be the basis for naming the kathedars of the lands in question and in the circumstances aforesaid the petitioners’ names not being reflected in the revenue records, was a misfortune of the petitioners and cannot be a ground to set aside the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners, if they are indeed holders and owners of the lands in question, on the date that the possession may be taken by the acquiring authority, they would certainly be entitled to compensation and having regard to the Scheme of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, it is open (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1) for the acquiring authority to even take possession before payment of compensation. The petitioners, however shall not be disentitled to claim such compensation before the competent authority. With the observation that the dismissal of these writ petitions would not prejudice the petitioners, in the petitioners claiming compensation, if indeed they are the legitimate owners of the land in question, the writ petitions stand disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE AHB