ORDER
Anand Byrareddy, J.
1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. It is contended that lands in Survey Nos. 1, 2/1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Srinivagilu, Amanikere, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and Survey No. 12/1 of Jakkasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk, came to be acquired by the State for the benefit of the petitioner-society and its members, and the proceedings were completed in the year 1988.
2. That the petitioner-Society has in turn allotted sites to its members and conveyance of the same by registered documents in favour of such members is substantially completed.
3. It is the petitioner's complaint that respondents 3 to 8 who are erstwhile owners of the acquired land (to the extent of 60 acres 20 guntas out of 66 acres 22 guntas acquired) are seeking to alienate the very lands and that the said respondents have, in collusion with respondents 9 to 15, executed sale deeds and have even got the same registered. Copies of such sale deeds are annexed to the petition.
4. The petitioner contends that the sale deed are illegal and opposed to public policy. The petitioner contends that in terms of Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) and Section 3 thereof, imposes an embargo on transfer of land which is the subject-matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act or any other law. Respondents 3 to 8 having lost their title over the lands pursuant to the acquisition, there is a total embargo under Section 8 of the Act - in respect of registration of any conveyances in respect of the said land by the erstwhile owners. The petitioner complains that inspite of the petitioner having brought these facts to the knowledge of the second respondent, the registering authority, the above sale deeds were registered and hence the petition seeking a declaration that the above sale deeds are null and void and other incidental reliefs.
5. Sri V. Lakshminarayana, appearing for the petitioner contends that the lands having been acquired and the possession of the lands having been delivered to the petitioner, respondents 3 to 8 stood divested of their title. The subsequent execution of the sale deeds was therefore void ab initio and there was a failure on the part of the second respondent in abiding by the provisions of the 1991 Act.
6. Sri Lakshminarayana has cited a large number of decisions, namely.-
(1) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and Ors. v. Godrej and, Boyce : [1988]1SCR590
(2) Sudama Singh v. Nath Saran Singh and Ors. : [1988]1SCR1049
(3) Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat and Ors. : AIR1975SC1767
(4) ITI Employees' Housing Co-operative Society Limited v. Venkatappa Disposed off on 23-12-2005 (Kar.);
(5) Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan (dead) by L.Rs : AIR2000SC3335
(6) Mahavir Prasad Gupta and Anr. v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. : 2000CriLJ4665
(7) Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : [1977]1SCR1072
(8) Thakur Mohd. Ismail v. Thakur Sabir Ali 1962(1) SCR 20;
(9) Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors. : (1997)1SCC35
(10) Dutta Associates (Private) Limited v. Indo Merchantiles (Private) Limited and Ors. : (1997)1SCC53
(11) Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh and Ors. : AIR2003SC234
(12) The Fruit and Vegetable Merchants' Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust : [1957]1SCR1 .
7. Respondents 3 to 8 and respondents 9 to 15 have resisted the petition on various grounds including the validity of the acquisition proceedings.
8. Sri C.G. Gopalaswamy, appearing for respondents 9 to 15 argued at length on these contentions and relied on the following.-
(1) S.P. Gururaja and Ors. v. The Executive Member, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and Anr. : AIR1998Kant223
(2) M. Sanjeeva and Anr. v. State of Karnataka, represented by Secretary, the Department of Co-operation, Bangalore and Ors. : ILR2003KAR4867
(3) D. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : [1977]2SCR626
(4) State of Maharashtra v. The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Company Limited : [1977]1SCR1002
(5) Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Limited v. State of West Bengal and Ors. : AIR1962SC1044
(6) Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1962SC1052 .
9. The limited question for consideration in the present writ petition is, whether in the given facts and circumstances, the reliefs sought for can be granted.
10. The statement of objects and reasons in the passing of the Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991, reads as follows.-
Statement of Objects and Reasons
Act 17 of 1992.-Some of the major bottlenecks faced by Bangalore Development Authority and the Urban Development Authorities in accelerating the much needed formation and distribution of sites in Bangalore City and other urban areas are the following.-
(1) Unauthorised sale of citiesby the affected land holders through registered sale deeds or against power of attorneys or entering into agreements of sale, after collecting advance payments;
(2) Unauthorised construction activity by the transferees in various parts of Bangalore and other urban areas under the cover of the aforementioned sale deeds and power of attorneys.
The value of the land in the areas notified for acquisition tends to increase, and advantage thereof is taken by many unscrupulous landholders, by selling their lands to unsuspecting buyers, in violation of various laws. The transferees, in turn indulge in unauthorised construction rendering the process of acquisition of land and planned urban development extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Similar laws passed in other States in the country have greatly helped in preventing such unauthorised transactions. The present measure is expected to prevent the difficulties caused in the way of acquisition of lands and to help in the speedy formation and distribution of sites.
Hence the Bill.
(Obtained from L.A. Bill No. 7 of 1991 published in Karnataka Gazette, Extraordinary, Part IV-2A, dated 21-3-1991 as No. 124).
11. In line with the above, the restriction under Section 8 is in respect of lands referred to under Section 4 of the Act.
12. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows.-
4. Regulation of transfer of lands in relation to which acquisition proceedings have been initiated.-No person shall, except with previous permission in writing of the Competent Authority, transfer, or purport to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof situated in any urban area which is proposed to be acquired in connection with the scheme in relation to which the declaration has been published under Section 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 or Section 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987.
13. Having regard to the fact that the allegation is regarding transfer of land that has already vested in the State and possession of which is with the Society, the nullity of the transaction precedes the registration. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the transfer itself. Registration of any such conveyance is superfluous. The conveyance of acquired land, not being denied, and the nullity of such transactions not being capable of declared without reference to factual data, however trivial, would not be the province of this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner would necessarily have to approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and seek appropriate declaratory reliefs.
14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.