B. Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka

B. Krishnappa vs State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Feb 15, 1994

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/378663

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/378663
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Shivaprakash, J.
Decided On: Feb 15, 1994
Case Number: W.P. Nos. 43962 and 43963 of 1993
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (Central Act No. 1 of 1894) - Sections 4(1) & 6(1) - Acquisition completed, possession taken & compensation received, quashing does not arise.; In view of the fact that acquisition has been completed by taking possession and the petitioners have received full compensation, question...

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1) and 6(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

B. Krishnappa

Advocate S. Vijay Shankar, Senior Counsel for ;Kaleemulla Shariff and ;B.V. Prabhakar, Advs.

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Advocate Bharathi Nagesh, H.C.G.P., G. Kasturi and G.R. Mohan, Advs. for R-4

Legal References

Acts: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1) and 6(1)
Reported In: ILR1994KAR962; 1994(2)KarLJ680

Excerpt

land acquisition act, 1894 (central act no. 1 of 1894) - sections 4(1) & 6(1) - acquisition completed, possession taken & compensation received, quashing does not arise.; in view of the fact that acquisition has been completed by taking possession and the petitioners have received full compensation, question of quashing of 4(1) notification and 6(1) declaration does not arise.... those notifications cannot legally exist in the eye of law, as on today since acquisition has been completed. - code of civil procedure, 1908. order 21 rules 97,101 & 103: [a.n.venugopal gowda,j] obstruction to execution of a decree - questions to be determined by the executing court held, an application filed under order 21 rule 97, must be considered in accordance with the provisions of order 21 rule 101 c.p.c., the scope of such an application is quite wide and it is to be treated as though it is a title suit-when the objector filed an application under order 21 rule 97 claiming independent title to the property in question, the adjudication therein tantamount to a decree. further, when a person claiming title to the property in his possession obstructing the attempt by the decree holder to dispossess him form the suit property, the executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the person offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate orders as per provisions of order 21 rule 103 of c.p.c.,. the said order passed by the executing court has to be treated as a decree, as the proceedings under order 21 rule 97 is akin to a suit. the order of the executing court posting the case for adjudication of the claim of the respondent/objector on i.a.no.6 held, justified. - 4. sri vijaya shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that in view of the fact that the lands were acquired for a public purpose, to wit, for formation of a residential layout by the 4th respondent society and for allotment of sites to its..........employees of r.m.s. and telephone wings of p & t. it is also alleged that the management of the society has been alloting sites even to non-members.4. sri vijaya shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that in view of the fact that the lands were acquired for a public purpose, to wit, for formation of a residential layout by the 4th respondent society and for allotment of sites to its members who are employees of the aforesaid department and since the management of the society has been alloting sites to others, the public purpose for which the lands were acquired is defeated, but, on the other hand, in the guise of public purpose lands were acquired and given to the society which has been allotting sites to others who are not eligible for such allotment.5. the relief sought in these petitions is for quashing of 4(1) notification and 6(1) declaration pursuant to which the award was made and possession was taken of the lands in question.6. in view of the fact that acquisition has been completed by taking possession and the petitioners have received full compensation, question of quashing of 4(1) notification and 6(1) declaration does not arise. in my view, those notifications cannot legally exist in the eye of law, as on today since acquisition has been completed.7. the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of a division bench of this court in mrs. behroze ramyar batha vs . special land acquisition officer : ilr 1991 kar3556 , to emphasise that even after the acquisition is completed, it is open for the petitioners to challenge the acquisition, if the lands are diverted for purposes other than the one for which the lands were acquired. the facts of that case are totally different from the facts of this case. in that case, even before the acquisition was completed, the acquiring body had entered into certain agreements with an individual to divert the lands for private purposes. it is in those circumstances this court.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Shivaprakash, J

1. The petitioners were the owners of the lands in question. The said lands were acquired for formation of a residential layout by the 4th respondent Co-operative Society. The possession of the lands has been taken and delivered to the 4th respondent and as on today the ownership of the lands vests in the 4th respondent-Society.

2. The membership of the said Society is open only to the employees of the Railway Mail Service and Telephone Wings of P & T Department, as stated by the petitioner.

3. In these Petitions, the petitioners allege that even though the lands were acquired for formation of layout and allotment of sites to the members of the said Society, the Management of the said Society has been allotting sites to members, who are not employees of R.M.S. and Telephone Wings of P & T. It is also alleged that the Management of the Society has been alloting sites even to non-members.

4. Sri Vijaya Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that in view of the fact that the lands were acquired for a public purpose, to wit, for formation of a residential layout by the 4th respondent Society and for allotment of sites to its members who are employees of the aforesaid Department and since the Management of the Society has been alloting sites to others, the public purpose for which the lands were acquired is defeated, but, on the other hand, in the guise of public purpose lands were acquired and given to the Society which has been allotting sites to others who are not eligible for such allotment.

5. The relief sought in these Petitions is for quashing of 4(1) Notification and 6(1) Declaration pursuant to which the award was made and possession was taken of the lands in question.

6. In view of the fact that acquisition has been completed by taking possession and the petitioners have received full compensation, question of quashing of 4(1) Notification and 6(1) Declaration does not arise. In my view, those Notifications cannot legally exist in the eye of law, as on today since acquisition has been completed.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the Decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. BEHROZE RAMYAR BATHA vs . SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER : ILR 1991 KAR3556 , to emphasise that even after the acquisition is completed, it is open for the petitioners to challenge the acquisition, if the lands are diverted for purposes other than the one for which the lands were acquired. The facts of that case are totally different from the facts of this case. In that case, even before the acquisition was completed, the acquiring body had entered into certain agreements with an individual to divert the lands for private purposes. It is in those circumstances this Court concluded that such a malafide exercise of power which is fraudulent cannot be sustained. The facts of that case clearly disclose even long before taking of possession, the acquiring body had entered into several agreements with an individual for selling of the land for private purposes.

8. I see no merit in these petitions. Beside, in my view, the petitioners have no locus stand sufficient interest to maintain these Petitions. Hence, the Petitions are rejected at the preliminary stage.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not as yet received the compensation amount. If so, they are free to receive the same unless there is some legal obstacle.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1994 Same Parties B. Krishnappa vs State of Karnataka Same Subject Property Same Judge Shivaprakash, J. Acts & Sections Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1) and 6(1)

Property