G V RUDRUPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the notification, Annexure-G , dated 22-6-1984 made by the state of Karnataka, respondcnt-1 herein, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondcnts-1 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioner from the land bearing sy. No. 99/e situated in bull temple road, Bangalore, and for such other direction or order as this court deems fit, for the reasons stated in the writ petition,

(2.) the facts of the case briefly stated are as undcr:- the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing sy. No. 99/e situated in bull temple road, Bangalore city. The land measures 46,1431 sq. Feet with the boundaries as described in the first para of the writ petition. At the request of the then administrator of the corporation of the city of Bangalore, rcspondent-1 issued a notification No. Rd 85 aqw 75, dated 17-6-1977 under Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred lo as the act) appointing the deputy commissioner (administration), Bangalore city corporation, to perform the functions of the deputy commissioner for purposes of acquisition of the land in question. Accordingly, the deputy commissioner issued a notification dated 5-1-1978 under Section 4(1) of the act which came to be gazetted on 12-1-1978 seeking to acquire the land for a public purpose, to wit., formation of a park and a play ground. The petitioner filed his objections. After considering the objections and after hearing the petitioner, a notification under Section 6(1) of the act was issued by publication in the gazette dated 28-7-1978 declaring that the land was needed for a public purpose. Thereafter the land acquisition officer issued notices undei sections 9 and 10 of the act. It is necessary to mention here that in the meanwhile, the power of the land acquisition officer was taken away from the deputy commissioner of the Bangalore city corporation and vested in the deputy commissioner, Bangalore district, and all the pending cases of acquisition in the corporation of the city of Bangalore were transferred to the assistant commissioner, Bangalore sub-division, in view of the government order of delegation. Thereafter, the assistant commissioner & land acquisition officer after due enquiry under Section s 9 and 10 of the act passed an award on 31-12-1979 in a sum of Rs. 58,960-50 paise as compensation for the acquired piece of land measuring 5127 sq. Yards in sy. No. 99/e and he also issued notice of award as required under Section 12(2) of the act to the claimant. Later the award came to be approved by the deputy commissioner. Pursuant to the award, rcspondcnd-4 deposited the sum awarded in the civil court so as to enable the claimant to receive the same. Thereafter, the land acquisition officer on 12-6-1980 took possession of the land acquired under Section 16 of the act and handed it over to the junior engineer, division No. 30, Bangalore city corporation under a mahazar. The case of the petitioner, however, as averred in the writ petition is that this very property came lo be acquired by the erstwhile slate of Mysore in the year 1935 for the public purpose. However, those proceedings came to be dropped. It is submitted by him that this was so because the petitioner came forward voluntarily lo surrender a portion of the land for formation of two roads of 30' and he accordingly surrendered that part of the land. Therefore, it is not right on the part of the state government to have initiated fresh proceedings under the act to acquire the very land once again. The further case of the petitioner is that the special deputy commissioner, urban land ceiling and taxation, Bangalore, issued a notification No. Ufc(6) 81/1978-79, dated 20-8-1979, published in the gazettc dated 25-10-1979, under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the urban land (ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 (the act of 1976 for short) whereby 1581.37 sq. Yards out of the schedule land was shown as excess of the ceiling limit and thus a notice also came to be issued on 31-10-1979 requesting the petitioner to deliver possession of the said excess land within 30 days from the date of service of the notice. The petitioner objected to that notice. The further case of the petitioner is that although the assistant commissioner, Bangalore sub-division, Bangalore, deposited a sum of Rs. 58,960-50 ps. In court where the case was referred under sections 30 and 31 of the act and the said amount was pending in the court of the 9lh additional city civil judge, Bangalore, the petitioner did not withdraw the amount. In the meanwhile, according lo the petitioner, one more notification bearing No. Rd 140 aqb 81, dated 8-12-1982 which came lo be published in the gazette, dated 9-12-1982 came to be issued under Section 48(1) of the act by which earlier notification referred to above came to be withdrawn. This notification is marked as anncxure-a in the writ petition. Thus, according to him, the entire proceedings initiated under the act for the purpose of acquiring the