w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bengaluru & Another v/s Byamma & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- V. K. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH2004PLC149538

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29300PB1996PLC017836

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74990TN2010PLC078041

Company & Directors' Information:- B P INDUSTRIAL CORPN. PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15312UP1973PTC087037

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA LAND DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201MP1987PTC004172

Company & Directors' Information:- A V A INDUSTRIAL CORPN PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29191TZ1956PTC000261

Company & Directors' Information:- K J LAND DEVELOPMENT CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00082KA1987PTC008761

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15420MH1921PTC000947

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34102DL2006PTC156978

Company & Directors' Information:- KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29222KA1974PTC002711

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29130PN2014PTC151053

Company & Directors' Information:- THE LAND DEVELOPMENT LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102OR1946PLC000065

Company & Directors' Information:- KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U33130KA1916PLC000063

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1938PLC000231

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00804KA1948PLC000529

    Review Petition No. 546 of 2019

    Decided On, 07 July 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka


    For the Petitioners: Prabhuling K. Navadgi, Sr. Counsel, B.B. Patil, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, C.M. Nagabhushan, Advocate, R3, R. Srinivasa Gowda, AGA.

Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Review Petition is filed Under Section 114 R/W Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, praying this Hon'ble Court to call for records; review its order dated 24.01.2019 in WP Nos.51524-51525/2017 and be pleased to clarify that the petitioners herein in the light of the Developmentsare Directedtomake a reference under Section 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and etc.,)

1. The Writ Petition was disposed off on 24.01.2019 with the following directions:

"6. In the above circumstances these writ petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the first respondent to refund/remit back such amount of compensation to the second respondent- KIADB as would cover the claim of the petitioners and thereupon the respondent- KIADB shall take all the steps required for disbursing the compensation to the petitoners-land losers after ascertaining their credentials, in accordance with law.

Time for compliance is three months. A compliance report shall be filed in the Registry without brooking any delay.

It is open to the respondent KIADB and its SLAO to solicit any information/copies of documents from the side of the petitioners as are required for considering their claim for compensation, forthwith".

This judgment was rendered on the basis of the Orders dated 27.01.2016, made by the Deputy Commissioner u/s 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, copies whereof are at Annexures - J & K to the Writ Petition; the relevant portion of one such order reads:

"All these things substantiate the genuineness of the grant in favour of the respondents herein. Therefore, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the grant made in respect of the respondent herein is a genuine one.

Hence I proceed to pass the following orders.


"The proceedings initiated against the respondents under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 is dropped. Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Add) Taluk is directed to consider the case of respondents for continuing the revenue entries in respect to subject land in accordance with law."

2. It is relevant to mention that the aforesaid order made by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is in exercise of quasi judicial power vested in him u/s 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as already mentioned above; the same has attained finality, nothing having been brought to the notice of the court to show further challenge thereto; the Apex Court referring to Prof. Wade's Administrative Law in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurdev Singh, AIR 1992 SC 111 at paras 6 & 7 has observed as under:

"6. But nonetheless the impugned dismissal order has at least a de facto operation unless and until it is declared to be void or nullity by a competent body or Court. In Smith v. East. Elloe Rural District Council, [1956] AC 736 at 769 Lord Redcliffe observed:

"An order even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity upon its fore- head. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders."

7. Apropos to this principle, Prof. Wade states: "the principle must be equally true even where the 'brand' of invalidity' is plainly visible; for their also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the Court (See: Administrative Law 6th Ed. p. 352). Prof. Wade sums up these principles:

"The truth of the matter is that the court will invalidate an order only if 'the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances. The order may be hypothetically a nullity, but the Court may refuse to quash it because of the plaintiff's lack of standing, because he does not deserve a discretionary remedy, because he has waived his rights, or for some other legal reason. In any such case the 'void' order remains effective and is, in reality, valid...."

3. The respondent-land losers are justified in pointing out that under the very same Grant Order bearing No.LND.SR(A)846/1962-63, one Mr.Gopalappa too was granted land which was the subject matter of discussion in W.P.No.34167/2018 (LA-KIADB) wherein, this Court granted relief to the petitioner therein on the basis of a report dated 14.11.2018 along with a Memo dated 3.12.2018; the copies of the judgment, the report and the Memo are at Annexures - R18 & R19 to the Objection Statement to the Review Petition.

4. It is relevant to mention that the grant made in favour of aforesaid Gopalappa was also subject matter of Revision Petition in RRT-30/15-16 which came to be disposed off vide order dated 19.07.2019 by the very same Deputy Commissioner, who discussed about the genuineness of the grant; the operative portion of the order reads as under:


There is no reason for the Review Petitioners to keep quite with respect to payment of compensation made in favour of Gopalappa on the basis of the very same order of the Deputy Commissioner and at the same time, to question the payability of compensation to the land owners selectively in this Review Petition, as rightly contended by their counsel.

5. The Review Petition was filed on 25.11.2019 doubting the version of the petitioner-claimants as to genuineness of the grant documents when the issue was heard and finally decided by the competent authority namely the Deputy Commissioner and to those proceedings, the very Tahsildar was a party; in fact, it was this Tahsildar who had invoked the revisional jurisdiction u/s 136(3) of the Act; when the land losers had moved the Contempt Court, the Review Petition was filed on 25.11.2019 and interim stay was also obtained thereafter inter alia contending that there was a ring of doubt as to the genuineness of the grant orders.

6. Learned Advocate General Sri.Prabhuling K Navadgi appearing for the Review Petitioners, on couple of earlier occasions, had assured this Court of accomplishing the enquiry as to the genuineness of the grant documents before long; the State machinery being what it is, not even a leaf has been turned; what is contended now is that there has been interdepartmental communications and they do not take the case any further; the reply allegedly given by the State Forensic Laboratory that it is hard pressed for times due to the mounting workload and therefore, it would not be in a position t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

o accomplish the examination of the grant documents in question, cannot be a ground for keeping the Review Petition pending; successful litigant-land losers cannot be asked to wait indefinitely for reaping the usufructs of court order; doing otherwise would shake the public confidence in the judicial process. In the above circumstances, this Review Petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is; however, this dismissal will not come in the way of whatever enquiry/investigation the State/Authorities intend to undertake, in accordance with law. All applications pale into insignificance since the main matter itself is disposed off on merits. Costs made easy.