M. Channaraje Urs and Others Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Secretary and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india – articles 226 and 227 – karnataka urban development authorities act, 1987 – sections 4 and 17(1) – delay – dismissal for petition – state government by its order, as per annexure-l, rejected resolution passed by muda – challenged rejection of proposal of muda to delete 26 acres of land from acquisition, connected petition filed by petitioners, that government has no power to reject resolution passed by muda and same without following procedure contemplated under act – whether, single judge was justified in dismissing petition on ground of delay – court held – delay in issuing final notification and issuance of final notification belatedly was not on account of negligence or due to any inaction on part of state government or muda – since petitioners did not explain delay in approaching court within reasonable time – when lands were acquired for public purpose, if government was of opinion that there no reason for muda to give up lands notified for acquisition, that too large extent of 26 acres, in favour of family members of appellants, government was justified in rejecting resolution of muda – not found any reason to interfere with same, as single judge not committed any error in dismissing petition. karnataka urban development authorities act, 1987 – section 19(7)– resolution of muda – maintainability of petition – whether, petitioners could maintain petition, challenged decision of government approving resolution passed by muda – court held – court could not hold that explanation offered by respondent no.2 muda could not be that of respondent no.1 - state government – section 19(7) of act was relevant, which envisages that muda has no right to denotify or re-convey lands which included in scheme without specific orders of state government –it was proposed by muda at request of family members of petitioners, government need not accept same – since lands sought to be given up have been included in scheme – government supreme authority either to denotify or re-convey lands notified for acquisition – section 19(7) of act, no illegality or irregularity committed by state government in rejected request of muda to approve its resolution – petition dismissed. (paras 4,6,7,10,11,12,13) (prayer: this appeal is filed under section 4 of the karnataka high court act, 1961 praying to set aside the order passed in the writ petition no. 14086/2001 dated 18.02.2003 cf sufficient appeal in time and etc.,) (prayer: this petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, praying to quash the order dated 30.08.2005 passed by the r1 bearing no. na. aa. ei. 264 mai. aa. pra. 2005 as per annexure - l and etc.,) 1. the legality and correctness of the order passed by a learned single judge in wp nos. 30059-61 of 2001 connected with wp no 14086 of 2001 dated 18-2-2003 is called in question in wa no 3598 of 2003. 2. the appellants are the owners of agricultural lands in all measuring 32 acres 11 guntas comprised in sy nos 152a, 153, 54/a, 157/a and 158 of nachanahalli village, mysore taluk, eacn survey numbers are measuring different extents. for the formation of a residential layout by the second respondent - mysore urban development authority [muda, for short], a notification under section 17(1) of the karnataka urban development authorities act, 1987 [for short, the act] was published on 8-1-1992 and the scheme was approved by the government of karnataka on 18-8-1992. the final notification came to be issued on 9-3-1998. challenging the legality and correctness of the final notification issued by the respondents, wp no 14086 of 2001 came to be filed. 3. the main contention urged by the appellants-writ petitioners before the learned single judge was that there is a delay of six years in issuing the final notification from the date of preliminary notification. the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition, on the ground that there is no delay in issuing the final notification, by accepting the cause shown by muda. the learned single judge held that the writ petitioners have not approached the court within a reasonable time from the date of issuance of final notification. according to the learned single judge, the final notification was published on 9-3-1998 and the writ petition came to be filed in 2001 and therefore they have not approached this court within a reasonable time and on this ground, the writ petition came to be dismissed. challenging this order of the learned single judge, the present appeal is filed. 4. during the pendency of the writ appeal, at the request of the members of the family of appellants, mud a passed a resolution on 4-9-2003, agreeing to take only an extent of 6 acres 11 guntas of land, required for the formation of an outer ring road and giving up the remaining extent of 26 acres from acquisition, subject to the condition that the appellants shall not claim compensation in respect of the land to be taken over by mud a for the formation of ring road. the resolution of the muda was sent to the state government for its approval, as required under the act. the state government by its order dated 30-8-2005, as per annexure-l to wp nc 2194 of 2006, rejected the resolution passed by muda. therefore, challenging the rejection of the proposal of muda to delete 26 acres of land from acquisition, the connected writ petition is filed by the petitioners, contending that the government has no power to reject the resolution passed by muda dated 4-9-2003 and the same is without following the procedure contemplated under the act. therefore, the writ appeal and the writ petition are heard together. 5. sri s subhash, learned counsel for the appellants- writ petitioners, contends that when there is a delay of six years in issuing the final notification, it was for the state government to explain the delay for not issuing the final notification within a reasonable time and that on account of non-issuance of the final notification within a reasonable time, the learned single judge ought to have declared that the acquisition proceedings are lapsed. he further submits that when muda, based on the representation of the members of the family of appellants, had agreed to take only 6 acres 11 guntas of land for the formation of ring road, free of cost, by agreeing to delete 26 acres of land from acquisition, the state government was required to consider' the resolution of the muda and that the state government has no discretion to reject the request of muda. therefore, he requests the court to allow the writ appeal and modify the order passed by the learned single judge in the writ petition in terms of the resolution dated 4-9-2003. 6. per contralearned counsel for the respondents submit that the respondents have explained the reasons for the delay in issuing the final notification. according to them, in respect of the land claimed by the appellants, two societies namely dr sir m vishveshwarava house building cooperative society and siudalingeshwara house building cooperative society, had approached the respondents to delete the very same land from acquisition, on the ground that the said lands are required for formation of layouts for the benefit of members of said societies and correspondences were going on between the state government and the said societies. the government had taken a decision, rejecting the request of the two societies to give up acquisition of the lands in question. therefore, that there is delay in issuing the final notification and the issuance of final notification belatedly was not on account of negligence or due to any inaction on the part of the state government or muda. they further submit that the writ petition has been rightly rejected by the learned single judge, since the petitioners did not explain the delay in approaching the court within a reasonable time. it is further submitted that when the lands were notified for acquisition for the formation of a layout by muda, which is a public purpose, and when the acquisition proceedings were known to the appellants, they were expected to file the writ petition -within a reasonable time and that the delay of 2 '/a years to approach the court cannot be considered as a reasonable time and that the appellants were not diligent in approaching court. 7. similarly, learned counsel for the respondents also contend that merely because a resolution is passed by muda at the request of members of family of the appellants to delete 26 acres of land from acquisition by utilizing only 6 acres 11 guntas of land for the formation of ring road, cannot be a ground for the government to accept the resolution, as the government having approved the scheme, it is in the wisdom of the government to accept or reject the resolution of muda. when the lands were acquired for a public purpose, if the government was of the opinion that there is no reason for muda to give up the lands notified for acquisition, that too a large extent of 26 acres, in favour of family members of the appellants, the government is justified in rejecting the resolution of muda. in the circumstances, they request, the court to dismiss the writ appeal as well as writ petition. 8. having beard the learned counsel for parties, we have to consider the following two points in this appeal and writ petition: "i) whether the learned single judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches? ii) whether the petitioners in wp no 2194 of 2006 can maintain the writ petition, challenging the decision of the government in not approving the resolution dated 4-9- 2003 passed by muda to give up 26 acres of land from acquisition by taking only 6 acres 11 guntas for the formation of ring road?" 9. having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following points are not in dispute in the appeal and writ petition. the appellants, who are owners of 32 acres 11 guntas of land situated m different survey numbers of nachanahalli village, mysore taluk, questioned the acquisition proceedings by filing a writ petition in the year 2000-01. what was questioned by them before the learned single judge is the final notification dated 9-3-1998. admittedly, the writ petition was filed 2 '/a years from the date of final notification. as rightly pointed out by the learned single judge, it is for the petitioners to explain the delay in not approaching this court within a reasonable time. the learned single judge, relying upon a judgment cf this court, came to the conclusion that in the matter of acquisition, the parties are required to approach court challenging the acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time of two to three months. but, in the instant case, there is a delay of more than 2 v2 years. 10. we have perused the copy of the writ petition. the cause shown by the appellants-petitioners in not approaching this court within a reasonable rime is that they were not aware of the acquisition proceedings. when they were contending that the issuance of final notification has to be considered as bad in law only on account of delay and laches, they are expected to give reasons for not approaching court within a reasonable time. as stated supra, no cause is shown by the appellants-petitioners for not approaching the court within a reasonable time. in these circumstances, if the learned single judge has dismissed the wilt petition, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same, as the learned single judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. 11. in so far as the ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is delay of six years in issuing the final notification is concerned, though the state government has not explained the reasons for the delay, it is seen that the delay has been satisfactorily explained by muda. muda is a statutory body established by the government of karnataka. lands in question have been acquired by the state government for the benefit of muda. when muda has explained the reasons for not issuing the final notification within a reasonable time, stating that it was on account of the request made by two house building cooperative societies to delete the very same land from acquisition, on the ground that they were in need of the land for formation of residential layouts, this court cannot hold that the explanation offered by the second respondent muda cannot be that of first respondent - state government. accordingly, the said plea is rejected. 12. as far as the contention of the petitioners in wp no 2194 of 2006 is concerned, it is seen that the writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the state government as per annexure-l dated 30-8-2005, wherein the state government has turned down the request of muda to approve its resolution dated 4-9-2003 to give up 26 acres of land in favour of writ petitioners by taking only 6 acres 11 guntras of land, free of cost, for the lormation of ring road. the question is whether muda can, on its own, pass a resolution cf this nature to give up 26 acres of land in favour of writ petitioners? in so far as this point is concerned, sub-section 7 of section 19 of the act is relevant, which clear!;/ envisages that muda has no right to denotify or re-convey lands which are included in a scheme without the specific orders of the state government. in other words, the government is the supreme authority either to denotify or re-convey the lands notified for acquisition. merely because it is proposed by muda at the request of the family members of writ petitioners, the government need not accept the same, since the lands sought to be given up have been included in the scheme. therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-section 7 of section 19 of the act, we are of the view that no illegality or irregularity is committed by the state government in rejecting the request of the muda to approve its resolution dated 4-9-2003. 13. in the result, the writ appeal and the writ petition are dismissed, confirming the impugned judgment passed by the learned single judge, reported in 2003 (4) kar lj 528.