MR MOHAMMED BHAI TAHER BHAI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 58949 OF 2016 (ULC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 14158 OF 2015 (KLR-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 14166 OF 2015 (KLR-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 19251 OF 2015 (KLR-RES)

IN W. P. NO. 58949 OF 2016 BETWEEN: BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS, NO.26/1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 055, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI. UDAYAKUMAR A

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN.V, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. NIKHILESH M RAO., ADVOCATE)

AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

- 3 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570 012.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADESHWARAN C.N., AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. S.P. KULKARNI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.S. SRIKANTH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6 SRI. M.S. BHAGAWATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE FOR R7)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.31.3.2015 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC.

IN W. P. NO. 14158 OF 2015

BETWEEN: 1. MR MOIZ SAIFUDDIN VAGH S/O LATE SAIFUDDIN M A VAGH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.108, 8TH MAIN, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE-570 012

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.S. BHAGAWATH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. K. SATISH, ADVOCATE)

- 4 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570 010 4. THE TAHSILDAR MYSORE TALUK, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, NAZARBAD, MYSORE-570 010 5. MR B SOMASHEKHAR S/O BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NO.1463/1,OPPOSITE TO MORE SUPER MARKET, NARAYANA SHASTRI ROAD, MYSORE-570 016 6. MR K P PURUSHOTHAMA S/O K K PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, NO.2433,HOSABANDIKERI, 1ST CROSS, K R MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 016

- 5 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO.8/A, MAHAJANA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570 012

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MADESHWARAN C.N., AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. S.P. KULKARNI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.S. SRIKANTH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6 R7 SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R-3 PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.3.2015 [ANNEX-A] AND ETC.,

IN W. P. NO. 14166 OF 2015

BETWEEN: 1. MR. ABBAS SALEHBHAI VAGH S/O LATE SALEHBHAI M VAGH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO.8/A, MAHAJANA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570 012

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S. BHAGAWATH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. K. SATISH, ADVOCATE)

AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

- 6 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADESHWARAN C.N., AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. S.P. KULKARNI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)

- 7 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R-3 PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.3.2015 [ANNEX-A] AND ETC.

IN W. P. NO. 19251 OF 2015

BETWEEN: 1. MR MOHAMMED BHAI TAHER BHAI S/O LATE TAHERALLY M A VAGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDINGAT NO.29/1, 1ST CROSS, 4TH MAIN, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE- 570012

- 8 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.S. BHAGAWATH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. K. SATISH, ADVOCATE)

- 9 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001

- 10 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

R/AT NO.8/A, MAHAJANA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570 012

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MADESHWARAN C.N., AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. S.P. KULKARNI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.S. SRIKANTH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6 R7 SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R-3 PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.03.2015 [ANNEX-A] AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL): These writ petitions though filed at the hands of four different petitioners, nevertheless, are directed towards an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, in dispute bearing No.ULA 108/2010-11 dated 31.03.2015. Therefore, all these writ petitions were directed to be clubbed and accordingly, these petitions are

- 11 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The undisputed facts are that proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, (For short Act) against Sri.K.B.Ramachandra- raje Urs, who had various properties situated at Mysore city as well as Bengaluru city. The proceedings that were initiated in Mysore were thereafter transferred to Bengaluru to enable the competent authority to consider the claim of Sri.K.B.Ramachandraraje Urs and his properties together. After the statement was filed by Sri.K.B.Ramachandraraje Urs in terms of Section 7 of the Act, giving the details of the urban property held by him, it appears that he also made a representation to the State Government seeking exemption in terms of Section 20 of the Act in respect of 3 properties. One of them, which is the subject matter of

- 12 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

dispute herein is Door No.25, Khatha No.2269/1, situated at Vinoba road, Devaraj Mohalla, Mysore. 3. The State Government through the Urban Development Department passed an order dated 22.04.1982 granting exemption in respect of all the three properties, but restricting the exemption insofar as the property bearing No.25, to an extent of 4559 sq.mtrs. only. The order also contains certain conditions and as pet the conditions, Sri.K.B.Ramachandraraje Urs seems to have executed a sale deed dated 02.09.1982 in favour of seven persons all of the same family including the petitioners in W.P.No.14158/2015, 14166/15 and 19251/2015. It is also not disputed that insofar as property bearing Door No.25 is concerned what was sold under the sale deed was 4559 sq.mtrs., as was exempted by the State Government. Long after the sale deed dated 02.09.1982, a deed of rectification dated 14.07.2008 came to be executed and registered by Sri.K.B.Ramachandraraje

