LAKSHMAIAH, SON OF LATE DODDATHAYAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners 1 to 3 are said to be brothers residing at Ganigara palya, Hosahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. They claim to be the owners of land in Survey No. 3/2 measuring 8 acres 20 guntas and Survey No. 4/1A2 measuring 2 acres 34 guntas, at Hosahalli. Petitioners 4 to 6 claim to be the legal heirs of one Muniswamy who owned land in Survey No. 1/2, measuring 1 acre 9 guntas of the same village. The second respondent is said to be a house building co -operative society established under the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act, 1959 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Act', for brevity). It is stated that the lands of the petitioners was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings initiated for the purpose of acquiring land for the purpose of allotting the same to the society to enable it to form a housing layout. The preliminary notification was issued on 23.9.1988 and the final declaration was issued on 11.10.1989, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as ' the LA Act' for brevity). The petitioners are said to have challenged the proceedings in a writ petition in WP 32426/1993 before this court. The said petition, however, was said to have been withdrawn. It is further stated that since the society failed to take any steps to develop the layout even after a lapse of two years, the petitioners are again said to have filed another petition in WP 42556/1995, which is said to have been dismissed with certain observations. The petitioners had also filed civil suits and claim their possession to have been protected by orders of temporary injunction granted therein. It is contended that the Society having failed to obtain sanction of a layout plan over the years was disabled from proceeding with its objective and therefore the petitioners are said to have approached the State Government seeking denotification of their lands. It is claimed that the Government had sought for a report on the status of the lands and that the Land Acquisition Officer by his report dated 7.11.2007 had stated that the lands continued in the possession of the petitioners. The Bangalore Development Authority is also said to have submitted a report dated 11.4.2008, to state that the layout plan in respect of the proposed layout of the society, had not been sanctioned. Inspite of those reports, the State Government not having taken any steps, the petitioners are said to have filed writ petitions in WP 14975/2008 and WP 12752/2009, respectively, which were said to have been disposed of by orders dated 2.12.2008 and 5.5.2009, respectively, directing the Government to consider the representations of the petitioners. Pursuant to the above, the Government obtained reports from the Deputy Commissioner, who submitted a report dated 26.8.2009, the Special Land Acquisition officer had submitted a report dated 1.8.2009. Curiously, a report submitted by the Registrar of Co -operative Societies as regards the affairs of the Society is said to have stated that the Society had formed 515 sites in the layout proposed and that sale deeds had also been executed in favour of the allottees. It was also ascertained from the District Registrar of such sales. That a copy of one such sale deed which was obtained by the petitioners disclosed a recital that the BDA had accorded sanction of plan of the layout as on 11.7.1992, which according to the petitioners is blatantly false, as it is plainly contrary to the reports by several authorities that there was no progress at all in the formation of the layout. The Government had, on the basis of the several reports received by it, issued a show cause notice to the Society calling for an explanation. But did not take any further action against the Society. In the meanwhile an endorsement is issued to the petitioners that there is no need to consider the case of the petitioners seeking denotification. It is in the above back ground that the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) THE learned Senior Advocate Shri Udaya Holla, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner, contends the State Government has failed to take note of the gross irregularities in the Society having proceeded in gross violation of several restrictions under which it was placed. It is pointed out that though a Three Man Committee, appointed to enquire into gross irregularities involving several societies, had ultimately recommended that acquisition proceedings for the benefit of certain Societies could be proceeded with, only as on 20.1.1989, the acquisition in respect of the respondent society was commenced with the issuance of the preliminary notification as early as 23.9.1988, when there was a clear embargo. It is also pointed out that the Society had proceeded to allot and convey sites in the proposed layout, even without there being a sanction of the layout plan. Further, in the face of the circumstance that physical possession of the lands not having been taken, as found by the Special Land Acquisition officer in his report, the entire records of the society are apparently cooked up to suit its ends. It is canvassed that the Society has enrolled ineligible members and has sold the sites in the layout in their favour. This amounts to fraudulent diversion of land acquired for a public purpose and is an entirely fresh ground available to the petitioners to question the acquisition. It is contended that the Society had entered into an agreement with an agent to act as a middle man to facilitate the timely completion of the acquisition proceedings by the State Government, for a consideration. Such a transaction having been declared as a fraud on the power of the State, time and again by the apex court, the learned Senior Advocate would submit that the acquisition would fail on that one ground alone.

(3.) ON behalf of the Society, it is contended that the petitioners having unsuccessfully challenged the very same acquisition proceedings in the earlier writ petitions, as admitted by the petitioners and this court having found that possession is handed over to the Society, it would pre -suppose the land having vested in the State and hence the question of the acquisition proceedings having lapsed or the petitioners being entitled to an order of denotification does not arise. It is further pointed out that the petitioners having availed of sites in the layout formed by the society, apart from having received compensation from the Society have suppressed the said circumstance. The execution of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners would clinch the issue that the possession of the lands was no longer with the petitioners. It is contended that the acquisition proceedings having been concluded in all respects with the society having been handed over the lands as early as the year 1992, the present petition seeking to challenge the same at this remote point of time is not only futile but is liable to be rejected summarily as being barred by delay and laches. It is contended that In so far as the several reports and other orders of the government referred to by the petitioners to demonstrate that the petitioners continue in possession of the lands are not relevant, as the same are generated immediately preceding the petition, when the society had taken possession of the land in the year 1992 itself. The Society has produced documents to evidence the factum of having formed sites in the layout and having sold the same to its allottees.