PUSHPAVATHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner had acquired title to Sites bearing Nos. 49 and 50, formed out of land, which was converted for residential purpose, bearing Survey No. 5 of Geddalahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, under a sale deed dated 31-3-1992, executed by one Swaminathan through his general power of attorney holder. It is stated that the land bearing Survey No. 5 of Geddalahalli Village, totally measuring 6 acres 19 guntas was agricultural land belonging to A.V. Nanjundaiah, who acquired title by virtue of the order of regrant made by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Division, by order dated 24-5-1971. Pursuant to the regrant, the revenue entries were effected in his name followed by entries in the R.T.C. The copies of which are furnished. A.V. Nanjundaiah, as absolute owner, had sought permission from the Competent Authority to alienate the land, which was granted by order dated 13-9-1973 and accordingly, Nanjundaiah sold the land in favour of Swaminathan under a registered sale deed dated 31-10-1973. The revenue entries were then made in favour of Swaminathan and Swaminathan, as the absolute owner, had approached the Tahsildar seeking permission to divert the user of the land from agricultural to industrial. The Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk had granted a Conversion Certificate dated 12-5-1975. In the year 1991, Swaminathan again approached the Competent Authority seeking permission to change the user of the land from industrial to residential purposes insofar as an extent of 5 acres 35 guntas of land was concerned. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, by an official memorandum dated 11-9-1991 accorded approval in that regard. Upon obtaining conversion, Swaminathan is said to have formed a layout and allotted residential sites of different dimensions, which was duly approved by the Narayanapura Village Panchayat. It is then that the first petitioner purchased two sites in the layout, as already stated.

(2.) It is the further case of the petitioners that, being aggrieved by the judgment of a Division Bench sustaining the acquisition, the persons, who had lost their lands, had approached the Apex Court by filing a special leave petition and leave having been granted, the appeals were heard and decided on 5-5-2010, whereby the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court came to be confirmed and there were certain directions and clarifications issued which are as follows:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that in the eye of law, the sites belonging to the petitioner were never the subject-matter of acquisition, as she was not the notified owner and the lands, though indicated as Government lands at the time of issuance of the notifications, by virtue of subsequent proceedings that have been initiated, is no longer shown as Government land and the petitioner's title stands perfected by virtue of the subsequent events and therefore, the acquisition proceedings cannot be completed insofar as the petitioner's lands are concerned without appropriate steps being taken in that regard. The learned Counsel would further submit that by virtue of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for brevity), having come into force from 1st January, 2014 and by virtue of Section 24 of the Act, which has come in for interpretation by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others, dated 24-1-2014 in Civil Appeal No. 877 of 2014, the Supreme Court has taken the view in interpreting Section 24 of the Act as follows: