IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22% DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2o1 "c:,
BEFORE: 1' V' 1' '
TI-IE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. K
Writ Petition No. 13934 ofi_2bO8';:31::».E%::Rg§L DISTRICT PETITIONERS
' _ _ {By Sri M B Chandrachoocia, Adm}
T 'm1;.--STATE OF KARNATAKA
V. ' INDUSTRIES AND
= COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA souvm
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE M 560 001
BY ITS SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
Ix)
THE SPECIAL LAN D
ACQUISITION OFFICER
i{.I.A.D.B..
NO 3, 2"?-3 CROSS,
KHENY BUILDING,
3"" FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE W 560 009 ._
3. SR} ANJANAPPA
S/O APPAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O THANISANDRA VILLAGE,
KR. PURAM HOBLI I'
BANGALORE SOU'i'H.. TALUK
4. SRI SR1NIVASAMURTHY~ *_ 1
S/OMUNIRAMAIAH Q
AGED ABOUT -65 « '
R/O TI-IAN1SANDRA:vILLAGE-«.S * '
K.R.PURA-M
BANGA;LOREVSGUTH RESPONDENTS
s;I?N 8.3/Iishava-_nath. AGA for R1:
' I' .:'€~ri BO1=S~_gOwda, Adv.. for
Sri"I3aSa\raraj"If Sab-grad'. Adv, for R2; R3 -- Served]
A.'-'HIS RETIVfIIO.N.'--Is"RILEiD UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 22? OF
'_ THE~E:ONS'IIjruT'IOIIQRINDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2. T0
V IIOED AN EQNUIRY VVITH REGARD To DISBURSING OF
CO1}/_IPI33\ISA_'fif§N_ OF' RS..I,24,00,000/-- IN RESPECT OF
s&'I.NOI.'40/'pig; 'MEASURING 4 ACRES OF BANDIKODIGEHALLI
vILI;'AGE,..__' J'A1.A HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TQ. VIDE ANN? AND
T I = :"¢1*I~I1S PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, TRIS DAY, THE
' COURT MADE 'mI; FOLLOWING:w
3
ORDER
Though the matter is posted for orders. with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, thse”*.mai1i1
matter itself is taken up for disposal.
2. Writ petitioners are persons who
heirs of one Muniramaiah whofiis l
claim to be residents of VavasandrarVi’1lage,»lv’ ;
Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore it
3. Writ petitioners;=Tl–:” claim to be
khatedars in respect Vr3f~.1a:n_ds _me’as_u:rin’g’. an extent of 3
acres in P14 of Bandikodigehalli
village, Jalg iHQbli,.l4l§anlg;1lore North Taluk, as ordered by
the..«f§:}:ahisi.ldarl;i “Deyan.ahal1i Taluk in terms of the order
‘bVeariVngi’_vN.o;IAiNI)_ ss 28′?/60-61 dated 21.4.1962.
4’ further version of the petitioners that their
‘._father.. belonged to weaker section of the society and
A land had been granted to him free of cost, but had
l during his lifetime, in violation of the conditions of the
grant had sold it and the present writ petitioners, after the
4
demise of their father had petitioned the Assistant
Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka
Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes [Proh.ibition. of
Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for p
5. The Assistant Commissioner. ~
the alienation in favour of respoiideritsf
directed restoration of the in if
respondents 3 and 4 hayingpyp-re:ferre»d_an appealibefore the
Deputy Cornrnissioner’ matters were
pending before-the ‘ztlie Act and inspite
of brought to the notice of
the secondresporiden’t~._;”special land acquisition officer –
KIADB. thelléseconci respofndent has nevertheless disbursed
‘ pf coniplcnsation payable to the land owners of
which had come to be acquired for the
purpose’ ofviforrnation of an industrial layout, at the behest
T’o_f Vthe..f{-arnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and
the basis of the notifications issued by the first
-“respondent — State of Karnataka; that the distribution of
the compensation amount payable to the owners in lieu of
5
the acquisition of the subject }and in favour of
respondents 3 and 4 by the second respondent” is an
iliegal act; that the Writ petitioners have been ieft
dry; that the action on the part of the second
in disbursing the amount in fElVOU.JF~0.f_1″€S}50I1vd€!%1tSx3_.E£.I1Ct_V4»u ‘
even when their name did not’;t’1:g;ut”e i’n_A”the_
records on and after the proceedings” b__efore~.jthefissistant’
Commissioner under the Act,anci”L_’in”t-his bacizgnjund, have
approached this court se’e_kin’g.fo§” th’eV:h.t’o.lL1″ounng reliefs:
“ii issue «A writ nfiandarnus directing
responde:1.t “No’.;_2 to _ hold Vcinenquiry with
:’regV{1rd” ” to d’isji:aurs__ing f ..compensation of
VRs§V7.l_,24′,OO,(}OzO,’– in respect of Sy.
