Sri M Nagaraju S/O Muniyappa v. Government of Karnataka

Order

No.HUD.306/KHB.2006 dated

23.01.2007. Thereafter, Karnataka Housing Board submitted proposals to Revenue Department to accord approval to frame consent award under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and said proposal was approved on 18.01.2007. It is claimed that the Board has framed consent awards in respect of 261 acres of land at Hinnakki, Marasur and Lingapura and possession has also been taken.

(iii) It is contended that the conversion of the land and applications for approval of plan, NOC etc., set out in the writ petitions are contrary to public policy and Sections 4(2) and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners have no authority to form layout without approval of the planning authority. They contend that it may be true that the KSPCB has given consent for establishment and clearance of water and air pollution control point to the housing layout on 09.10.2005 in Sy.No.93/2. It may also be true that BMRDA has approved the layout plan on 13.06.2006 in respect of some other lands, but no importance or legality can be attached to the said acts as they are subsequent to the preliminary notification and cannot

be a ground for quashing acquisition proceedings. It is contended that under Section 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, every acquisition for the Board is for 'public purpose' and the contention that the petitioners were not informed/notified is false and denied. It is also contended that except the petitioners none of the other land owners have raised any objections to the acquisition proceedings and almost all the land owners have come forward and given their consent for acquisition and agreed to accept the compensation fixed by the Board. Therefore, it is claimed that the writ petitions are frivolous and liable to be rejected. It is also contended that the W.P.No.11568/2008 is filed after inordinate delay of two years.

6.

(i) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contended that an application to convert the land in Sy.Nos.171 and 172 was filed on 09.02.2005, which is prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act. He contends that though an official memorandum converting the land was issued after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, nevertheless, must have been treated as converted land and must have been excluded from acquisition

like Sy.No.91/1 in whose case application was filed on

09.02.2005. He therefore, contends that the petitioners have applied different yardsticks in identifying land for acquisition.

(ii) He contends that it has been the policy of the Board not to acquire land that is converted for non-agricultural purposes. He submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering acquisition for the Board in W.P.No.43342/2015 and connected petitions held that, "With regard to lands which have been converted for residential or industrial purposes, it is seen from the documents produced that KHB has left out similarly situated lands from acquisition except those areas that are required for formation of roads as per the comprehensive development plan. Admittedly, the land is sought to be acquired for formation of a residential layout by KHB. If the land is already converted for residential or industrial purposes, under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion it would not be appropriate for the respondents to acquire the same, except the area that is required for formation of road as per the comprehensive development plan in respect of the area concerned."

He therefore, contended that petitioners are entitled to raise this ground to assail the notifications.

(iii) He contends that soon after the lands in Sy.Nos.171 and 172 were converted for residential purpose, the petitioners had submitted representation dated 04.07.2005 requesting respondent No.2 not to acquire the above lands, followed by another representation dated 18.08.2006, which were not considered.

(iv) He further contended that the land in the Sy.Nos.171, 172 and 93/2 are all situate adjacent to the village. He contends that after conversion of the land, a layout of residential sites was approved by the Panchayath after obtaining the technical approval of BMRDA under Section 10 of the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1985. He submitted that in response to the petition No.1007 dated 07.02.2006, 16.03.2006 and 31.05.2006, BMRDA has also released the sites formed in Sy.Nos.93/2 and 91/1.

(v) He contended that the respondent No.2 has neither deposited the award amount nor taken possession of the

acquired land and hence, the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

(vi) Lastly, he contended that the Division Bench of this Court while disposing off W.A.Nos.1244-1245/2009 had held that the Board did not place any material to show the strict compliance of Sections 18 to 23 of Karnataka Housing Board Act. Therefore, the acquisition is bound to be set at nought for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law.

(vii) He contended that a large extent of land in various survey numbers were excluded from acquisition. In this regard, he invited the attention of the Court to the three endorsements all dated 02.01.2026 and contended that land in Sy.Nos.8/1, 26, 42/1, 47/2, 138, 158, 183/2, 395, 406, 413/2, 415/3 of Hinnakki village were all notified for acquisition, while lands in Sy.Nos.91/1, 158, 189/2, 190/1, 134, 135, 412/1, 412/2 and 413/1 were excluded from acquisition. He contends that whenever such similarly placed lands are de-notified from acquisition, then a landloser is entitled to seek similar

treatment at the hands of this Court. He therefore, prays that the case of the petitioners be considered in the light of the above act of the respondents in treating similarly placed persons differently.

7.

