SMT. HEMAVATHI M v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

8. The full Bench of this Court in the case of S.M. Kannaiah v. State of Karnataka, [2011 SCC OnLine Kar 49] at para 12 has held as follows: "12. We see no reason to differ from the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of M/s. Hunnikeri Brothers since we are of the opinion that taking over possession is one of the functions in the sequence of the different proceedings in the acquisition process and is consequential and a function which is not in the nature of performing a quasi-judicial function or an action calling for exercise of discretion since by such time all such acts which require deeper application of mind will already - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:14803 WP No. 16361 of 2023 C/W WP No. 264 of 2016 be completed and a decision to acquire the land would already be in place. Therefore, the power available to the Deputy Commissioner/ Assistant Commissioner in charge of a sub- division of a district/ any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government under Section 16(1) of the LA Act cannot be construed to mean that such power should be exercised by his personal presence at the spot or location where the acquired property is situate. It- 7 - NC: 2024:KHC- D:146 WP No. 107862 of 2023 16(1) of the LA Act is exercised by the said persons by initiating the process for taking possession by requiring the subordinate officers including the Revenue Inspector or Surveyor to visit the spot and take possession. If such subordinate officer completes the process of taking possession as per procedure laid down, it cannot be considered as delegation of power in strict sense so as to attack the same as impermissible. Instead, it is an authorization or a direction of the superior Officer to enable the completion of the process by utilizing the services of the subordinate officers who also have sufficient knowledge of the land revenue process. However, on taking possession, the officer empowered under Section 16(1) would have to accept the report of taking possession."

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport, [(2010) 8 SCC 467] has held as follows: "13. The meaning of the word “vesting” has been considered by this Court time and again. In Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union v. Delhi Improvement Trust [AIR 1957 SC 344] this Court held that the meaning of the word “vesting” varies as per the context of the statute in which the property vests. While considering the case under Sections 16 and 17 of the 1894 Act, the Court held as under : (AIR p. 353, para 19) - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:14803 WP No. 16361 of 2023 C/W WP No. 264 of 2016 “19. … the property acquired becomes the property of Government without any conditions or limitations either as to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear that the vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose or limited duration.” (emphasis added)

14. “Encumbrance” actually means the burden caused by an act or omission of man and not that created by nature. It means a burden or charge upon property or a claim or lien on the land. It means a legal liability on property. Thus, it constitutes a burden on the title which diminishes the value of the land. It may be a mortgage or a deed of trust or a lien of an easement. An encumbrance, thus, must be a charge on the property. It must run with the property. (Vide Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri [AIR 1955 SC 298] , H.P. SEB v. ORDER i) The Writ Petitions are allowed. ii) Notifications

15.12.1984

09.04.1985 issued by the then competent authority i.e., Special Deputy Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Bengaluru at Annexure-C and D are hereby quashed. iii) Respondent No.4 is directed to delete the name of the Government in the record of rights pertaining to the subject land, and - 25 - NC: 2024:KHC:14803 WP No. 16361 of 2023 C/W WP No. 264 of 2016 restore deceased Venkatamma in the record of rights within the period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. iv) IA No. 1 of 2020 and IA No. 1 of 2023 does not survive for consideration in view of the disposal of the main matter. Sd/- JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41