WRIT PETITION 104130 of 2014 on 7 November 1975

1. SMT. SABIRABI

W/O. HAZARATHSAB ATTAR,

AGE: 83 YEARS,

R/O. TABIBLAND, ATTAR BUILDING

HUBLI – 580020.

2. SMT. MEHARUNNISSA

W/O. ASHQUAHMAD YADWAD,

AGE: 64 YEARS,

R/O. TABIBLAND, ATTAR BUILDING, HUBLI- 580020. HUBLI- 580020.

3. KUMARI FAIROZA

D/O. HAZARATSAB ATTAR,

AGE: 59 YEARS,

R/O. TABIBLAND, ATTAR BUILDING,

HUBLI – 580020.

4. KUMARI RAZIA

D/O. HAZARATSAB ATTAR,

AGE: 53 YEARS,

R/O. TABIBLAND, ATTAR BUILDING,

HUBLI – 580 020.

5. KUMARI. ASIYABEGUM

D/O. HAZARAAB ATTAR,

AGE: 38 YEARS, R/O. TABIBLAND, ATTAR BUILDING, HUBLI – 580020. R/O. TABIBLAND, ATTAR BUILDING, HUBLI – 580020.

6. SRI. AYUB

S/O. HAZARATSAB ATTAR,

AGE: 48 YEARS,

R/O. TABIBLAND,

ATTAR BUILDING, HUBLI – 580020.

7. SMT. HASEENABEGUM W/O. NAZEERAHMAD ATTAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, R/O. TABIBLAND, ATTAR BUILDING, HUBLI – 580020. W/O. NAZEERAHMAD ATTAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, R/O. TABIBLAND, ATTAR BUILDING, HUBLI – 580020.

8. SRI. SOHAILAHMED @ JAVED S/O. NAZAEERAHMAD ATTAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, R/O. TABIBLAND, ATTAR BUILDING, HUBLI – 580020. S/O. NAZAEERAHMAD ATTAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, R/O. TABIBLAND, ATTAR BUILDING, HUBLI – 580020.

9. KUMARI SHAHEEN BEGUM @ SANA

D/O. NAZEERAHMED ATTAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, R/O. TABIBLAND, ATTAR BUILDING, HUBLI – 580020.

(BY SRI. J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONERS

AND:

1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, HUBLI DHARWAD URBAN AGGLOMERATION, DHARWAD – 580001. AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, HUBLI DHARWAD URBAN AGGLOMERATION, DHARWAD – 580001.

2. THE HUBLI DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI, BY ITS COMMISSIONER. DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM. BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM.

4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.

5. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD. DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA, FOR R1, R3, R4 & R5; SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:-

A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.LUCR-579/13-14 DATED 03.06.2013, PASSED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A, THE ORDERNO.LUC.R579, DATED 18.07.1978, PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT - SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-B, THE ORDER DATED 07.11.1975 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, IN ULC.R.579 DATED 07.11.1978, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-C AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 06.02.1979, PASSED BY THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM-THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN RB.ULC.AP.14/78-79, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-D. DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.LUCR-579/13-14 DATED 03.06.2013, PASSED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A, THE ORDERNO.LUC.R579, DATED 18.07.1978, PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT - SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-B, THE ORDER DATED 07.11.1975 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, IN ULC.R.579 DATED 07.11.1978, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-C AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 06.02.1979, PASSED BY THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM-THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN RB.ULC.AP.14/78-79, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-D.

B) A WRIT OF MANDAMUS MAY KINDLY BE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS DIRECTING THEM TO PAY THE COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF THE RETAINABLE LAND SY.NO.618 TO AN EXTENT OF 1082.6343 SQ.METERS IF NECESSARY BY INITIATING THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND RESPONDENTS DIRECTING THEM TO PAY THE COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF THE RETAINABLE LAND SY.NO.618 TO AN EXTENT OF 1082.6343 SQ.METERS IF NECESSARY BY INITIATING THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND

ACQUISITION ACT OR BY DIRECTING THEM TO REDELIVER THE VACANT POSSESSION OF THE SAID EXTENT OF THE LAND IN UNAKAL VILLAGE, BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.12.2012, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-T.

C) FURTHER DIRECTIONS MAY KINDLY BE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS ALSO TO PAY THE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND SY.NO. TO AN EXTENT OF 2630.4499 SQ. METERS SHOWN AS THE POT KHARAB LAND OR FOR WHICH NO COMPENSATION HAS BEEN PAID SO FOR BY THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS ALSO TO PAY THE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND SY.NO. TO AN EXTENT OF 2630.4499 SQ. METERS SHOWN AS THE POT KHARAB LAND OR FOR WHICH NO COMPENSATION HAS BEEN PAID SO FOR BY THE RESPONDENTS.

