STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PURVANKARA PROJECTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 3.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.46729 and 48690 - 705 of 2015, by which the petitions were allowed, the respondents therein are in appeal.

(2.) The petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order bearing No.LND/CR:49/15-16 dated 8.10.2015 and for a direction restraining the 2nd respondent or any person claiming through or under him from encroaching upon the lands in Survey Nos.98, 99/1, 99/2, 100, 101/1, 101/2, 101/3, 101/4, 101/5, 101/6, 101/7, 101/8, 102, 103, 104, 126 and 127 situated in Benniganahally Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli Bangalore. The petitioner states that the lands in the above survey numbers were subject matter of acquisition by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') to an extent of 113 acres for DRDO Complex. The land owners had challenged the acquisition. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Court the State Government denotified certain lands. The said de-notification was challenged by the Ministry of Defence, in whose favour land was notified for acquisition, by filing writ petitions. The writ petitions came to be dismissed, against the dismissal of the writ petitions the Ministry of Defence filed Writ Appeal Nos.2002-2010 of 2000. The said writ appeals were allowed quashing the de-notifications. The land owners aggrieved by the order passed in the writ appeals, filed appeals before the Honourable Apex Court. It is stated that during the pendency of the appeals before the Honourable Apex Court, the Ministry of Defence and the land owners entered into a compromise, agreeing to retain 50% of the land and to hand over 50% of the land in one contiguous block to the land owners. Accordingly a joint memo was filed and an order dated 07.04.2004 came to be passed by the Honourable Apex Court. Accordingly, land owners got land measuring 12 acres 1 gunta in the above stated survey numbers, which was the subject matter of acquisition. The petitioners made application for conversion and an endorsement dated 24.12.2005 was issued stating that the lands are non-agricultural lands as the lands were acquired for non-agricultural purpose, which has lost agricultural character. Subsequently N.H. Rushthumji, B.S.N. Hari and D. Ravi Shankar acquired title in respect of 12 acres 1 gunta of land. It is stated thereafter they entered into joint development agreement and obtained necessary sanctions and permissions for construction of multi-storeyed residential complex.

(3.) The petitioner states that after completion of construction of 630 dwelling units, they received a notice dated 06.08.2015 alleging encroachment of Government Land in Survey Numbers 95, 134, 97, 98 and other survey numbers, of Benniganahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli and called upon the petitioner to vacate the encroachment. In the said notice, the petitioner was given an opportunity to produce documents and to appear before the Tahsildar. It is stated that the petitioner replied to the said notice enclosing the necessary documents. In its reply the petitioner stated that as per the sanctioned plan, to the western side of survey No.98, 14 feet walking path has been left and denied the alleged encroachment. The Tahsildar by his order dated 08.10.2015 ordered to vacate the encroached portion of the land in survey No.125 to an extent of 0.01 gunta, survey No.126 - 0.02 guntas and survey No.127 - 0.03 guntas and directed registration of the proceedings under Sec. 192(A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the instant writ petitions contending that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar is contrary to the details mentioned in the notice dated 06.08.2015. It was also contended that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar is contrary to Sec. 67 of the Act and no enquiry is conducted before passing the impugned order. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties to the lis allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order dated 08.10.2015. Further the learned Single Judge observed that if any damage is caused to the immovable property of the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to institute such legal proceedings as is available in law for recovery of damages as also cost of restoration. The learned Single Judge also permitted the petitioner to erect the compound wall to protect its properties with police protection. Aggrieved by the said order, the State is in appeal contending that the learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and further contended that the petitioner has encroached public property to an extent of 6 guntas.