Sri. H. Surendra Prabhu v. The Karnataka Housing

Sri Damodara Colony, Vinobanagar, Shimoga. c) Smt. H. Surekha L. Prabhu, Aged about 42 years, Daughter of Late H. Surendra Prabhu, Wife of Lokananda Prabhu, “Saraswathi Nilaya”, 9th Cross, Jagadeesh Nagar, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore – 560 075. d) Sri. H. Sathish Prabhu, Aged about 40 years, Son of Late H.Surendra Prabhu, Resident of No.15, “Maltesha Nilaya”, D.V.G. Road, Mallikarjuna Temple Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004. e) Sri Sharath Chandra Prabhu, Aged about 36 years, Son of Late H.Surendra Prabhu, Resident of No.2318/3, ‘Anugraha’, near Sri Guru Bhuvanendra Park, Sri Damodara Colony, Vinobanagar, Shimoga. …PETITIONERS (By Shri. K. Sridhar, Advocate for Petitioner (a to e) ) 3 AND:

1. The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009, Represented by its Commissioner.

2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009.

3. The Manager [EE], Project Implementation Unit, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri. D. Bore Gowda, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and 3 Shri. H.G.Vasantha Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.2) ****** This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to issue necessary cnoveyance deed for conveying an area measuring 881 Sq. Mtrs. in Sy.No.23/18 ‘K’ Block, Kallahalli Village, Shimoga City, pursuant to the resolution of the Board dated 22.2.07 as per Annexure-C. This Writ Petition is coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following: 4 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner claims as the absolute owner of land in Sy.No.23/18 of Kallahalli Village, Shimoga City. Acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Karnataka Housing Board in the year 1985-86. An extent of 2 acres 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.23/18 was proposed to be acquired and a final notification was also issued. That was challenged in a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.655/1987, which was disposed of recording a compromise between the parties. Under the compromise, the respondent – Housing Board was to acquire the land of the petitioner, which was essential for the formation of roads, drains and other amenities. It is the case of the petitioner that he has got his land converted for non- agricultural purposes in the year 1987 and in terms of the compromise referred to above, certain extent of land was re- conveyed to the petitioner. The petitioner however had filed yet another writ petition and had also initiated contempt 5 proceedings complaining that the respondents had not re- conveyed the entire extent that was agreed to be re-conveyed and a claim was made over land described as ‘K’ Block in Sy.No.23/18 measuring about 881 square metres, which the petitioner claimed, continued to be in his possession and which was required to be re-conveyed and a representation was made in this regard. The concerned Land Acquisition Officer, by a letter dated 3.5.2002, referred to the Housing Board’s resolution dated 22.02.2007 had recorded the fact that the land could be re-conveyed to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.60/- per square foot. It is that which was under challenge in the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.22256/2002. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner had made a further request which the respondent undertook to consider. With that assurance, the petitioner had withdrawn his writ petition as on 12.03.2004 reserving liberty to approach this Court if he was further aggrieved. It is the petitioner’s case that the Tahsildar had issued an endorsement dated 8.11.2002 that 6 the property continued to stand in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, he made a further representation and the respondent initiated proceedings to re-convey the land. An inspection was conducted by the Housing Commissioner of the Karnataka Housing Board dated 7.10.2004. The petitioner had displayed a board on the ‘K’ Block indicating the property as his, which the Commissioner directed the petitioner to remove, till such time the petitioner purchased the property from the Board and survey was conducted and ultimately it was directed to re-convey the area in the ‘K’ block at the rate of Rs.60/- per square feet. The total value was Rs.5,68,980/- and the petitioner had sent demand drafts for Rs.5,70,490/-. The said Demand Drafts were handed over to the respondents in May 2007 and June 2009, respectively. The respondents while holding such amounts, had failed to re-convey the land in his favour. It is in that background that the petition is filed seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to re-convey the land. 7

3. The respondents have filed Statement of objections disputing the correctness of the averments made and it is stated that the respondents had initially acquired an extent of 94 acres of land of Kallahalli village for a housing scheme as per notification dated 5.12.1996 and a final notification was also issued and an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.23/18 belonging to the petitioner was indeed notified for acquisition. That having been challenged in the year 1987 by way of W.P.No.655/1987 and it is also admitted that there was a compromise, whereby the respondent – Board had agreed to release an extent of 4,775 square metres which was to be released in his favour and therefore, a joint memo had been filed in this Court dated

10.12.1993. Pursuant to the order passed, the respondent had re-conveyed an extent of 4,561.44 square metres in Blocks A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I, in favour of the petitioner under a registered deed of conveyance dated 15.09.1999. In the year 2000, the petitioner made one more representation stating that he has developed an extent of 939 square metres in the very 8 survey number and had sold the same to various persons, after forming a private layout and those parties were in possession of the same and had made a request to release the additional extent of 939 square metres by way of re-conveyance. The first respondent – Board had agreed to the proposal to avoid unnecessary complications and re-conveyed 939 square metres in ‘J’ Block of the same survey number under a Deed of Conveyance dated 18.08.2000. The respondents had therefore, conveyed a total extent of 5,500.44 square metres of land to the petitioner as against 4,775 square metres, as undertaken before this Court in W.P.No.655/1987. The respondents were thus left with 2,573.18 square metres of land acquired in Sy.No.23/18 and it has been utilised for parks and roads. Therefore, the respondents contend that the claim of the petitioner for further re-conveyance of 881 square metres of land in ‘K’ Block, is not justified. In any event, the said land is not situated in ‘K’ block and it is also reserved for park and the respondents had paid 9 compensation to the actual owners of the land after having acquired the same.

4. On a careful consideration of the representation of the petitioner for re-conveyance of land in ‘K’ Block, it is found that he was not entitled to any such re-conveyance since the land re-conveyed to him is far in excess of what was undertaken before this Court as per the compromise arrived at and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to any such re- conveyance.

5. In the above circumstances, the petitioner does not seriously dispute the correctness of the statements made in the Statement of objections and therefore, his claim for re- conveyance of land in ‘K’ Block may not survive for consideration. However, the petitioner would be entitled to a refund of the amount that has been deposited by him, which the respondent – Board does not deny. 10 Since the amount has been deposited as early as in May 2007 and June 2009, the respondents shall expedite the refund of the amount though the counsel for the respondents would state that in spite of its efforts to refund the amount, the petitioner has refused to receive the same in view of the pendency of this writ petition. The same may be true, but however, the respondents are directed to refund that amount forthwith, in any event, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petition stands disposed of in terms as above. Sd/- JUDGE KS