D) FURTHER DIRECTION MAY KINDLY BE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,05,132/- BY DEDUCTING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- ALREADY PAID BY THE FIRST RESPONDNET IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.168, SITUATED AT UNAKAL VILALGE, ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 15% PER ANNUM, IF NECESSARY BY DECLARING THAT SECTION 11(6) OF THE URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID. RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,05,132/- BY DEDUCTING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- ALREADY PAID BY THE FIRST RESPONDNET IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.168, SITUATED AT UNAKAL VILALGE, ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 15% PER ANNUM, IF NECESSARY BY DECLARING THAT SECTION 11(6) OF THE URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID.

E) FURTHER DIRECTION MAY KINDLY BE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE FURTHER COMPENSATION OF RS.10,00,000/- EACH TO THE PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 5 FOR THE LOSS AND MENTAL HARASSMENT, CAUSED TO THEM DUE TO THE INACTION AND DELAY ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES, IN NOT SETTLING AND PAYING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT, IN TIME AND ALSO PROVIDE AN EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONERS NO.2, 8 AND 10. RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE FURTHER COMPENSATION OF RS.10,00,000/- EACH TO THE PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 5 FOR THE LOSS AND MENTAL HARASSMENT, CAUSED TO THEM DUE TO THE INACTION AND DELAY ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES, IN NOT SETTLING AND PAYING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT, IN TIME AND ALSO PROVIDE AN EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONERS NO.2, 8 AND 10.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

a)Issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 03.06.2013 passed by Respondent No.5 – The Additional District Commissioner, Dharwad, i.e., Annexure-A; quash the order dated 03.06.2013 passed by Respondent No.5 – The Additional District Commissioner, Dharwad, i.e., Annexure-A; b)To quash the order dated 18.07.1978, passed by respondent No.1 - the Special Deputy Commissioner and Competent Authority, Hubli-Dharwad Urban Agglomeration, i.e., Annexure-B; by respondent No.1 - the Special Deputy Commissioner and Competent Authority, Hubli-Dharwad Urban Agglomeration, i.e., Annexure-B;

c)To quash the order dated 07.11.1978 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, i.e., Annexure-C, the Special Deputy Commissioner, i.e., Annexure-C, d)To quash the order dated 06.02.1979, passed by the respondent No.3 – The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum, i.e., Annexure-D. by the respondent No.3 – The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum, i.e., Annexure-D.

e)To issue writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay compensation for compulsory acquisition of the retainable land in Survey No.618, to an extent of 1082.6343 square meters, and directing them to deliver vacant possession of the said land, as per the representation dated 05.12.2012, produced as per Annexure-T; directing the respondents to pay compensation for compulsory acquisition of the retainable land in Survey No.618, to an extent of 1082.6343 square meters, and directing them to deliver vacant possession of the said land, as per the representation dated 05.12.2012, produced as per Annexure-T; f)To direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of the land measuring 2630.4499 square meters, shown as Pot kharab land, for which no compensation has been paid; to the petitioners in respect of the land measuring 2630.4499 square meters, shown as Pot kharab land, for which no compensation has been paid; g)For directing the respondents to pay compensation amounting to ₹3,05,132/-, after deducting the amount of ₹2,00,000/- already paid in respect of Survey No.618, situated at Unkal Village, along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum under Section 11(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ULC Act’, for short), by declaring that Section 11(6) of the ULC Act is unconstitutional and void and, compensation amounting to ₹3,05,132/-, after deducting the amount of ₹2,00,000/- already paid in respect of Survey No.618, situated at Unkal Village, along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum under Section 11(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ULC Act’, for short), by declaring that Section 11(6) of the ULC Act is unconstitutional and void and, h)To direct the respondents to pay compensation of ₹10,00,000/- each to Petitioners No.2 to 5, for the loss and mental harassment caused to them due to the inaction and delay on the part of the authorities, in not settling and paying the compensation amount, and not providing any employment opportunity to Petitioners No.2, 8 and 10. of ₹10,00,000/- each to Petitioners No.2 to 5, for the loss and mental harassment caused to them due to the inaction and delay on the part of the authorities, in not settling and paying the compensation amount, and not providing any employment opportunity to Petitioners No.2, 8 and 10.

