The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1605-DB W.A. No.1122/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.1122/2022 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED 3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX K H ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BANGALORE - 560027 REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (LAND ACQUISITION AND ESTATES). Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. HARISH N.N. ADV.,) AND: …APPELLANT
Legal Reasoning
1. SMT. RAJALAKSHMI W/O LATE R.N. ASWATHA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 2. SMT. R.A. SHARADHA W/O LATE R.N. ASWATHA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 3. SRI. R.A. PUNEETH S/O LATE R.N. ASWATHA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 4. SRI. R.A. NARESH S/O LATE R.N. ASWATHA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO. 8, ASWATHA NARAYANA NILAYA 3RD CROSS, JYOTHINAGAR - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1605-DB W.A. No.1122/2022 AMBABHAVANI TEMPLE ROAD VIDYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE - 560097. 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560001. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVANA K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560009. 7. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT (NORTH) BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVANA K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560009. 8. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK HOTEL SHARAVATHI BUILDING 3RD FLOOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE - 560064. 9. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD-METRO REP. BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NO.14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVANA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560002. (BY SRI. MADHUSUDAN R. NAIK, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. JAGADEESH C.K. ADV., FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. DEVARAJ C.H. GOVT., ADV., FOR R5 TO R8 SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R9) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2022 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.1461/2022 (KLR-RES) AND DISMISS THE WP No.1461/2022 (KLR-RES). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1605-DB W.A. No.1122/2022 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is preferred as against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1461/2022. The learned Single Judge had considered the writ petition preferred by the persons claiming to be the owners of 20 acres and 5 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.78 & 79 respectively of Shettigere Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, Benglauru Urban District. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the learned Single Judge had found that there was an order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, with regard to 20 acres and 5 guntas of land, the said order was not competent in as much as the power exercised under Section 136(3) of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1605-DB W.A. No.1122/2022 the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1946, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) could not have been delegated to a Special Deputy Commissioner, who is not in the cadre of IAS, and the State Government has issued Government notification dated 10.10.2014 withdrawing the powers of the Special Deputy Commissioner to deal with the matters pertaining to Section 136(3) of the Act with retrospective effect. It is, therefore, contended that the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner having been found to be non est in law, the handing over of the property by the Tahasildar to the appellant should not have been set aside by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge that the property should be deemed to have been voluntarily handed over by the respondents No.1 to 4/writ petitioners is therefore, completely unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the matter having been remanded for a consideration as to whether the writ petitioners had right and title over the property in question, the further directions issued by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1605-DB W.A. No.1122/2022 learned Single Judge are detrimental to the rights of the appellant and that the Deputy Commissioner, who is to hear the matter, will also be prejudiced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge. 3. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge at paragraph No.8 of the judgment has held that the petitioners have a right to seek compensation at the hands of KIADB depending upon the orders that would be passed by the Deputy Commissioner of IAS cadre and that the appellant, who is the beneficiary of the acquisition, is required to deposit the compensation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is only in case the competent authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of
Decision
IAS cadre, finds in favour of the writ petitioners that there would be any question of deposit of compensation. It is submitted that the earlier order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner being non est in law, it cannot be relied on for any purposes and that an independent adjudication has to be carried out by the Deputy - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1605-DB W.A. No.1122/2022 Commissioner in the IAS cadre depending on which further action is to be taken in the matter. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents/respondent Nos.1 to 4, on the other hand, contends that the predecessor of the present respondents had acquired 20 acres and 5 guntas of land in a public auction, out of which 4 acre 12 guntas of land was situated in Sy.No.78 and 15 acre 33 guntas was situated in Sy.No.79. The public auction was held on 04.07.1979. Thereafter, on the basis of the orders in force, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Benglauru North, had considered the issue, conducted enquiry and had held that the entire extent of 20 acre and 5 guntas of land, as claimed by the respondents herein, had been purchased by the respondents No.1 to 4 in the public auction and that change of spot had to be effected to give effect to the purchase made by the predecessor in interest of the respondents herein. It is further contended that the respondents were in possession of the entire extent of 20 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1605-DB W.A. No.1122/2022 acres and 5 guntas of land and there were interdictions against dispossession of the petitioners from the property as well. 5. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, we notice that the learned Single Judge has specifically found that the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, who is not an officer of the cadre of IAS, determining the rights of the parties over the properties in question is non est in law. Further, the learned Single Judge has clearly directed that the matter is to be considered in terms of Section 136(3) of the Act after hearing the necessary parties and after considering the factual aspects of the matter as well as the contentions advanced. We are told that the parties are now before the Deputy Commissioner of IAS cadre, who is the competent authority. 6. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the land should be considered to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1605-DB W.A. No.1122/2022 have been voluntarily handed over by the petitioners cannot be said to be so perverse as to require interference by this Court, especially in view of the fact that the question with regard to right and title over the property has been left open by the learned Single Judge to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law after hearing the parties. 7. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, we are of the opinion that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge that the matter has to be considered by the competent authority and decided with reference to the facts and after consideration of the contentions of the parties cannot be held to require interference in this intra Court appeal. 8. However, we hasten to add that the learned Single Judge, having referred the issue of title over the property both in Sy.No.78 as well as Sy.No.79 to be decided by the competent authority, could not have expressed any view on the merits of the matter. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1605-DB W.A. No.1122/2022 9. It is made clear that anything expressed by the learned Single Judge especially at paragraph No.8 of the judgment under appeal will not influence the Deputy Commissioner, who considers the issue on merits, and the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the question of title independently, untrammelled by anything stated by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal. 10. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. 11. The matter shall be considered by the respondent No.6 and decided within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8