T.A.JAGADAMBA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dtd. 14/12/2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District in Revision Petition Nos.205 to 207/2012-13 and R.P.No.32/2015-16. Four separate revision petitions were filed by respondent No.4 herein calling in question orders passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk and orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division in respect of claims raised by the other private respondents to set aside revenue entries maintained in favour of respondent No.4 and to enter their respective names in the land records.

(2.) It is hardly disputed that an extent of 118 acres of land in various survey numbers situated at Soladevanahalli Village and Chikkabanavara Village were notified and acquired by His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore under preliminary notification dtd. 24/6/1938 and final notification dtd. 24/6/1938, while directing the Assistant Commissioner to exercise the powers of the Deputy Commissioner to take possession of the acquired lands on expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of notice under Sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition notifications were issued for the benefit of respondent No.4 - M/s. The Mysore Stoneware Pipes and Potteries Ltd., for setting up a manufacturing unit to manufacture stoneware pipes for drawing sewage and sanitary lines in the then State of Mysore. At Annexure 'R8' filed along with the statement of objections of respondent No.4, the statement of compensation paid to the claimants is furnished. It is the contention of respondent No.4 that the industry was established and for the first time in the south of India, respondent No.4 commenced production of chemical stoneware in the year 1950.

(3.) Long after the establishment of the industry at the hands of respondent No.4, claims were made by the legal heirs of the erstwhile land owners seeking revenue entries in their names, on the ground that the acquisition proceedings did not go through; that subsequently occupancy rights were conferred under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 and the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Attention of this Court was drawn by learned Senior Counsel Sri Udaya Holla, appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent to an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5271/1995 dtd. 16/1/2001 filed by the fourth respondent raising a challenge to one such order passed under the provisions of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. It was held that the competent authority has not held any enquiry as required under the Rules and has proceeded to pass the order without even notifying all persons interested and more particularly the person in possession of the land. Consequently, the order of regrant was set aside remanding the matter back to the competent authority to reconsider the matter afresh. Consequent to the remand, the competent authority held an enquiry and came to a conclusion that since the lands were acquired by the Government for the benefit of the fourth respondent during the year 1938-39, the provisions of the Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 would not apply. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. Similarly, attention of this Court was drawn to Annexure 'R12' which is an order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk on a petition filed by Smt. Rajamma and Others, who are respondents No.7 to 12 herein. The Land Tribunal, by its order dtd. 3/6/2002 dismissed the claim on the ground that the lands were not agricultural lands and question of tenancy would not arise. Smt. Rajamma and others filed W.P.No.32632/2002, challenging the orders passed by the Land Tribunal. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 16/1/2009 and the writ appeal filed by Smt.Rajamma and others in W.A.No.424/2009 was also dismissed on 13/1/2010.