Writ Petition No. 20257 of 2021 · Karnataka High Court · 2024

7. SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA, S/O PUTTANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AT SY.NOS 108 AND 109, VIJAYANAGARA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001.

8. SRI. BASAVANNA, S/O PUTTANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AT SY.NOS 108 AND 109, VIJAYANAGARA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021

9. SRI. SHIVANNA, S/O LATE PATEL KULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AT SY.NOS 108 AND 109, VIJAYANAGARA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001.

10. SRI. SOMASHEKAR, S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AT SY.NOS 108 AND 109, VIJAYANAGARA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001.

11. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AT SY.NOS 108 AND 109, VIJAYANAGARA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001.

12. SRI. SHANTH KUMAR, S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AT SY.NOS 108 AND 109, VIJAYANAGARA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001.

13. SMT. PUTTANANJAMMA, W/O LATE L.T. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021 AT SY.NOS 108 AND 109, VIJAYANAGARA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001.

14. SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O LATE SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AT SY.NOS 108 AND 109, VIJAYANAGARA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001.

15. SRI. ALLAAMAPRABHU, S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AT SY.NOS 108 AND 109, VIJAYANAGARA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001.

16. SMT. KAVITHA, D/O LATE SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AT SY.NOS 108 AND 109, VIJAYANAGARA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001.

17. SRI. MAHENDRA, S/O LATE SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AT SY.NOS 108 AND 109, VIJAYANAGARA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021

18. SMT. KAVITHA, D/O LATE SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AT SY.NOS 108 AND 109, VIJAYANAGARA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001.

19. SMT. GEETHA, D/O LATE SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AT SY.NOS 108 AND 109, VIJAYANAGARA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001. (BY SRI. CHANDAN, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONERS

2. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 001, - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021

4. MAJ N SRINATH, S/O G.S. NANJUND RAO, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO. 282/2 OLD 498-C, 35TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 041.

5. SRI. K. THIMMEGOWDA, S/O KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT CHIBEDRAHALLI, KANAGANAMARDI POST, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 434.

6. SMT. LAKSHMI, W/O THAMANNA, AGED ABUT 49 YEARS,

7. SMT. NETHRAVATHI, S/O THAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

8. SMT. CHAITRA, D/O THAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

9. SMT. CHIKKAMMA, W/O LATE KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

10. SRI. PUTTARAJA, S/O LATE KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021

11. SMT. SUNITHA, D/O LATE KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

12. SRI. PRAKASH, S/O LATE KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

13. SMT. KEMPAMMA, W/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

14. SRI. PAPANNA, S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 6 TO 14 RESIDING AT NO. 366/1, HUNDI BEEDI, INKAL, MYSORE CITY - 570 018.

15. DR. NAVEEN KUMAR D.S, S/O SHANKARAPPA D.R, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. RESIDING AT NO. 3011, 24TH CROSS, 24TH MAIN, MYSORE - 570 017.

16. SMT. MANASA S, W/O MR. PV SUDEEP, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 39, HIRODE, STREET PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA - 571 434. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021

17. MRS. T.S. RAJALAKSHMI, W/O LATE T.S VEERARAGHAVACHAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT 535/D, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, NEAR AYAPPASWAMY TEMPLE, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU- 560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. NISHANTH A.V, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R17) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 02.08.2021 OF R2 IN NO. MYNAPRA/LAQ/2021-22 AS PER ANNEXURE-R AND ALSO THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 04.08.2021 ISSUED BY R3 AS PER ANNEXURE-R1 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021 ORAL ORDER

1. Aggrieved by the endorsements dated 02.08.2021 issued by respondent No.2 and 04.08.2021 by respondent No.3 (vide Annexure-R and Annexure-R1) to the writ petition, the present writ petition is filed.

2. The lands of the petitioners were acquired for formation of Vijayanagara, 4th Stage Layout, Mysuru. The preliminary notification to this effect was passed on

23.12.1991 and a final notification was passed on

10.12.1992. Aggrieved same, W.P.No.43506/2011(LA-UDA) and connected matter, along with W.P.No.19831-19845 of 2011(LA-UDA) were filed before this Court. The said writ petitions have been disposed of by holding that the scheme has been substantially implemented and the acquisition notifications impugned in the writ petitions were not interfered with. It was also observed in the said orders that the petitioners therein have approached the Court belatedly and the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021 delay and laches. However, the petitioners had made a representation to respondent No.2 for allotment of sites as compensation and respondent No.2 was directed to consider the said representation in accordance with law. The said orders have attained finality. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred W.P.No.51471-51475 of 2014(LA- UDA) on the ground that their representation have not been considered, challenged the acquisition and also prayed that the compensation has to be granted to them in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This Court by its order dated

17.12.2020, remanded the matter back to respondent No.2 herein to consider the request of the petitioners and pass an appropriate order. In compliance of the said directions, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned orders, wherein the request of the petitioners have been rejected and the only concession that is given to them is, if they make the necessary application for grant of incentive sites with all the relevant particulars, the same - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021 shall be considered in accordance with law. The same is challenged herein.

