Writ Petition No. 30195 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4243 WP No. 30195 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 30195 OF 2024 (ULC) BETWEEN: SRI BHIMARAJU C, S/O LATE CHANDRAMATHI MUDALIAR, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, NO.1396, 5TH MAIN, 'D' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 010. (BY SRI SURESH BABU B N, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.ABMEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN LAND CEILING, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 009. 4. THE THASILDHAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009. (BY SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4243 WP No. 30195 of 2024 A) QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.ULC(A) (3)441/1985-86 DATED 01.07.2024 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER
Legal Reasoning
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed questioning the endorsement dated 01.07.2024 at Annexure-A issued by 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru. In terms of the said endorsement, petitioner's representation to reconsider the order at Annexure - B dated 29.12.1997 is rejected. Petitioner has assailed the validity of Annexure - B - the order dated 29.12.1997 passed by 3rd respondent - the Special Deputy Commissioner/Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'Act, 1976'). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4243 WP No. 30195 of 2024 3. Petitioner claims to have purchased the property bearing Sy.No.27 measuring 1 acre of Chikkasandra Village, Chikkabanavara Dhakale, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk vide sale deed dated 29.03.1995. One Sri R. Narasimhalu Naidu was the previous owner. Pursuant to the sale deed, petitioner's name is entered in the property records for the year 1994-95 as found in Annexure - D and name of the vendor was deleted from the records. It appears that the respondent/State has initiated action under the Act, 1976 treating the land as excess land. The provisions of the Act, 1976 mandates issuance of notice to the holder of the land, before holding enquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the notice was issued on 18.08.1997, petitioner was the owner of the land and no notice was issued on him. It is his further submission that notice is also not served to his vendor. To substantiate his contention, he would refer to Annexure - B, the impugned order. Then, it is stated that the notice dated 18.08.1997 sent to previous owner is not served and it is returned with an endorsement that the previous owner has sold the property and left the place. Thus, he would contend that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4243 WP No. 30195 of 2024 the authority was required to make efforts to serve the notice on the present petitioner who had purchased the property in the year 1995. 5. It is also his further contention that possession of the property which is said to be the excess land under the Act, 1976 is not taken over by the competent authority as required under law. He would submit that infact under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short 'Act of 1999'), Section 3 of the Act of 1999, says that the action which are lawfully taken under the Act of 1976 shall not be affected. It is contended that since possession is not taken by the respondent/authority, the land continued with the petitioner and petitioner continues to be the owner of the property and the land cannot be treated as an excess land, and the petitioner would have the benefit of repealing Act to substantiate the contention that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the property, learned counsel would refer to Annexure - C - the sale deed, RTC at Annexure-D and report of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure - E. Thus, he would contend by reason of Section 3 of the Act, 1976, the land still continues to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4243 WP No. 30195 of 2024 be with the petitioner and the impugned order at Annexures - A and B are unsustainable. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the land held by the petitioner is an excess land under the Act, 1976 and the order is passed in the year 1997 and petition is filed in the year 2024 is hit by delay and laches and the same is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Learned counsel would also contend that the petitioner is not entitled to the land which is an excess land as he was not entitled to hold the extent of 1 acre of land in the year 1995 and Repealing Act came into force in 1999 and before the date of repeal, the decision is already taken holding that the land is an excess land. 7. This Court has considered the said contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 8. It is well settled position of law in terms of various judgments that in case, possession of land is not taken by the competent authority provided under the Act, 1976, the ownership as well as the possession continues to vest with the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4243 WP No. 30195 of 2024 owner and because of the repeal of Act of 1999, the State loses the right to claim the property which is not lawfully taken over by the Government as per the procedure prescribed under law. 9. Learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:
Decision
(i) SMT NARASANNA AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (Writ Petition No.5954/2016 disposed of on 14.03.2024) (ii) SRI SOMASHEKAR AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (Writ Petition No.24808/2009 disposed of on 19.03.2024) (iii) SRI DHANUMANTHAPPA AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (Writ Petition No.51700/2014 on 22.10.2014) disposed of (iv) SRI SHIVAKUMAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (Writ Petition No.11359/2021 disposed of on 28.08.2024) 10. It is noticed from the records particularly Annexure - B - impugned order, itself would reveal that notice issued on 18.08.1997 under the Act, 1976 is not served on the previous owner. It is also relevant to note that no effort is made to serve notice on the present petitioner who had acquired - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4243 WP No. 30195 of 2024 ownership of the property under the registered sale deed of 1995. Infact, the recital in the order is clear that the notice that was sent to the previous owner who had sold the property in 1995 had returned with acknowledgment that the previous owner had left the place as he had sold the property. Under these circumstances, the very act of issuing notice to the previous owner itself is an erroneous act. Under the provisions of the Act, 1976, notice is required to be sent to the owner who possessed the property. Thus, notice which was required to be issued to the petitioner is not issued. Behind the back of the petitioner, an order is passed in the year 1997. The order is not communicated to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner's name continued in the property records. Only in 2007, without notice to the petitioner, same was deleted. Petitioner states that he came to know about the change of entry in the records in the year 2018 and immediately, he gave a representation to 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner. Nothing is placed on record to show that notice is served on the petitioner before making such change in the property records. From the records placed before this Court, the admitted factual possession is that no notice is served on the previous owner, no notice is served - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4243 WP No. 30195 of 2024 on the present petitioner nor possession of the property is taken by the Government in the manner prescribed under the Act, 1976. Thus, Section 3 of the repealing Act, 1999 would come to the aid of the petitioner. 11. Though learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, what was required to be noticed is till 2018 petitioner was not aware of the impugned order which was passed behind his back. The recitals in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner itself would indicate that the petitioner is in possession of the property. The report relied on by the Deputy Commissioner also indicate that petitioner is in possession of the property. Infact, the State has admitted the possession of the petitioner in its order as well as in report. Under these circumstances, Annexure - A endorsement could not have been issued at all. 12. It is also relevant to note that in Annexure - A, the Deputy Commissioner has relied on the legal opinion he has secured from the panel advocate. The Deputy Commissioner being a quasi judicial authority is required to apply his mind - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4243 WP No. 30195 of 2024 and pass an order and should not have blindly relied on the legal opinion secured. Under these circumstances, the impugned order at Annexure-A is also unsustainable. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, the following is passed: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned orders bearing No.ULC (A)(3)1441/1985-86 at Annexure - A dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-2nd respondent is quashed and bearing No.NaBhuPa(Aa)(3)441/1985-86 at annexure-B dated 29.12.1997 passed by the Special Deputy Commission-3rd respondent are quashed. (iii) The concerned authority shall restore the name of the petitioner in the property records as per the registered sale deed dated 29.03.1995. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41