(i) Per contra, the learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to urge any other ground than the non-compliance of Section 24 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act. He contends that this ground is also not available in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Karnataka Housing Board and another vs State of Karnataka and others [(2022) 18 SCC 94]. He thus contends that no indulgence can be shown to the petitioners in these petitions.

(ii) He contended that the grounds urged by the petitioners now were already considered by this Court when these writ petitions were disposed off on 06.02.2009, where this Court held as follows: "9. In so far as last two contentions regarding conversion as well as certain other lands have been left out, it is to be noticed that the total extent of land notified

is 829.39 acres and under the final notification 754.22 acres was acquired. It is no doubt true that about 6 acres of land was left out of the acquisition, but that by itself, it cannot be said that there is malafide in the acquisition. The petitioners no doubt would contend that all the lands are converted. Hence the very purpose for which the land is acquired will be put to use for the same purpose by the petitioners. Indeed it is no doubt true that in respect of the lands conversion has been granted and in some cases conversion is still pending. Indeed Sy. No. 91/1 which measures 2 acres 12 guntas is excluded from the acquisition on the ground that it has been converted. But however such conversion has taken place before issuance of the preliminary notification. In so far as remaining lands are concerned, the conversion has taken place after the issuance of the preliminary notification. The Board in the statement of objection has stated that indeed an effort was made by the authority to delete the lands by conducting spot inspection on 30.6.2006. But however it could not be given effect to, inasmuch as, the lands would come in the middle of the project." He therefore contends that the petitioners cannot raise these grounds again as they are barred by the principles of res judicata.

(iii) He contended that the petitioners did not raise these grounds but restricted the ground to non-compliance of

Section 24 of Karnataka Housing Board Act. He contends that the Division Bench therefore remitted the matter to this Court to examine whether there is compliance of Sections 18 to 23 of Karnataka Housing Board Act and whether there was sanction from the Government under Section 24 of Karnataka Housing Board Act. He thus contends that the petitioners cannot urge any other ground than the one mentioned above, which is now no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred supra.

(iv) He contends that the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1244-1245/2009 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The petitioners withdrew the Civil Appeal with liberty to appear before this Court in W.P.No.18596/2006 and W.P.No.11568/22008 (the instant petitions). He therefore, contends that the petitioners can urge only a solitary ground regarding non-compliance of Sections 18 to 23 of Karnataka Housing Board Act and nothing more.

¶8I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶9These writ petitions were dismissed in terms of an order dated 06.02.2009, which was then challenged before the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1244-1245/2009. The Division Bench while holding that the acquisition of the land can take place without prior approval of the housing scheme under Section 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, remitted the case to this Court on the question of compliance of Sections 18 to 23 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act. Thereafter, the petitioners herein challenged the said order of the Division Bench before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.16699-16700/2013 (C.A.Nos.9002-9003/2013). The Hon'ble Apex Court granted an interim order directing both the parties to maintain status-quo. This was clubbed with C.A.No.4986/2022, C.A.Nos.7011-7013/2013, and C.A.Nos.7017-7019/2013, where the question that fell of consideration was, "Whether initiation of the proceedings for acquisition of land for the purposes of the Karnataka Housing Board, invoking the power under Section 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962, without the housing scheme being in existence or the housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Section 24(2) thereof, would render such acquisition proceedings void or non-est?"

The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering the aforesaid question held, "Initiation of proceedings for acquisition invoking the power under Section 33(2) of the KHB Act without the housing scheme being in existence or the housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Section 24(2) thereof, would not render such proceedings null and void." It also held that, "Unless sanction is obtained from the State Government for execution of any scheme therein, in terms of Section 24(2) of KHB Act, the actual act to complete process i.e., execution shall not be effected thereon." After having held so, the Hon'ble Apex Court held, "(ii) In Civil Appeal Nos.7011-13/2013, 9002-9003/2013 and 7017-19/2013 the position is that as per the common judgment and orders respectively in Writ Petition Nos.4625/2004, 18596/2006, 11568/2008 and 47616/2004 dated 26.4.2013 and also the judgment in Writ Appeal Nos.1244-45/2009, the Division Bench virtually decided that for initiation of acquisition proceedings for the purposes of KHB, existence of a sanctioned and published scheme is not a pre-condition. Consequently, the Division Bench confirmed the decision of the leaned Single Judge on that question and

thereupon, the Writ Petitions concerned/Writ Appeals were disposed of with request to the learned Single Judge to decide whether Sections 18-23 of the KHB Act were complied with or not. Obviously, those Writ Petitions are now pending. The issue is whether in view of the facts involved in those cases, the question of scrupulous adherence to Sections 18 - 23 of the KHB Act survives or needs to be followed, requires consideration depending upon the nature of the acquisition and other relevant facts. Hence, civil appeals shall be listed before the appropriate bench for consideration on their own merits, subject to this judgment."

¶10The petitioners thereafter filed an application for withdrawal of C.A.Nos.9002-9003/2013 and accordingly, C.A.Nos.9002-9003/2013 (SLP (Civil) Nos.16699-16700/2013) were dismissed as withdrawn on

07.03.2025 and the petitioners were relegated before the learned Single Judge, who was hearing these writ petitions on the short ground regarding non-compliance of Sections 18 to 23 of Karnataka Housing Board Act.

¶11Therefore, the remand to this Court is only to verify whether there was strict compliance of Sections 18 to 23 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act and whether there was a prior

sanction of the Government as mandated under Section 24 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act. The petitioners cannot attempt to re-argue or re-agitate grounds that they have already exhausted or failed to urge before this Court when these petitions were disposed off on 06.02.2009.

12.

(i) In support of the contention that there was proper compliance of Sections 18 to 23 of Karnataka Housing Board Act, an affidavit of the Special Land Acquisition Officer is filed on 10.03.2026, wherein it is stated that in compliance of Sections 18 and 19, a proposal to acquire 300 acres of land in Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, was submitted to the State Government on 12.04.2005. Later, the State Government vide its letter dated 20.07.2005 sought certain information such as

(i) approval of the Board for proposed scheme, (ii) total expenditure for scheme, (iii) whether scheme is sponsored by Government or Boards own funds, (iv) details of land proposed for acquisition. Later, the Board furnished the information on

10.01.2006. Hence, the State Government sanctioned the scheme as provided under Section 20 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act on 13.07.2007. This was then published on

10.11.2011 as prescribed under Section 21 of the Karnataka

Housing Board Act. Likewise, in respect of the acquisition of the land of petitioners, the preliminary notification was issued on

01.04.2005 and final notification was issued on 02.11.2006. A scheme/programme was submitted on 26.02.2009, which was approved by the State Government on 18.05.2010 and published on the official gazette dated

01.03.2012 in compliance with Section 21 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act. Therefore, there is compliance of Sections 18 to 21 of Karnataka Housing Board Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that there was a supplementary programme and budget which required sanction of the State Government under Section 20 and publication under Section 21 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act. Likewise, there was no variation of the sanctioned programme to comply with the requirement under Section 23 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, the compliance of Section 24 of Karnataka Housing Board Act is more or less become academic in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Karnataka Housing Board and another vs State of Karnataka and others [(2022) 18 SCC 194] where it is held;

"57. In short, as a whole, the purport of Section 24 is that no housing scheme or land development scheme or labour housing scheme, undertaken by KHB shall be executed sans sanction from the State Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 24 cannot be interpreted as one requiring obtainment of a second sanction for executing such schemes included in the programme. On the contrary, the provision under Section 24(2) has to be interpreted as one enabling KHB to undertake such schemes which were not included in the programme, but became necessary to undertake, subject to sanction from the Government. According to us, such a construction will only subserve the purpose of constitution of KHB."

(ii) Since Section 24(1) of Karnataka Housing Board Act is complied, the question referred to this Court by the Division Bench stands completely answered.

¶13Hence, these petitions are dismissed. Consequently, pending applications stand rejected.

Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:34463( WP(No.(18596(of(2006( C/W(WP(No.(11568(of(2008( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010532772006( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(8 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(R.(NATARAJ( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(18596(OF(2006((LA-KHB)( C/W( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(11568(OF(2008((LA-RES)( ( IN(WP(No.(18596/2006( BETWEEN:(( ( 1., SRI.,M.,NAGARAJU,, S/O,MUNIYAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,57,YEARS, R/AT,HINNAKKI,VILLAGE, JIGANI,HOBLI,,ANEKAL,TALUK, BANGALORE,DISTRICT., , 2., SMT.,PARVATHAMMA,, W/O,SRI.,M.,NAGARAJU, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEARS, R/AT,HINNAKKI,VILLAGE, JIGANI,HOBLI,,ANEKAL,TALUK, Digitally BANGALORE,DISTRICT.,signedtiby HEMALATHA0J …PETITIONERS, Location: HIGH0COURT (BY,SRI.,JAYAKUMAR,S.,PATIL,,SENIOR,ADVOCATE,FOR,, OF ,,,,,,SRI.,PRASHANTH,P.N.,,ADVOCATE),KARNATAKA AND:( ( 1., GOVERNMENT,OF,KARNATAKA, REVENUE,DEPARTMENT,, TH5 ,FLOOR,,M.S.,BUILDING, BANGALORE-560,001, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY, , 2., THE,COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA,HOUSING,BOARD, KAVERI,BHAVAN,,BANGALORE, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:34463( WP(No.(18596(of(2006( C/W(WP(No.(11568(of(2008( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010532772006( ( ( , 3., THE,SPECIAL,LAND,ACQUISITION,OFFICER, KARNATAKA,HOUSING,BOARD, KAVERI,BHAVAN,,BANGALORE., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,ADITYA,DIWAKAR,,ADDITIONAL,GOVERNMENT,ADVOCATE, FOR,RESPONDENT,NO.1;, SMT.,PUSHPAKANTHA,,ADVOCATE,FOR,RESPONDENT,NOS.2,AND,3), THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, FINAL, NOTIFICATION, NO.KUM.E.76.BHU.SWA.BE, 2006, DATED, 02.11.2006, UNDER,THE,ORIGINAL,OF,ANNEXURE-E,IN,RESPECT,OF,SY.NO.93/2,, HINNAKKI, VILLAGE,, JIGNI, HOBLI,, ANEKAL, TALUK,, BANGALORE, DISTRICT., IN(WP(NO.(11568/2008, BETWEEN:, 1., SRI.,M.,NAGARAJU, S/O.,MUNIYAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,57,YEARS, R/AT,HINNAKKI,VILLAGE, JIGANI,HOBLI,,ANEKAL,TALUK, BANGALORE,DISTRICT., , 2., SMT.,PARVATHAMMA, W/O.,SRI.,M.,NAGARAJU, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEARS, R/AT,HINNAKKI,VILLAGE, JIGANI,HOBLI,,ANEKAL,TALUK, BANGALORE,DISTRICT., ...PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.,JAYAKUMAR,S.,PATIL,,SENIOR,ADVOCATE,FOR,, ,,,,,,SRI.,PRASHANTH,P.N.,,ADVOCATE), AND:, 1., GOVERNMENT,OF,KARNATAKA, REVENUE,DEPARTMENT,, TH5 ,FLOOR,,M.S.BUILDING, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:34463( WP(No.(18596(of(2006( C/W(WP(No.(11568(of(2008( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010532772006( ( ( BANGALORE-560,001, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY, , 2., THE,COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA,HOUSING,BOARD, KAVERI,BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560001., , 3., THE,SPECIAL,LAND,ACQUISITION,OFFICER, KARNATAKA,HOUSING,BOARD, KAVERI,BHAVAN,, BANGALORE-560001., ...RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,ADITYA,DIWAKAR,,ADDITIONAL,GOVERNMENT,ADVOCATE, FOR,RESPONDENT,NO.1;, SRI., BASAVARAJ, V., SABARAD,, SENIOR, ADVOCATE, FOR, SRI., H.L.PRADEEP,KUMAR,,ADVOCATE,FOR,RESPONDENT,NOS.2,AND,3), ,,,,,,,THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227, OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,QUASH,THE,FINAL, NOTIFICATION,NO.LAQ,S.R.5/04-05,DATED,21.10.2006,UNDER,THE, ORIGINAL,OF,ANNEXURE-Q,IN,RESPECT,OF,SY.NO.171,AND,172/3, (PART, OF, SY.NO.172), AND, HINNAKKI, VILLAGE,, JIGNI, HOBLI,, ANEKAL,TALUK,,BANGALORE,DISTRICT., , THESE, PETITIONS,, COMING, ON, FOR, FINAL, HEARING,, THIS, DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,R.,NATARAJ, , ORAL(ORDER( , W.P.18596/2006, is, filed, for, a, writ, in, the, nature, of, certiorari, to, quash, the, final, notification, bearing, No.Kum.E.76.Bhu.Swa.BE,2006,dated,02.11.2006,in,respect,of, Sy.No.93/2, of, Hinnakki, village,, Jigani, Hobli,, Anekal, Taluk,, Bengaluru,District., 2. W.P.11568/2008 is filed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the final notification bearing No.Kum.E.76.Bhu.Swa.BE 2006 dated 02.11.2006 in respect of Sy.Nos.171 and 172/3 (part of Sy.No.172) of Hinnakki village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. 3. Facts as pleaded in W.P.No.18596/2006: (i) The petitioner No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.2 and they purchased the land bearing Sy.No.93/2 of Hinnakki village in terms