IN THE HEGH COURT OF KJXRNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2913 DAY OF' SEPTEMBER 2009
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE V.GOPALA G1o%Xf1jA.' E.
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'I'ICE K.N7;JEESTmTANARA%YANA7'
W.A.NO.331 1[/2005'{U'L.(_i1
BETWEEN:
1 B S PANDITI-I
S/O S S PANDITH ._ V
SINCE DEAD BY LES. _ V
1{A} SMT.vANAjE_E."PAIs§I3:'TH"
WTTIES--LAfI~E E;S,.12AN:;1T1--1 '
AGED 66'
1(5) ANJANA,%SURES'EEW-[:O«S.SURESH
D /0 LA_T13.B.S_.PA_NDITI'H
AGED 4o..yEARS '-
' .fl'1[C)V""ANUPAI~lA B. PANEITH W/O R.K.BARA'I'H
» _ VAGE<34_YEARS
ARERJTQ N"O';113?, MOKSHA MARGA
SIDDIIAREEHA; NAGARA, MYSORE DISTRICT.
T '(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER
' _--,DATED 19.12.2008)
2 " KV VANAJA
D /0 K VENKATARAMAIAH
50 YEARS
R/O NO 1137, MOKSHA MARG
SIDDARTH NAGAR
MYSORE
3 RATHNAMMA
W/O B K KENCHEGOWDA
48 YEARS
R/O NO 311/A, 2ND CROSS
D SUBBAIAH ROAD
MYSORE
4 SHEELA
D / O R K BHARATI-I
46 YEARS
R/ O NO '7, DAYAJVIARGA
SIDDARTHA LAYOUT
MYSORE
{By STLJAYAKUMAR S. PATEL, SENiOR:'¢O'IUNS_EL
SR1. M R RAJAGOPAL, ADV.) : _
AND:
1 THE STATE OF EAISIJATAIIA1. O' A'
BY ITS SECRETARY I
DEPARTMENT OF. HO1I:'3INCf9_AND'. I " '
'
IcISBUIL"m13;O.,% 'I -
BANOALO_RE'e A1. '
2 THE'DEFUTY,cO_M1yIISS1ONER
. ;..»xND PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY
'-'.,UR}3AN LANDQEILING REGULATION
MYSOPE DISTRICT MYSORE
CO--OP SOCIETY
Q 'I-.I'BY'I'fE3. SECRETARY,
WSOEE
4 M§?SORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
= BY ITS COMMISSIONER
_ MYSORE CITY
RAMEGOWDA S/ O RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
6 BASAVEGOWDA S/ O RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
7 LAKKAPPA S/ O RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
8. KRISHNA S / O RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R-5 TO 4-8 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO2777.
RAILWAY GATE ROAD,
K.G.KOPPALU (KANNE GOWDANA KOPPALU}
MYSORE.
(AMENDED VIDE COURTORDER
DATED 25.1.2007} RESRONDENTSV. is E I
(By SMTGEETHA MENON, G.A. _RoR R.--_1*& R-2.ARD
SR1. PSMANJUNATH, ADV. EQ'R._R4) " A 'V _ "
THIS. WRIT APPEAL IS i'aE1LED ms" 4 }OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACTT-PRAYING TO ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN TH'E4_V'JRIT--if PE;Ti';'§_IO_N«.NO.46942--45/2004
DATED OI/O8/2005. * =
RESERVED ON 4; ':r..§sb.-;3..2009 _ V_
PRONOUNCED;_oNf;.- 'V22;19.2009 "
T1518 = HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED, THIS,DAYv.VKE3H./':VANARAYANA.J, PRONOUNGED
THE FOLLOWING: ' _ '
_ -._J__.UDG M ENT
A is directed against the order dated
by the learned Single Judge of this Court
40942 to 45/2004, dismissing the Writ
"fiéeetitiopns med by the appellants.
2. Following are the facts leading to the presentation
@
of writ petitions and the present appeal:
(i)
(ii)
One Rangegowda @ Chikkahydegowda, S/0 Lakke
Gowda, father of respondents 5 to 8 to thvigsiflappeal
who were not parties to the Writ Petiti_ojns;..’
owner of lands bearing Suryey No_.-
Sacres 16 guntas, Survey:’»No.:-‘~2.23l/4g” ‘rneastft-ruingg_A4
acres 21 guntas, Survey’No. 18-2 1 Vmea’sij1ri.ng acreiit
32 gnntas and Survey 2.’n1easu1fi§ng 1 acre
34 guntas in a1l””rrie.as:_1ri–t1gu .ac~res 23 guntas all
situated in Bogalcii 2 l
Aftertbrce Land (Ceiling and
aegfiiatibn) l’i’Act l:”».i976l_ll(‘fc5i~ short the Act), said
Rangegowda ‘:.lj:”i}le’d._:fsta’tement in Form No.1, as per
5R1%1eslll4″3..:l&I1d”‘ 9.”-ofvthe Rules framed under the Act
lV.gi£fingA.particti”lars of the extent of vacant land held
V’ the urban agglomeration of Mysore
city’, other particulars, as required by Section
A. Blil of the Act on 13.9.1976, before the competent
authority under the Act.
According to the appellants, said Rangegowda
formed a revenue lay–out of residential building sites
in land bearing Survey N0. 210, and sold sites to
V
(iv)
different persons. According to the appeilants
during 1982 a 1983, each of them purcha.s_’e–d”‘–one
site in the said 1ay–out from Rangegiowdiaffnnderv.4
unregistered sale deeds, and»–they wer’eI.’4pi’aced’9’».in f
Vacant possession of the respective sit.es,vpa,1fc;has’ed
by them, and thereafteI’v,..:’p:ti1ey const1*ucted:Vstfuctures
thereon. Thus accyordingf appellantsvgthey have
been in possession ‘sites.
In the; authority,
‘as”‘per Section 8(1) of the
held in excess of ceiling
1irn;it,” on showing that the declarant
5Rangeégoyvdatisffhoiding 36,344.01 sq.Ints. of excess
~.Thereafter, final statement as per Section 9
if under Section 10(1) of the Act were
p1.;z1:)iis:hed on 1.8.1985; notification under Section
A. 10(3) of the Act was published on 25.9.1985
9’ “jdeclaring that the excess vacant land is deemed to
have been acquired by the State Government with
effect from 10.10.1985; possession of excess vacant
land was taken on 19.9.1990 as per Section 10(6) of
i
(ix)
memorandum dated 21.9.1993 Annexure–F issued
by MUDA are void and ineffective.
In these Writ Petitions. The appellants _
that pursuant to unregistered ,sa1e_-‘deeds: = ‘V
by Rangegowda, they are in ;”pos’.s_’es;sion ‘ofjreispiectiiye
sites and at no point of-tlinie possession sites-”
was taken from them bythe-cornpetentauthority, as
per Section 10(6)’ 9 of no notice as
required. Sectiong ..th’e”:,ri’rct was served on
them;’ as V”s’uch,”–.i,jtliey ycointinued to remain in
possession respective sites, therefore, by
virtue- of of Sections 3 (2) & Section 4
j’ .,of Act 91999, all further proceedings stood
lal:iateid,p’They””a1so contended that Bogadi Village was
it the urban agglomeration of Mysore City,
as’ the entire proceedings initiated were illegal
and without jurisdiction. They further contended
that, even prior to passing of the award dated
31.3.1993 and taking possession of the land by the
Government as per the provisions of the Act, the
Government purported to have exercised its power
(
Xi)
“rt
12
After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge by
the order under appeal, dismissed the_,«p:et4itions
holding that the appellants being
who filed the declaration andnot ‘ _
the proceedings before the e_orripete_nt_
have no locus standi to.,:;c’h_allelnge the ‘-orders” passed’ V
by the respondent ‘Deputy”Comrnissioner.
The learned held that the
originalfovvner toyhvave hands with the
‘ called sale deeds as
the appellants based
‘e.oll:.isive documents, created by the
_ original ,_:dcclarantA”‘to over come the effect of order
7…hAiissued.gunder”Section 10(3) of the Act, which he did
as provided by Section 12 of the Act
beforeithe Divisional Commissioner.
aggrieved by the order of the learned Single
–*:Judge, dismissing the Writ Petitions, the appellants
have filed this appeal. Upon service of notices of
appeal, the respondents have appeared through
their learned Advocate.
3. We have heard Sridayakurnar S. Patil, learned
Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants;
Sri.P.S.Manjunath, learned Advocate
Sri.H.M.Mnjunath, learned Advocate for’:
respondents 1 and 2, and
Advocate for respondent _ Coal’
operative Society. We.havev.pert1sed the ” origintal records
pertaining to the Deputy
Commissioner’, . f1;\:/Iysoijeg H by the learned
Governmefl ti . A it
4:;__ Patil, learned Senior counsel
would subafrlitpthatl’ be seen from the recitals of
theagreement’ / sale deeds, the appellants are the
4 sites in Revenue lay out formed by the
‘origir1al’VRangegowda, and they were placed in
possessionv of respective sites and in the absence of any
it to show that ULC authorities took possession of
V the sites from the appellants as provided by Section 10(5)
and (6) of the Act, the appellants deemed to be in
possession of the sites as such, the entire proceedings
stood abated by virtue of Repeal Act of 1999, and the
%//.
