KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in SLP(C) No.1361 of 2021 and on consent taken up for hearing along with connected Civil Appeals. In all these Appeals a common question arises for consideration viz., "whether initiation of proceedings for acquisition of land for the purposes of the Karnataka Housing Board, invoking the power under Sec. 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962, without the housing scheme being in existence or the housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Sec. 24(2) thereof, would render such acquisition proceedings void and non-est". Certain allied questions may also call for consideration. We may hasten to state that we do not propose to dispose of the appeals on merits under this judgment and it would only resolve the stated common question and cognate issues. Nonetheless, if nothing survives for consideration in any appeal, upon answering the moot question and allied issues, then its fate would depend upon the nature of their answers.

(2.) The Karnataka Housing Board Act, (hereinafter for short "the KHB Act") was enacted with an object to provide for measures to be taken to deal with and satisfy the need for housing accommodation. For effectuating the said object, under Sec. 3 thereof, the Karnataka Housing Board (for short "KHB"), was constituted. Different modes for acquisition of properties for the purposes of KHB are provided under the KHB Act, including the power for compulsory acquisition under Sec. 33(2). With this short prelude we will proceed to consider the moot question and the allied issues, for which it is proper and profitable to state succinctly the situation occurring in the appeals from which they stem for consideration. We refer to the rival contentions raised in the appeals solely for the said purpose.

(3.) This appeal is preferred by 'KHB' and its Special Land Acquisition Officer against the judgment and final order dtd. 1/12/2020 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA No. 5712 of 2012 (LA-KHB) filed against the order in WP No.25184 of 2011 dtd. 29/5/2012. The Government of Karnataka as per Annexure 'A' Notification dtd. 15/12/1998, (marked thus in the appeal) issued under Clause(c) of Sec. 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "L.A. Act"), appointed the Housing Commissioner of KHB to perform the functions of Deputy Commissioner under Sec. 4 of the L.A. Act in respect of the lands to be acquired for the purposes of KHB in Bengaluru and Mysore Revenue Divisions, namely, Bengaluru Urban and Bengaluru Rural, etc. S.3(c) itself makes it clear that the appropriate Government is empowered to appoint any officer to perform the functions of a collector under the L.A. Act. In exercise of the powers thus conferred, the Housing Commissioner, KHB, issued Annexure 'B' Preliminary Notification dtd. 18/4/2007 under Sec. 4(1) of the L.A. Act in respect of two places, namely, Kowdenahalli village and K.R. Puram village in Bengaluru District for acquisition of a total extent of 56 acres and 37 guntas of land, for the housing projects of KHB. The said Notification was published in the official Gazette on 12/7/2007 and thereafter, in two daily newspapers on 18/8/2007 and local offices during the period from 13/8/2007 to 24/8/2007. Subsequently, the State Government issued the declaration and final Notification Annexure 'C' under Sec. 6(1) of the L.A. Act, dtd. 26/3/2009 declaring that the notified properties are required for public purpose, i.e., for construction of different categories of houses by KHB. It was also duly published in the official Gazette and in two local newspapers. Mrs. Dawn D'souza, the mother of Respondents 2 and 3 in this Appeal, filed WP No.25184/2011 challenging the afore-mentioned preliminary and final Notifications before the High Court of Karnataka. An interim order was granted in the said petition on 28/7/2011. Earlier, three other writ petitions, viz., WP Nos.25435/2010, 23002/2010 and 23083/2010, were filed by some other land owners challenging the very same Notifications. Obviously, only one point was raised in all the four cases, viz., 'whether acquisition Notifications could be issued until and unless scheme is finalized as per the provisions of the KHB Act'. They were heard together and allowed by a Learned Single Judge as per the order dtd. 29/5/2012, upholding the contention of the petitioners therein that sanction of the housing scheme concerned is sine qua non for initiation of acquisition proceedings therefor, following his own judgment in WP No.9593/2007 in respect of acquisitions of the year 1991 for a different area. As a matter of fact, the said relied upon judgment in WP No.9593/2007 was rendered, relying mainly on the decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. Vs. Mohammed Yousef and Ors. (AIR 1992 SC 1827). Later, on 29/6/2012, a proposal for 53 housing schemes, including for the aforesaid two places, namely, Kowdenahalli village and K.R. Puram village, were submitted to the Government for approval by KHB. On 4/9/2012, the State Government accorded sanction for all the said 53 housing schemes as per Annexure 'H' dtd. 4/9/2012. In respect of 30 acres and 3 1/2 guntas out of 56 acres and 37 guntas in the said villages, awards were passed and according to the appellants, in respect of the remaining extent, awards were not passed in view of the interim orders of the High Court. KHB filed four writ appeals against the aforesaid common order dtd. 29/5/2012. The Division Bench vide judgment dtd. 1/12/2020 dismissed Writ Appeal No.5712/2012 rejecting the contention that initiation of process for acquiring land for the purposes of KHB prior to the framing and sanctioning of the scheme for which acquisition is required will not invalidate the acquisition proceedings and holding thus:-