Shanthinagar House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
karnataka land (restriction on transfer) act, 1991 - section 3- embargo on transfer of land which is the subject matter of acquisition-section 8-embargo on registration of any conveyance-held-the 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 writ jurisdiction. petitioner has to approach the trial court for appropriate relief.;writ petition dismissed. - motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 147 & karnataka motor vehicles rules, 1989, rule 100: [c.r. kumaraswamy, j] liability of insurer claimant, a police constable sustained injuries when rashly driven canter dashed goods vehicle in which he was travelling he was in uniform and was returning home after attending his duty in police station held, rule 100 gives some privilege to policemen to travel in goods vehicle. plea by insurer that there is no coverage in respect of policemen travelling in goods vehicle, being gratuitous passenger is not tenable in view of protection of rule 100. section 168: [c.r. kumaraswamy, j] quantum of compensation claimant, policemen sustaining injuries in accident being a policeman, he can take treatment in recognised hospital and get medical reimbursement continuing in employment even after accident considering these facts, he was held entitled to rs.35,000/- instead of rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering, medical expenses was reduced from rs.50,000/- to rs.25,000/-, rs.30,000/- towards reduced eligibility of employment, rs.20,000/- towards loss amenities, rs.5,000/- towards conveyance, food and nourishment and rs.15,000/- towards loss of earning (in all rs.1,30,000/-). further held that he is not entitled for rs.50,000/- towards disability. orderanand byrareddy, j.1. the petitioner is a society registered under the karnataka co-operative 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 srinivagalu ammeniaare, 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.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 deeds 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 nos. 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 in spite 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. shri. 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. shri. 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 ltd. v. venkatappa (disposed of on 23.12.2005- unreported judgment)5) rajendra kumar v. kalyan (dead) by l.rs : air2000sc3335 6) mahavir prashad 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. thakvr sabir ali 1962(1) s.c.r. 209) secretary, jaipur development authority, jaipur v. daulatmal jain and ors. : (1997)1scc35 10) dutta associates pvt. ltd. v. indo merchantiles pvt. ltd. 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-(s) (s) : [1957]1scr1 7. respondents nos. 3 to 8 and respondents nos. 9 to 15 have resisted the petition on various grounds including the validity of the acquisition proceedings.8. shri c.g gopalaswamy, appearing for respondents nos. 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, rep. by secretary, the departmentof co-operation, bangalore and ors. : ilr2003kar4867 3) d. nagaraj etc. v. state of karnataka and ors. etc : [1977]2scr626 4) state of maharashtra v. the central provinces manganese ore co. ltd : [1977]1scr1002 5) calcutta gas company (proprietary) ltd. v. state of west bengal and ors. : air1962sc1044 6) izhar ahmad khan etc. 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 reasonsact 17 of 1992- some of the major bottlenecks faced by the 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) un-authorizedsale of citiesby the affected land holders through registered sale deeds or against power of attorneysor entering into agreements of sale, after collecting advance payments.2) un-authorizedconstruction activity by the transferees in various parts of bangalore and other urban areas under the cover of the afore-mentioned 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 un-scrupulous land holders, by selling their lands to un-suspecting buyers, in violation of various laws. the transferees, in turn indulge in un-authorizedconstruction pending 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 measures 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 (extraodinary) 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 acquisitionproceedings 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.

Judgment:
ORDER

Anand Byrareddy, J.

1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative 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 Srinivagalu Ammeniaare, 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.

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 deeds 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 Nos. 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 in spite 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. Shri. 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. Shri. 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 Ltd. v. Venkatappa (Disposed of on 23.12.2005- unreported judgment)

5) Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan (Dead) By L.RS : AIR2000SC3335

6) Mahavir Prashad 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. Thakvr Sabir Ali 1962(1) S.C.R. 20

9) Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulatmal Jain and Ors. : (1997)1SCC35

10) Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd. 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-(S) (S) : [1957]1SCR1

7. Respondents Nos. 3 to 8 and Respondents Nos. 9 to 15 have resisted the petition on various grounds including the validity of the acquisition proceedings.

8. Shri C.G Gopalaswamy, appearing for Respondents Nos. 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, Rep. By Secretary, The Departmentof Co-Operation, Bangalore and Ors. : ILR2003KAR4867

3) D. Nagaraj Etc. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. Etc : [1977]2SCR626

4) State of Maharashtra v. The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd : [1977]1SCR1002

5) Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. : AIR1962SC1044

6) Izhar Ahmad Khan Etc. 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 the 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) Un-authorizedsale of citiesby the affected land holders through registered sale deeds or against power of attorneysor entering into agreements of sale, after collecting advance payments.

2) Un-authorizedconstruction activity by the transferees in various parts of Bangalore and other urban areas under the cover of the afore-mentioned 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 un-scrupulous land holders, by selling their lands to un-suspecting buyers, in violation of various laws. The transferees, in turn indulge in Un-authorizedconstruction pending 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 measures 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 (Extraodinary) 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 acquisitionproceedings 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.