H T JAYARAMAIAH v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

- 5 -

The appellants, are agriculturist being economically below poverty class, made an application before the Government for grant of land in Majarahosali, Doddaballapura Taluk and after considering their request, they granted land in extent of 2 to 4 acres in Sy.Nos.57, 58, 103, 105 and 106 at the said village as per the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, in the year 1977-78. In pursuance of the grant made by the Government, the Revenue Authority muted their names in relevant revenue records. Things stood thus, respondent No.2 caused Notification for formation of industrial area of those lands vide Notification bearing No.CISPQ88 dated 09.06.1988. According to the appellants, even after such Notification, the third respondent- KIADB failed to take possession of the land from the appellants and they continued uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the land by cultivating the same. However, in the year 2015, the third respondent-KIADB as well as the Government caused threat to disturb their possession, as such they approached the learned Single Judge to declare the Notification issued be lapsed on account of non implementing the scheme and also to declare that the Notification is invalid since the possession continued with the appellants and the same is protected under

- 6 -

Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act,

2013.

3. The learned Single Judge after assessment of the oral submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also after perusal of the documents, passed the impugned order by dismissing the writ petition. Challenge to the said order is lis before this Court.

4. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. P. Mahesha for appellants so also learned HCGP Sri.Aruna G.S for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.Ashok N Naik for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and learned Senior counsel Sri.D.R. Ravishankar for Sammith S, Madhusudan for respondent No.5.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contends that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the KIADB did not implement the scheme within 5 years from the final declaration and failed to take the possession of the lands. Hence, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed automatically on account of abandonment of the scheme more than 3 decades and the State Government has

- 7 -

failed to exercise its right over the said land. He would further contend that, the learned Single Judge has not considered the issue regarding taking possession under Section 16(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, since the case on hand the possession has not been taken in accordance with law by the KIADB. As such, there is no vesting of lands in favour of KIADB. He also contends that, the Notification is of the year 1998 since from then, the lands are neither developed nor implemented the scheme and admittedly the lands were granted to below poverty and depressed class of the Village, the respondent- authorities by abuse of process of law and power to deprive the Constitutional right of the appellants, making attempt to interfere the possession after lapse of three decades. Lastly, he would contend that the provision under Right to Fair Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, Section 26 mandate that the physical possession of the land has not been taken, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed, thus the Notification issued by the respondent-authority has been lapsed for the reason that the appellants are in continuous possession and cultivation of the same. On these grounds he prays to allow the appeal.

- 8 -

6. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.5 would contend that, there is no such provision contemplated under KIADB Act, 1966 to implement the scheme within the period of 5 years from the final declaration. Nevertheless, the KIADB after Notification, acquired the land and taken possession of the same and the fifth respondent was running industry in the said land till the year 1999 and thereafter, the company was referred to Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), New Delhi and was declared as a sick industrial unit in the year 1999 and the BIFR came to the conclusion that the company cannot be reviewed, hence recommended the company to this Court for winding up of the same with COP No.88/2006.

7. By enunciating his arguments, he emphasize Section 28 (4) and (5) of KIADB Act and submit that after acquisition of the land by the State Government for the purpose specified in the Notification in the Official Gazette, the land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrance and as such, issue regarding taking possession under Section 16(1) of Land Acquisition Act does not apply in the case on hand. The learned Senior counsel would further

- 9 -

contend that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition even on the ground of delay and latches since the acquisition proceedings held in the year 1988 and after lapse of several decades the appellants approached this Court. Hence, by virtue of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394, the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable. Accordingly, he prays to confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

8. The learned counsel for the third respondent-KIADB would submits that the KIADB executed a deed of sale in favour of the fifth respondent on 04.10.2023 in respect of the lands in question by virtue of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17.03.2023. Nevertheless, before the said sale deed also, the fifth respondent was in possession of the said land. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the claim of the appellants is totally baseless and frivolous and as such, learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. Accordingly, he prays to confirm the said order.

- 10 -

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties so also on perusal of the documents placed before us including the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the only point that would arise for our consideration is:

"Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.529- 539/2015 requires any interference by this Court?"

10. Admittedly, the land in question belongs to the Government and the petitioner and their predecessors were the grantees of the said land in the year 1977-78. Subsequently, in the year 1988, respondent No.2 caused the notification for formation of industrial area vide Notification No.CISPQ88 dated 09.06.1988, the said aspect was not seriously disputed by the appellants. Per contra, the grantees have signed their consent for the acquisition by affixing their signature on the possession certificate annexed to the statement of objection filed by the third respondent-KIADB before the learned Single Judge at Annexure-R1 to R25. The said annexure documents contain all the material particulars of the land, names of the Khatedars and amount of compensation. Hence, those documents prima

- 11 -

facie show that the khatedars have parted with the possession of the lands after consensual acquisition. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that, he had filed the copies of receipt of payment of compensation, indemnity bond and agreement under Section 29(2) of KIADB, 1960 before the learned Single Judge by way of his objection. Hence, on careful perusal of the above aspects, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that, the acquisition was consensual and the possession has been parted with by the land owners decades ago.

11. Nevertheless, the appellants had lost the possession of the lands as early as in the year 1988 after receiving the compensation from respondent Nos.2 to 4. There are no materials placed by the appellants to substantiate about lapsing of the scheme and the information to that regard by the concerned authorities, to the appellants. Per contra, the documents placed i.e., the agreements and possession certificates by the respondents clearly depicts that the land in question were taken possession by the third respondent and handed over to respondent No.5 soon after the acquisition. Hence, there is a delay and latches on the part of the

- 12 -

appellants in approaching the learned Single Judge of this Court. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Banda Development Authority supra, held in Para No.17 reads thus:

"17. It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self- imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallised rights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits."

12. Hence, the learned Single Judge rightly considered the said aspect and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches also.

13. Though, the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the issue regarding taking possession under Section 16(1) of Land Acquisition Act and in the instant case the possession has not been taken in

- 13 -

accordance with the law. On careful perusal of Section 28(4) and (5) which reads:

28. Acquisition of land - (1) If at any time, in the opinionof the State Government, any land is required for the purpose of development by the Board, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may by notification, give notice of its intention to acquire such land.

(2) xxxx

(3) xxxx

(4) After orders are passed under sub- section (3), where the State Government is satisfied that any land should be acquired for the purpose specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1), a declaration shall, by notification in the official Gazette, be made to that effect.

(5) On the publication in the official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (4), the land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrance.

13. The land in question acquired by the third respondent-KIADB in the year 1988 itself on the publication in the Official Gazette, the same shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrance. In such Circumstance,

- 14 -

taking possession of the land immediately as contemplated under Section 16(1) of Land Acquisition Act does not arise since the acquisition made under the provisions of KIADB Act, 1966. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants does not hold much water.

14. The learned counsel for the third respondent-KIADB fairly submits that the third respondent-KIADB filed W.P.No.1496/2021 and the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ petition and directed the third respondent- KIADB to execute and register sale deed in favour of the fifth respondent. In pursuance of the said order, the third respondent-KIADB executed the sale deed of the subject lands in favour of the fifth respondent on 04.10.2023. Further, the fifth respondent even filed a suit against the appellants in O.S.No.523/2023, for seeking permanent injunction against them. In the said suit, on 05.12.2023, the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Doddaballapura granted an interim order of injunction against the appellants. In such circumstance, it is further clarified that the fifth respondent is in possession of the land in question. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single

- 15 -

Judge does not call for any interference. Accordingly, we answer the point raised above in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Writ Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

HKV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20