3. It is contended by the petitioners is that irrespective of the decision of this Court referred to above, the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners for the purposes of Vijayanagara, 4th Stage Layout, Mysuru, has to be set aside because the award passed is not in accordance with law and the possession of the lands concerned is still with the petitioners. In the course of the arguments, it is submitted that in the alternative, if the acquisition is upheld, the petitioners pray that they should be awarded compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or at least be granted 50% of developed sites as per the present policy of respondent No.2.

4. Per contra, the respondents submit that the award has been passed in accordance with law, that possession has been taken way back in the year 13.08.2001 itself and - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021 a 16(2) notification under the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act, 1894, has been issued on 13.02.2002 and the same has been considered by this Court in the earlier writ petitions. It is further submitted that the lands having been acquired way back in the year 1992 and the possession having been taken and the award having been passed much prior to coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the question of granting compensation to the petitioners under the said enactment does not arise. It is also submitted that, as on the date of acquiring the lands, the respondent-authorities did not have a scheme of granting alternative developed sital areas to the petitioners and granting the same today will open a Pandora's Box by many similarly situated persons making the said applications. For that reason, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. Acquisition can be challenged by the parties concerned after issuance of the final notification and even - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021 if it is upheld, subsequently if possession is not taken in accordance with law and the award is not passed as contemplated in law. In the instance case we need to examine whether the petitioners can challenge the acquisition on the said grounds. Further, the questions regarding whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or whether they are entitled to developed sites in lieu of monitoring compensation also arise.

6. Admittedly, the lands were acquired way back in the year 1992, the petitioners first challenged the same in the year 2011 and by that time, the process of award and taking possession of the property had been completed. This Court in the said writ petition has observed that the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. However, a concession has been shown to the petitioners that insofar as it relates to considering - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021 their applications for grant of any developed land if it is permissible in law. Thus, effectively, the petitioners are not entitled to raise a dispute pertaining to the final notification, the award and also taking possession of the property. Even otherwise, the case of the petitioners is that the original khatedars whose name found a place in the revenue records had died by the time award was made and the respondents have deposited the award amount in the name of the said khatedars, inspite of they being represented that the compensation has to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased khatedars. The said contention is denied by learned counsel for the respondents and it is submitted that the khatedars were alive as on the date of issuance of the award notice. Even otherwise, the Deputy Commissioner is not authorized to decide a dispute regarding the ownership of the property and whenever he has a doubt as to who is the owner of the property, he is required to make the deposit before the Reference Court, which has been done in the instant case. Though it is contended by the petitioners that the - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021 award does not have the previous sanction of the Government, the same is refuted by the respondents and they have placed relevant material on record and to show that the award has been approved by the Government in accordance with law. The petitioners if they are not satisfied by the award amount, are always at liberty to seek enhancement of the compensation in the manner known to law.

7. As the process of acquisition was completed much to coming force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the question of awarding the compensation under the said provisions does not arise and the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as per the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same has been done in the instant case and I do not find any error in the same.

8. With regard to possession still being with the petitioners, mahazars have been placed before this Court, - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021 which in my opinion are appropriate and the attention of the Court is also drawn to the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is dated

13.02.2002, which indicates that the possession has already been taken. The records also reveal that the layout map has been published by respondent No.2 and the sites have been allotted in favour of third parties and the allotment letters have also been issued and the area has also been developed.

9. The petitioners trespassing on the lands and putting up the construction thereon and issuance of notice by the respondents to have them evicted, does not give them any right to contend that the possession has not been taken.

10. Under the circumstances, it has to be held that the acquisition of the lands concerned has been done in accordance with law.

11. The only relief that can be granted to the petitioners under the circumstances is that reserving them the liberty, - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:31046 WP No. 20257 of 2021 as stated in the impugned orders itself, to make the necessary representation to respondent No.2 along with all the necessary particulars to grant them an incentive site as per the policy of respondent No.2. If they make the necessary applications, then in that event, respondent No.2 is bound to consider the same and allot them an incentive site if they are eligible.

12. Subject to the aforementioned observations, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK