IN THE HIGH COURT or= KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE u
DATED THIS THE 9"' DAY or MARCH 2009 " "
BEFORE
THE HQHELE MR. JUSTICE AsHoK%%B%;j%Hxru'HcHmEaiE
BETWEEN
M B RAMACHANDRAN
s/0 BYRAPPA I
HINDU, MAEOR, _ ', '. T :
R/A No.55, NAHomuR<mcAn '
BANGALORE-560 045 %
L t ...APPELLANT
(BY sax MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
1 'STATE ';QE1.i(ARNA'!;AKr'%--«----« «
REP _B»Y zTsj SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
'R.EV¥EN'L!EE"D»EP,ARTMENT
VI'DHAN.A'v'$'Q.UDHA"
BANGALGRE4'S'3$G' 001
4 THE oE::uT~{c9MM1ssIoNER
E E ."B_ANGALO'¥3;E (URBAN), KRIS!-II BHAVAN
T EQGVVRGAD, BANCRALORE-560 902
F % ' I. "'?FHi§: sPEc1AL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
T WVSHWESHWARAIAH TOWER
T _ VTDHANA VEEDHI
'BANGALGRE ~--- 560 001
4 M/S. BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LIMITED
% markinlcflthea dachm-§ht.:kat Ex.D1 to Ex.D4.
ll The'"TriaTllCbt}rt dismissed the appeilanfs suit. Aaarieved
'apnea: is preferred.
"1's'*-sfithel':'_a»;:~g:aellant submits that the Trial Court has wholly
5. The Trial Ceurt, based on the rival pleadlng_sg"'ffateef3
the follewinolssues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves 'tha_t'14he.;«ha's._
been in lawful possesslah '"Vthe=
schedule property? V
2. Whether the plaintiff prQ\_tes:.lnterfe}ence?
3. whether the défeledants.Viivplteiiaaithat the
acquisition. proceemngts Vcannet'v_be" tailed in
questlen 'Eyre.-'i"lV.rll. :ceu=ir_t?x "
4. To »§i:at'ii.éa;ree'_a.h'tlvVl.rel}ef the partifi are
l
6. ThevvlapbellantteetVh'ims'elf'~'examlned as PW-1 marking
the documents at Es)-":"."P1_.:' te.EEx.hP1V8h';'. on behalf of the respendents,
the:-Tfhafilth r'es}3eh:de'ntfs Assistavnt Manager is examined as DW-1
J3.' -Srl Anantha Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel for
38%
declaration that the acquisition has lapsed, the Trial V.
right in dismissing the appellant's suit. According
relief can be granted in these proceedings."
11. Sri S.3.Chota, the learned counsel i*for~
No.4 submits that there cannot beV._afn.y_ esto;V:3__pel_u
operation of the statute as such. the
schedule land can always be éfeyernment and
further be made over to_i:h__e rest)onden_t'. orays for the
dismissal of this ap;j:seal._ ' 1
12. The whble--:fi_¢o_htft;\1ersy_- "brought within the
ambit of the that falls for
consideration " i it
"Whether the 'respendents can interfere in the
'a.ppel¥'e':at's_L' goss%"eie.n_.« and enjoyment of the
";_sciie;diile fpro~;i_erties without completing the
'ecquEsi~tion._preceedings"?
: 13. Triei framing of the Issue No.3, extracted
':1erein__'e.bove, tires not really called for, as the appeilant did not
it acquisition proceedings and in any case the
proceedings cannot be challenged by filing the suit or
33H.
?
this appeal. The acquisition of the iand is in exercise of the
sovereign domain of the State. Therefore, the Civii Court
jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the ieoaiity or oth_er"w'i.se.'___fof
the acquisition proceedings. _ V
14. what cannot be iost sight of is"t'hat. the preiim_inar7y*
notification was issued 20 ions years age
not foiiewed by and the same has not etiimineted. in.th'e
ef the finai notification (deciavra.t_ion),..r""2=eii_;'pei~s._the 'orwiso 2 to
Section 6(1)' of the Land the final
notification cannot heissneci «one year from
the date of the the:.:.orei1infrin.ery'notification. The
effect of this .iiei;tvsiua:ti;v§ireb':'1ittrmcrintioin'""ie--"that the preiiminery
notification spends: not foiiowed by the final
notification within tame vyee:5:*1.fi'tz'ei§;iefore, no final notification or
deci_aretion uEissu_ebie""*in._...the instant case, based on the
preiitninaaffnethfit:ei:iAe:n.._of the year 1989. This being the
:=.':st.etVntortt 'no.sition;--'the'irespondents cannot enter on the iand of
e’ppeiiant.. on the strength «of the preiiminary
F233-l
the reepnntients-vffrnnéintierfeflne with the appeitant’s poseasion
evndV’etuoyrnent at the’ euit schedute properties.
to mark such levels, boundaries and line by piacing
marks and cutting trenches; and,
whens: otherwise the sun/ey cannot be cempietenf. _
and the levels taken and we boundaries and fine marker:’,.’ I
as cut down and dear away any part of any stainjfing-.e.VV:”
crop, fence orjungle:
Provided that ne person slwalfz into. A
buiiding or upon any enclosed caurr qr garden “attac!:«éHV i _
a dweiiingmouse (unims with the cnneent of the aefiupief
thereof) without pievioushflgivina Asmihvvoccnpief at
seven days’ notice in writing. his–‘_inte.0tian td an m”..
16. In the instant ca§e,«v:’_enev–.V after the
issuance of the in 1990
itself. Therefore, entering the
schedule land the consent ef the
appeitant, cannct tnittnbe and unauthorised. I,
therefore, !’$’.i’Ei”5_%f the Vtuttnhfnetst end decree passed by the Triai
Cant: V end fth:V”e~ . tsjeliefv A permanent injunctton restraining
REM.