-.No.40}’-P14N_rrieas’uring 4 acres of
Bandi1c”adigre~haitt~*’ Village, Jala Hobli,
sBa!1gaiore. Nor_;’:h T aluk vide Annexure–P.
issue-Vdireetion to respondents 3 & 4 to
‘ “otepositmthe sum of Rs.1,24,00,000/–
‘received from the 2nd respondent wide
Ann.exures N 52, N1 dated 21/08/2008
‘V ‘ .”.”;;§g;;_fore this Hon’ble Court.
iiif issue direction to respondent No.2 to refer
” ” the matter to Civil Court ‘/or adjudication
with regard to the entitlement of
compensation after depositing the
compensation amount to the competent
civil court.
H
6
to] issue any other appropriate writ, order or
direction as deemed fit in the
circumstcznces of the case including
initiation of criminal action again’s_t”g
respondents 2 to 4 before the corr:pe’ter:f’«.p
court of law.” « L’
6. This writ petition is iisted today beforeitjihe:’A–¢:cinrt’
orders regarding payment of ‘
unserved fourth respondent
examined on merits at the counsel
for the petitioners on that the
petitioners are not has is prayed for
in the Writ
“F. learned counsel for the
petitionersi4″‘su_bn1itsAthatu the action on the part of the
‘xi’~..seC’orid2;-respondent””is definitely an iliegal and arbitrary
e..a:otion;: and deceit are writ large on the face
of A the as the second respondent who had been
by the petitioners who had given representation
to ixfithhold the disbursement of the compensation amount
h favour of respondents 3 and 4, on the basis of the ciairn
V put forth by the respondents 3 and 4, but the second
7
respondent though had caused issue of notice to the
petitioners to hold an enquiry on this aspect of the matter,
has nevertheless. given up the enquiry midstrearn
deliberately and with an ulterior motive,
rights of the petitioners, has
compensation amount in respect
favour of the respondents’:_
background the petitioners this court
and therefore the will have to be
allowed etc. ,.
8. While’– are blissfully silent,
perhaps .strategicall.ly_llso,:having received the compensation
amount, whet,her.it vv’asl”due to them or otherwise, the first
‘l V. “‘–res’pon(Lient– .5 Statelllilovernment is represented by Sri N B
leairned Additional Government Advocate and
for’~-secondrespondent — Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Basavaraj V Sabarad, learned counsel has filed
fptow-§i~ as per the directions of this court, but Sri
.~Bloregowda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri
Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for second respondent,
8
submits he is yet to receive instructions and the third
respondent though had been served, has remained
unrepresented. it
9. Sri N B Vishwanath, learned Additionai
Advocate appearing for the first purespondcnti’~’.,«;«:’A’~§tatelofts
Karnataka, points out that the:=.c_second”i.:¢as
acted with some bona fides the’-veryf
the writ petition indicates second had
taken care to obtain –f1_’0rn respondents
3 and 4 thatfif it:-“is”-tov”bes..§nl’tirriately found that
responidents’ aliejnot entitled for the amount and
on the other A:_1petiti:o’11ers are entitled to the amount,
then the corhpeiisation amount received from the second
it it “‘respohdent”i’wil1 good in favour of the petitioners.
it is the version on behalf of the
respond_erit.s.}’ $ri M B Chandrachooda, learned counsel for
:”thepppet’itioners, nevertheless, asserts and submits that
i._t’undert,aking of this nature is not an end for realizing the
rights of the petitioners, particularly a land owner who
9
has lost his land receiving the compensation payable in
respect of the acquired land; that the second respgoiident,
in fact, cannot take shelter under the
second respondent either should have
to the civil court or should it
which he had himself started. on
by the petitioners in ‘ the notice dated
13.10.2008 issued as other
respondents by the specia1::l.ari.d officer for their
state of affairs, it
is obx/19 had acted in a
coilusivge as sought for in the writ
petition should be
‘l V’ ‘=.1’l;’_\~,,f1xfter”i’perusi1’ig”the petition pleadings and on hearing
a…ieaarried:”~.eounse.l for the petitioners as well as learned
cou.nsepl_.~fo_r4j’:ihe respondents 1 and 2, it becomes clear that
“virhile petitioners may claim to be the legal heirs of one
if ~.l\/iunuiramaiah, who according to the petitioners had been
% ….granted with some agricultural land as a person belonging
to the weaker section or depressed class in the
10
community, it is nevertheless, submitted by Sri M B
Chandrachooda, {earned Counsei for the petitioners that
the appeal filed by the respondents 3 and 4 the
order passed by the Assistant Cornmissioneifgtinil
the petitioners for setting aside lp
effected by the petitioners’ fathergin
3 and 4, is still pendingfland
namely, the Deputy an order
of status quo, While
12. If the app_r;a_l_ at tim/i£istane,e res.pondents 3 and 4
is still tttt “before Deputy Commissioner,
particularly. inixolifiiigthelguestion as to whether the sale
of land effe’eted..byA”‘thfe: petitioners’ father in favour of
. _…,res”pondtents_3 andllllfcould be sustained or as has been
Assistant Commissioner, to affirm that it is
illegal sale: therefore purchasers do not get any right,
“title or interest and even when the rights of the parties has
r1:ot–},fe.t crystallized, this Court Cannot and will not embark
ll -on issuing a writ, either a writ of mandamus or a writ of
11
certiorari, on the basis of contingent rights of the Writ
petitioners.
13. When there is a dispute in respect of of
lands which were subject matter
proceedings, the provisions of section D,
Acquisition Act, 1894 takes care ”
disputes and before a civil W V W W W
14. Writ jurisdiction;__ is ‘appropriateremedy in
such situations as V _V the Karnataka
Industriai Areas’ read with the
provisions ofiithe-.I:;and’i.Acquisition Act, 1894 themselves,
provide solutions suichsituations. Writ jurisdiction is
not..«one’~where ” citizens can assert their ownership rights
»vvhe:r1 it is i«n”‘di__spute and seek for relief by issue of a writ,
‘e\rpeii.iWheri.”p:theVVproperty rights are in dispute between such
petitionersvéi and other persons, whether arrayed as
it ~rAesp«opnd’ents to the writ petition or otherwise.
it While in this background, relief as sought for by the
petitioners cannot be granted in this writ petition, at the
12
same time. it cannot absolve respondents I and 2 from
the consequences of a possible collusive or fraudulent act
committed by a public authority, more so, \;\url’ieliiu the
second respondent is in a fiduciary
compensation payable to the land
second respondent, on his
representation made by thelppetitioners
notice for holding an duty to
have taken up the procee’din;t_§s conclusion.
16. Cornplaintaof learned
counseillfor”t]fiVfe’ ishlthlat the second respondent
who had. himself of notice for holding such
an en_quiryil”h.asVvirtually. abandoned the enquiry midway
‘ iévith a..pviexv”iio’lfavour respondents 3 and 4, has
icol,l_11dscdV’~..with~_thern and has disbursed the amount to
them to tlljelutmost detriment of wit petitioners and
R”l”-9″therefore-l:’this aspect of the conduct of the respondents 1
cannot be overlooked.
13
17. While the question as to whether the second
respondent had acted in a mafia fide manner or in a
collusive manner and had colluded with respondents 3
and 4 to the detriment of the petitioners is
which has to be necessarily examined
petition. it is not as though this
arbitrary. erratic, Whimsica}’condnctpof
and more often than not, iviiilifluenced
by corruption, nepoti–sri1_A it is Very
necessary for ‘this commensurate
procee dings ‘ ‘enquiry agency and
which the matters to their logical
concIusion___an_dAltiiisfregard though Sri Boregowda,
Iearnfed counsel V-for the second respondent requests some
to._resp.or1vd on behalf of the second respondent. I am
of it is not necessary for this court to keep
thiséélrnalttyer on board any further only for such purpose,
i[_’butl’ocn the other hand. such aspect of the matter can be
‘ taken care of by referring the question of illegal, malafide
or collusive conduct on the part of the second respondent
14
to the Karnataka Lokayukta for causing a further enquiry
into this aspect to ascertain the bona fdesvpparidpp the
manner of functioning of the second respondent’
material is available indicating illegal. d
on the part of the second i
this writ petition, also to
up action as per law. ‘ it it it it i 1
18. It has become .thi,s court to issue
directions for are repeated
allegations pers_oi1s holfdinggflthe posts of special
land thellliarnataka industrial Areas
Developinent has come to the notice of this
courttliat the State. Government and the Board have
‘”‘been iatitingopin a rnost arbitrary. erratic manner in the
“ac:qi,!}isition of private lands, in the name of
pt1bl,ic purpose and particularly in the name of developing
idindustr-‘ial areas etc., and such related aspects are being
eiiarriined by the Karnataka Lokayukta. it is therefore
-“appropriate that this matter is also further enquired into
and examined by the Karnataka Lokayukta for
1.5
commensurate further action and also to enquire into the
manner of functioning of the Board itself.
£9. Ordered accordingiy.
20. Without prejudice to the
available to the petitioners to izpursue ‘
remedies before any other fomim and in an:,»”other rriganneri.
permitted and enabied in éenerai of this
court is directed to order along with
the copies of thewrit lannexures to the
Karnataka direction that the
matter;_Am–ayA “enquired into at the Karnataka
Lokayuirtaia :tc’_on’i.l111ensurate action is warranted
agaiiist ‘the respondent, to take it to its logical
conclusio.nva’s»per law.
these observations/ directions and
reserving liberty to the petitioners, this writ petition is
A V. :1′ V» dismissed.
Sd/ –
Judge
_ AN/-