land in question came lo be withdrawn and therefore a right came to be accrued to him as regards the land, subject matter of notification. Thereafter, the assistant commissioner filed a memo in the court of the 9lh additional city civil judge, Bangalore, in lac No. 1463 of 1980 stating that the stale government ordered withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings and therefore tin; reference made under sections 30 and 31 of the act might be dropped. By an order made on 20-4-1983, the court directed lo close the case besides directing the withdrawal of the amount in deposit, Annexure-B is the certified copy of the order so made in lac No. 1463 of 1980. In the operative portion of the Order, annexurc-b, the learned judge ordered as followsi- "the file is closed without prejudice lo the rights of the claimants if any," it is therefore submitted that pursuant lo the above order made by the court, the award amount in deposit came to bt withdrawn by respondent-3. This is as per annexure-c. It is perltncnt to note in this behalf that the special deputy commissioner, urban land ceiling and taxation, Bangalore, respondcnd-5 herein, issued a notification on 16-12-1982 as per Annexure-D withdrawing the earlier notification dated 20-8-1979 declaring cxeess land held by the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that pursuant to ihe above proceedings culminating in the notifications annexures-a and d, possession of the land in question came lo be redelivered to him by the assisianl commissioner, Bangalore sub-division, on 8-9-1983 as per anncxure-e. This Annexure has been produced in the court along with others to demonstrate that the petitioner had been put in possession of the land in question as on the dale when the writ petition came to be presented on 31-8-1984. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the deputy commissioner of the corporation of the city of Bangalore (revenue) to change khata and to show his name in the fresh khala lo be issued in his favour; besides showing ihe said land as having been assessed to tax under the corporation acl. Since ihe deputy commissioner refused to accede to the request, the petitioner issued a legal notice to him on 21-6-1984 as per Annexure-F . In the meanwhile, respondent-1 state issued a notification as per Annexure-G on 22-6-1984 which came to be gazetted on 19-7-1984 clarifying that the state government did not intend to withdraw the acquisition proceedings as notified in annexure-a. In Annexure-G , the state government has clarified as to how a confusion had been created which led to the issuance of the notification, annexure-a, inasmuch as it was made clear by a perusal of Annexure-G that the special deputy commissioner, rcspondent-5 herein, having issued a notification under the urban land (ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 declaring an area of 158137 sq. Yards out of 46,143 sq. Feet comprising in sy. No. 99/e as vested in the state government as it was in excess of the ceiling limit, there was no need to acquire the area under the Land Acquisition Act. The action taken by the special deputy commissioner, respondent-5, led the state government to a confusion to withdraw the earlier acquisition proceedings culminating in annexure-a. The state government however clarified that it did not intend to withdraw the acquisition proceedings thereby Annexure-G notification dated 22-6-1984 stood rescinding its earlier notification, annexure-a. Thus, the earlier proceedings under the act came to be revived. It is these proceedings resulting in Annexure-G that gave rise to the grievance of the petitioner to approach this court. The action taken by respondent-1 in issuing Annexure-G , according to the petitioner, is opposed to article 300-a of the Constitution of india. He has sought to quash it for the grounds taken in the writ petition.

(3.) a detailed statement of objections has been filed on behalf of respondents-2 and 3 controverting the averments of the writ petition and urging mainly the following grounds:- the land in question is within the limits of the corporation of the city of Bangalore and is situated in a densely populated area. The citizens living nearby and certain social organisations repeatedly made representations to the corporation to provide certain lung space for a play ground and a park in the said area. The corporation authorities having been satisfied about the need of the citizens of that area to provide a lung space to carve out a play ground and a park for the beneficial enjoyment of the children and the citizens living in that area submitted a proposal to the administrator of the corporation of the city of Bangalore for passing a resolution unanimously requesting him to acquire vacant land measuring 5127 sq. Yards in site nb. 99/e situated at bull temple road, Bangalore belonging to the petitioner which was most suitable for the said purpose. The administrator of the corporation approved the proposal on 5-4-1976 and the proposal was submitted to the government for acquisition of the said land.