A Ko1a'i#"nCit'y.
IN THE men COURT OF' KARNATAKA,
PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY. 20.
PRESENT
THE HON' BLE MRS. JUSTECE Aa.ANJU13..A»rJifiELi..UR " A-.
AND
THE HONBLB MR. .JUsT1cE.A.N. v'E1SI':IG0BA1..A e§o\i§fnA ,
xmm" APPEAL Nos.3702/2009814052 -405$'; 200$: [LA--RES)
BETWEEN V ' ' K
1. B. R. Sathya Nagendren _ x __
S/0 Late B. S,1Rangagah"S1:getgy.._f.._. 1
Aged abnuj; '
R/at DOvdAd3;.'.'3€t"~1::::_ "
K0121: City
2. B. R. 13;:1lasubrafk3.,.g1nya:n
S / 0 Late..B. S. Ran'gaiafi_.'E'Shetty
Aged abmir'. .57'ye'arS'-
at Doddapei. '
V
. «S/'0 Laf.e.B;*,S. Rangaiah Shetty
' Aged e.boA1;.tT54 years
R','at"----M. "G. Road
K013; €Jity--563 101 Pfl?'i3ELLANTS
'(By Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, Senior Counsel appearing for
Sri'.' Deshraj and Sri. P. Changalaraya)
E
1. State of Karnataka
By its Secretary
Housing ('SE Urban Development
Authority, Vikasa Soudha
Banga1ore»560 001
2. State of Karnataka
By its Principal Secretary 1
Revenue Department
M. S. Building
Banga1ore-560 001
3. Under Secretary to G0vernme.nt:'~.__
Revenue Department " A
Vikasa Soudha ''
Bangalore
4. The AssistantBfloinmissioner " B
& Land Acqtiisiiiotl Office:
Ko1ar--56=i'3 1010 '
5. The City Munici'pa1C0u.n'¢:1' '
Represented
Commissioner ' _ B
KQ13I.r-563.101' V. RESPONDENTS
Wr_iVt_:Appea1s are fiied under Section 4 of Karnataka
praying to set aside the order passed in the writ
-V petition"£10,756?/2008 dated 19.08.2009.
B VB"-..AThese Appeals coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
.' 'Maryula Chellur, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
According to the appellants, they are the the
land in Sy.No. 181 measuring 3 acres 21 guntas
guntas of lfiiarab land situated at Kolar Kasaba’
2. The main contention of the appellants’ is’to’the_ effect
that inspite of preliminary notificationlin the yeaarl’ fdgllowed A.
by the final notification dated lthely_llposse:ssion of the
land in question was ._to:ztl1e_ beneficiary i.e., the
City Municipality._ Thef¢1″Of°.y ifljurlicipality has no
subsisting of an award being
passed on:. the compensation for
acquiringlllthe that the Assistant
Officer gave an endorsement
dated.3.121933VthatA7_th’e’frecords available did not disclose
polsse”ss’i’on of Sy.No. 181 by its owner to the
_C}v;:V.e1″nn*1eiit in the absence of any notification published
Sectic1n5::16 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984, there is no
l’,_taking~~ over of possession of the land by the beneficiary and
“:f:”t:hei5e~fore, utilisation of t:he land for the purpose for which it is
A acquired is absent. Hence they sought for declaration that the
land in Sy.l\lo. 181 did not Vest with the respondents and they
have no subsisting rights.
3. The facts brought on record before_-the–
Judge indicated that after preliminiaryfi» notific’atien..i__ldated l
5.8.1974 followed by final Diotificatilonxl”dated»”l’ll’Q,l:l.:19l?7l;”
award came to be passed on 5. original
owner of the land in Shetty had
filed a suit i.e., Oi$.No. City Municipality
seeking a dficreelloflhpenliaréeiit l”i’he said suit came
to be “regular first appeal i.e.,
R.S.A.l\l . 3lG87,f;>,QQt€SolVl fi.led..l_’vbefc–1celllthe High Court was also
dismissed on the very contention of the
oWners..being”thai;itl1e possession of the land in question
‘ V’ >.;1Cz§£itive.d. by. the ti”ial”‘Court, which reached its finality in RSA
glaijing at the owner, it is not open to the legal
repijesentatixfesz of the original owner Mr. Rangaiah Sheety to
V’-.contencl_ that they are in lawful possession of the property as
“-l”_th.e land in question was not taken over by the acquired
authority.
4. Yet another lacuna against the appellants is that
though the appeal came to be dismissed in the year.pl2;Q:O~5, at
this stage it is not open to them to come up withljal’C:ont_en1i,i__on
that no subsisting rights are available to tI:1e”i3enjefic*itary, _:Cl)I”}~ y
the other hand, it is seen that the :ignci-..x,g;~I;s4ltal{eln’-oV’ei=__l)y:the
Municipality and the records -demonisptrate the ;’S§1′.II1e.:§
records of the Municipality i.e., indicates they
vacated in the year dernarcating the land
acquired and possession’ Abf:i:1r_1g Chief Officer of
the City records. So far as
the revenue pertaining to this survey
nurribearvll Commissioner has
acquirertthe lat1d_.l’.andb”th_e”‘:p’ossession is handed over to the
Muniyoipalityl” these records make it clear that neither the
“appellants rior theirlpredecessor were in possession of the land
xix»
i__in:c1o.ntended by them. On the other hand, it was
the.__City Vflfllunicipality, which has exercised its right and interest
“-,over the land in question.
5. In View of the above discussion and the reasoning
given by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinjan no
grounds are made out to entertain the appeals.
Aceordingiy, the appeals are d:1sn1isee?_i.’h, ‘
: 3UDGE