S G SHIVARAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals arise out of common judgment rendered by the learned single judge in writ petition No. 21977 of 1999, etc. The appellants herein who are the writ petitioners claim to have purchased the sites in dispute from the landholder one Sri c. Ramu (who is not a party in the writ petitions) in the year 1981 by means of registered deeds of sale executed on plain paper under which possession has been purportedly delivered to them. It is also their case that pursuant to the sale deeds, they were put in possession and the entire sale consideration was paid to the said landholder. Claiming that they are interested in the lands and that they were not put on notice either after issuing preliminary notification or at the time of or before passing the award, the appellants filed writ petitions questioning the preliminary notification dated 22-10-1990 (Annexure-F) and the final notification dated 30-3-1991 (Annexure-j ). Insofar as the appellants are concerned, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petitions. Against that judgment, the present writ appeals are filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has put forward the same contentions as regards lack of notice to the appellants. The further objection raised is that the acquisition proceedings which were initiated under the Karnataka State Act 17 of 1961 were without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said act is impliedly repealed by the Central Act 68 of 1994 as ruled by this court in naveen jayakumar v state of karnataka. The learned counsel has taken exception to the learned judge's remark that the said decision was rendered per incuriam and therefore not binding on him. The learned single judge referred to the decision in nanjundaiah and others v state of Karnataka , to fortify his conclusion that the decision in naveen jayakumar's case, supra, does not lay down the correct law and it was rendered 'per incuriam'. We need not go into this larger controversy, inasmuch as the relief under article 226 of the Constitution ought to be and has been rightly denied by the learned single judge for more than one reason. There is no semblance of explanation from the appellants as to why they did not question the land acquisition proceedings, if they are really interested in the lands. It is only in the year 1999 that the writ petitions came to be filed. If the land in question was put in possession of the appellants in the year 1981 as claimed by them, it is incomprehensive as to why the appellants did not raise the little finger till the year 1997 when one of the appellants filed a suit against the beneficiary and in other cases till 1999. It only casts serious doubts on the alleged interest which the appellants profess to have over the land under the so-called sale deed. It is worthy to note that the land acquisition proceedings were completed long back and possession was taken over in the year 1991 itself and as pointed out by the learned single judge, l. i. c. (respondent 4) has already constructed buildings for the benefit of its employees and thus fully utilised the land. We cannot at this juncture put the clock back and undo what had been done nearly a decade back. That apart, the absence of notice on which the appellants are harping upon is only imaginary grievance. The appellants never became owners of the land through a process known to law. The alleged possession has not been established by any reliable evidence, such as the revenue records (rtc extracts ). The mere fact that in the applications filed by the appellants before Mysore urban development authority in the year 1990, they claim to have made temporary construction of 10 feet x 10 feet and therefore requested for regularisation does not mean that the claim of the appellants should be accepted.

(3.) IT is pointed out by the learned counsels for the appellants that in the statement given before the land acquisition collector at the time of enquiry, the landholder mentioned that certain plots of lands were sold to others. To whom it has been sold, according to his statement, is not clear from the papers that are filed before this court. Moreover, the landholder himself had given consent for acquisition agreeing to the price offered. It is too late in the day to contest the validity of the land acauisition proceedings on the basis of the so-called sale deeds said to have been executed by the landholder which do not in any sense convey the title to immovable property, in the absence of registration. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed at the admission stage.