2. Heard Sri. J. S. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. G. I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for the respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 5. the petitioners, Sri. G. I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for the respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 5.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, he was in possession of Survey No.618 of Unkal Village measures possession of Survey No.618 of Unkal Village measures 19 acres 20 guntas. Out of which, the Deputy

Commissioner, Dharwad, who is the Competent Authority, declared that an area measuring 78913.4964 square meters is the excess land, and the possession of the same has been taken over by the government, as per the order dated 07.11.1978. Authority, declared that an area measuring 78913.4964 square meters is the excess land, and the possession of the same has been taken over by the government, as per the order dated 07.11.1978.

4. It was the contention of the claimant before the Divisional Commissioner that, he was entitled for compensation of ₹3,05,132/-. The competent authority had awarded a compensation of only ₹2,00,000/-, and thereby, deprived him of his property and value of the land illegally. Divisional Commissioner that, he was entitled for compensation of ₹3,05,132/-. The competent authority had awarded a compensation of only ₹2,00,000/-, and thereby, deprived him of his property and value of the land illegally.

5. The Divisional Commissioner in the appeal filed by Sri.Hajaratasab Lalsab Attar, the husband of Petitioner No.1 and the father of other petitioners, considered Section 11(6) of the ULC Act in the light of Sub-sections Sri.Hajaratasab Lalsab Attar, the husband of Petitioner No.1 and the father of other petitioners, considered Section 11(6) of the ULC Act in the light of Sub-sections

(1) and (5) thereof, which prescribe the maximum amount of ₹2,00,000/- that could be awarded as compensation and held that, in view of Sub-section(6), the amount payable either under Subsection (1) or Subsection (5) shall in no case exceed ₹2,00,000/-. The amount of ₹2,00,000/- that could be awarded as compensation and held that, in view of Sub-section(6), the amount payable either under Subsection (1) or Subsection (5) shall in no case exceed ₹2,00,000/-. The

amount of ₹2,00,000/-, i.e., ₹25,000/- in cash, and the remaining ₹1,75,000/- by way of redeemable bonds, has been paid. Therefore, it was held that the compensation awarded by the competent authority is in conformity with the provisions of the Act, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed by order dated 06.02.1979 as per annexure-D, as there is no merit in the appeal. remaining ₹1,75,000/- by way of redeemable bonds, has been paid. Therefore, it was held that the compensation awarded by the competent authority is in conformity with the provisions of the Act, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed by order dated 06.02.1979 as per annexure-D, as there is no merit in the appeal.

6. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing writ petition on 21.03.2014, seeking the prayers as stated above. When the Divisional Commissioner had rejected the appeal preferred by the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of the other petitioners, by passing an order vide Annexure-D dated 06.02.1979, there is no explanation as to why the petitioners have kept quite till 2013. It is also not explained as to why the original owner, Hajaratasab Lalsab Attar, who is the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of the other petitioners, did not challenge the order passed in Annexure-D. It is pertinent to note that, the ULC Act was repealed with effect from 22.03.1999. petition on 21.03.2014, seeking the prayers as stated above. When the Divisional Commissioner had rejected the appeal preferred by the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of the other petitioners, by passing an order vide Annexure-D dated 06.02.1979, there is no explanation as to why the petitioners have kept quite till 2013. It is also not explained as to why the original owner, Hajaratasab Lalsab Attar, who is the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of the other petitioners, did not challenge the order passed in Annexure-D. It is pertinent to note that, the ULC Act was repealed with effect from 22.03.1999.

7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that, the excess land was handed over to Respondent No.2, by the predecessor in title of the petitioners, upon which, respondent No.2 developed the land and formed various sites. These sites were allotted to hundreds of persons, and many of them have already constructed houses and settled there. Therefore, it is the contention of Respondent No.2 that the nature of the land is changed drastically, and therefore, the question of resumption of the land in favor of the petitioners does not arise. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the petitioners are not seeking resumption of the land, but, since the entire land was taken possession of illegally beyond the ceiling limit, the petitioners are entitled for reasonable compensation. Respondent No.2 submitted that, the excess land was handed over to Respondent No.2, by the predecessor in title of the petitioners, upon which, respondent No.2 developed the land and formed various sites. These sites were allotted to hundreds of persons, and many of them have already constructed houses and settled there. Therefore, it is the contention of Respondent No.2 that the nature of the land is changed drastically, and therefore, the question of resumption of the land in favor of the petitioners does not arise. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the petitioners are not seeking resumption of the land, but, since the entire land was taken possession of illegally beyond the ceiling limit, the petitioners are entitled for reasonable compensation.

8. The fact remains, that the claim of the petitioners for compensation has already been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 06.02.1979 as per Annexure-D. Admittedly, the said order was not compensation has already been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 06.02.1979 as per Annexure-D. Admittedly, the said order was not

challenged by the original owner or by the petitioners, and thus, it has reached finality.

9. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners, highlighting the inaction on the part of the competent authorities in the payment of compensation, have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.68297/2010. The order dated 02.01.2012 passed in W.P.No.68297/2010 is produced as per Annexure-S. As per the said order, the only relief claimed by the petitioners is to consider their representation dated 17.06.2009 for payment of compensation, by alleging that, excess land was forfeited to the government under the ULC Act. Under such circumstances, the respondent was directed to consider the representation of the petitioners expeditiously. After communicating the order dated 02.01.2012, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, passed the order on 03.06.2013 at Annexure-A, which is now challenged before this Court. the inaction on the part of the competent authorities in the payment of compensation, have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.68297/2010. The order dated 02.01.2012 passed in W.P.No.68297/2010 is produced as per Annexure-S. As per the said order, the only relief claimed by the petitioners is to consider their representation dated 17.06.2009 for payment of compensation, by alleging that, excess land was forfeited to the government under the ULC Act. Under such circumstances, the respondent was directed to consider the representation of the petitioners expeditiously. After communicating the order dated 02.01.2012, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, passed the order on 03.06.2013 at Annexure-A, which is now challenged before this Court.

10. At this juncture, the attention of the Court is drawn by the learned AGA to a copy of the receipt produced by the learned AGA to a copy of the receipt produced by

the petitioners themselves as per Annexure-P dated 09.03.2001, under which, the petitioner No.1 acknowledges the receipt of ₹1,86,667/-, towards compensation along with 5% interest payable under the ULC Act, including ₹1,75,000/- standing in the name of the husband of Petitioner No.1, on 06.11.2000. This document is not disputed.

11. Annexure-Q is the reply from the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, dated 08.09.2006, to a query raised by the Karnataka Lokayukta, on the complaint filed by Petitioner No.3. According to the explanation given by the Deputy Commissioner, the compensation along with interest @ 5% was paid both in cash as well as through 20-year bonds issued by RBI, Bengaluru, The details of such bonds are also furnished therein. After lapse of 20 years, the said bond amount along with interest, totaling to ₹1,86,667/- was paid through a Demand Draft No.602759, drawn on State Bank of India, Hubballi, dated 12.02.2001, which was received by Dharwad, dated 08.09.2006, to a query raised by the Karnataka Lokayukta, on the complaint filed by Petitioner No.3. According to the explanation given by the Deputy Commissioner, the compensation along with interest @ 5% was paid both in cash as well as through 20-year bonds issued by RBI, Bengaluru, The details of such bonds are also furnished therein. After lapse of 20 years, the said bond amount along with interest, totaling to ₹1,86,667/- was paid through a Demand Draft No.602759, drawn on State Bank of India, Hubballi, dated 12.02.2001, which was received by

petitioner No.1, as per the endorsement dated 09.03.2001 i.e., Annexure-P.

12. All these documents consistently disclose that, payment of compensation up to the maximum limit, as provided under Section 11(6) of the ULC Act, was granted. Out of which, ₹25,000/- was paid in cash, and for the balance amount, 20-years redeemable bonds were issued. After lapse of 20 years, even the bond amount with interest was paid to petitioner No.1. After receiving the said amount on 09.03.2001, repeated representations are being filed, contending that the possession of the land was taken illegally. I do not find any merit in the contentions taken by the petitioners. of compensation up to the maximum limit, as provided under Section 11(6) of the ULC Act, was granted. Out of which, ₹25,000/- was paid in cash, and for the balance amount, 20-years redeemable bonds were issued. After lapse of 20 years, even the bond amount with interest was paid to petitioner No.1. After receiving the said amount on 09.03.2001, repeated representations are being filed, contending that the possession of the land was taken illegally. I do not find any merit in the contentions taken by the petitioners.

13. There is no whisper in the entire petition, which runs into 20 pages, about the delay in filing the petition. It is stated that Hajaratasab Lalsab Attar died during 1997. Therefore, it is clear that, during his life time, he never raised any dispute with regard to the payment of compensation, either in cash or through bonds. After his death, Petitioner No.1, on behalf of other petitioners, into 20 pages, about the delay in filing the petition. It is stated that Hajaratasab Lalsab Attar died during 1997. Therefore, it is clear that, during his life time, he never raised any dispute with regard to the payment of compensation, either in cash or through bonds. After his death, Petitioner No.1, on behalf of other petitioners, received even the bond amounts, after expiry of 20-years.

14. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition, on the other hand, it is a frivolous petition filed by the petitioners. the petition, on the other hand, it is a frivolous petition filed by the petitioners.

15. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE

gab CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9