17
the property who was the declarant did not question the
actions on the part of the respondents, and sincelethe
declarant and his family members themselye–s’_’ _
admitted that they have voluntarily .del_iver_ed” po:sse’ssi’on oi ” =
the property to ULC authorities, :’t.he1’_’_AapVpeiiants
locus standi to question the orders A13..nexures=§_*Eand
that as the excess vacant –v§rith’the._yGo;irernment
upon publication of Section 10(3) of the
Act, and since. had been taken
in of Section 10(5) 8: (6) of
the ;Act coming into force,
acquisitiorrof as such, the Repeal of
the Act 1jor.e;.:”reictk3i~1 the acquisition of the land in
‘hquestionf a”s.,such,”‘the learned Single Judge is justified in
thehwrit Petitions; that since there is nothing
on'”r.eco_r’d show that as on the date of taking possession
of,,land”-as per Section 10(5) 8: (6) of the Act, the appellants
“”«2s:7e’re’ in possession of the sites, they were not entitled for
“any notice from the competent authority under Section
10(5) of the Act; that the observation made during the
course of the order dated 16.4.1997 — Annexure–R2 and
f’\
unregistered sale deeds are all created documents in
collusion with the erstwhile owner. Before this Court the
appellants have produced the alleged unregisteVre’:::l””‘rs.ale
deeds, along with a memo. Reading of the _
these documents indicates that they 2
deeds transferring title in respect of irnmiovablre
As could be seen from the’s_e’~–._docu1nents,f:they.,,are note’
properly staniped and they are__u:Iiregistered«.f_ Seciiion 34 of
the Karnataka Stamp uthatfiio document not
properly stamped ._shali”‘beiilreceiiredlv’-indict’evidence for any
purpose] l”Not..o:dioubl§,”‘Section the Indian Registration
Act permits unregistered document for
collateral purpeosefto prove a transaction, which does not
‘ V’ “requ.a.fe :registration’;”””However, the prohibition imposed
i..1nc_l_er of the Karnataka Stamp Act is total and
as provision a document which is not properly
insufficiently stamped cannot be received and
into for any purpose including the collateral
-purpose. The decisions cited by the learned Senior
” counsel for the appellants in this regard have been
rendered in the light of the provisions of Section 49 of the
29
the State Government or any person duly authorised by
the State Government or by the competent authoriisfiiyand
any amount has been paid by the State Gove_rnm.e_nt:
respect of such land, such landwshall
unless the amount paid has been
Government. Section 4
abatement of legal Section,
all proceedings relating”-any’ or purported to
be made underiflghe immediately
before the before any court,
abate. However,
according vpflselction 4, the said section has
no ap_plicat’ion’to: the.,_p1′..oceedings relating to Sections 11,
oi’tl1e—-«13’rincipal Act, if such proceedings are
“tIr:1:e:..1and, possession of which has been taken
‘State Government or any person duly
V’~».autho”rised by the State Government or by any competent
it Admittedly, in this case by 1999, no
__proceedings as referred to under Section 4 of the 1999 Act
V was pending before any Court, Tribunal or authority. In
View of the fact that possession had been taken much
(‘3
32
in contravention of Section 23 of the Act. Ultimately, the
Writ Petition was dismissed and the said order was not
challenged. Therefore, it is not now again open
appellants to question the very same order _
Petition also. Therefore, the challenge to V.
this Writ Petition is not competentpasfthe
suffered an adverse order inrespect” ofltliisg *
order AnneXure–F’, in the earlierV:Wri’t._» so far as
the order dated rjtflw/_VGovernment as
per AnneXuref.Efallottingflthe in favour of
the said order was not
questioned “Petition though in the order
dated _2l.9.l”i-993. 5 [Ann’exure–F, a reference has been made
‘ Vto An’nexure–E an’d”‘it is only pursuant to Annexure–E,
to be passed. From this, it is clear that
the»..app’ell.ants. were not aggrieved by the order Annexure —
passed by the Government when they filed the earlier
Wrtt,.’..fr”Petition. In fact, their relief in the earlier Writ
..Petition for regularisation of their unauthorised
V occupation sought against MUDA was based on the notice
said to have been issued by MUDA admitting that MUDA
34
proceed against the legal representatives of the original
owner. However in these proceedings, no reiief can be
granted in favour of the appeliants against re’s.p:ondent
Nos. 5 to 8 being the legal representatives
In view of the above discussion, we .ans\zvergJpeint'”No,3″int”
the affirmative. Therefore, there a.re’:no”nierits
appeal and the appeai is 1iab1eVg:’to_%be
16. Accordingly, we dis_mis:s’g_:the-.appeal;-..
EUDGE
Sfi/4
, EUDGE
. _._…-.4
V.Rw?’