- 13 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

Urs and others rectifying the measurement shown in the schedule property of the sale deed. It was stated in the deed of rectification that recently, the purchasers have done the total survey measurement for the land mentioned in the said property and found that the physical area of the said property is 6303.286 sq.mtrs. and therefore, the error found in the measurement shown in the sale deed is sought to be rectified. Consequently, it is stated in the deed of rectification that the original measurement which was shown as 5312.40 sq.mtrs is rectified as 6303.286 sq.mtrs. Thereafter, the owners of the property entered into a Joint Development Agreement on 30.03.2009 with M/s. Brigade Enterprises Limited, to develop the property into a commercial complex. 4. Soon thereafter, in the year 2010, respondents No.5 and 6 appear to have given a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District alleging that the petitioners herein have violated the order of exemption

- 14 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

granted by the State Government and have clandestinely rectified the sale deed extending the measurement beyond what was exempted by the State Government. It was contended that the State Government had exempted an extent of 4559 sq.mtrs. of land and accordingly the said exempted land was disposed of under the original sale deed and however without seeking permission of the State Government, the original landlord Sri.K.B.Ramachandra- raje Urs and others have executed the rectification deed extending the measurement from 4559 sq.mtrs. to 6303.286 sq.mtrs. Therefore, respondents No.5 and 6 urged the Deputy Commissioner to take suitable action against the petitioners and re-claim the land which belonged to the Government. 5. It is also not disputed that respondents No.5 and 6 herein also filed a suit in O.S.No.936/2011 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mysore, seekig a decree of declaration that rectification deed deed 14.07.2008

- 15 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

executed by the original owners in favour of the petitioners herein, insofar as property bearing Door No.25, as illegal, null and void. Further, they sought a declaration of the plan sanctioned by the Mysore City Corporation as also illegal, null and void. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants is also sought restraining the defendants from putting up constructions or any building on the schedule property. It is also submitted that the contesting respondents have filed a private complaint bearing No.PCR 8/2011 (Registered as Cr.No.47/2011) before the jurisdictional magistrate alleging that the petitioners have committed the offence under the Indian Penal Code, which would include Section 420. Although, the Assistant Commissioner of Police submitted a B Report, it is yet to accepted by the Court. The contesting respondents have in fact filed a protest petition against the B Report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police.

- 16 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

- 17 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

them, the petitioners gave a reply and thereafter filed W.P.No.50477/2012 challenging the notice dated 20.11.2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 06.06.2013 directing the Deputy Commissioner to consider the reply submitted by the petitioners and pass orders in accordance with law. When the Deputy Commissioner did not pass any orders, the petitioners once again filed a W.P.No.20644/2014, seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the proceedings in an expeditious manner. By order dated 12.06.2014, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner to conclude the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of the order. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagwath, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.14158/2015, 14166/2015 and 19251/2015 submits that the entire

- 18 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

action initiated by respondents No.5 and 6 herein and sought to be taken further by the Deputy Commissioner is without authority of law. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the original sale deed dated 02.09.1982, in the schedule it is clearly shown as “Mangalore Tiled Roof building constructed in the year 1905, plinth area about 753.4 sq.mtrs., and is in a dilapidate condition the total extent ‘excluding’ built up area is 4559.00 sq.mtrs.”. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that this sale deed was in fact presented to the State Government and the Deputy Commissioner to show there is compliance of the order of exemption granted by the State Government. It is submitted that no objections were raised either by the Deputy Commissioner or by the State Government, when a copy of the sale deed was present to the State Government and Deputy Commissioner. Learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to a communication dated 02.02.1981 made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, to the Secretary,

- 19 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

Department of Urban Development, giving the details of the land belonging to Sri.K.B.Ramachandraraje Urs having got the properties surveyed at the hands of the Revenue Inspector. It is seen from the said communication which also comprises of a sketch giving the details of the extent of building (Match Factory) Drying yard, Hotel shed and vacant land, insofar as, Door No.25 is concerned. It is seen that in terms of the report of the Revenue Inspector, there was a building housing a Match Factory known as “Shanmugam Match Factory”, which had a built up area of 3270.83 sq.mtrs., and vacant land measuring 4559.00 sq.mtrs. The total extent of the land in Door No.25, is 7829.83 sq.mtrs. 10. Further, details as per the sketch at Annexure-B shows that the main building (Match Factory) measured 1618 sq.mtrs; Drying yard measured 1616.49 sq.mtrs.; Hotel shed measured 35.70 sq.mtrs. These three put together would added upto 3270.83 sq.mtrs. Learned

- 20 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

Senior Counsel would therefore submit that the State Government noticed that there was built up area to an extent of 3270.83 sq.mtrs., and therefore, decided to grant exemption only in respect of the vacant area measuring 4559.00 sq.mtrs. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the State Government realized that built up area would not come within the scope of the Act and therefore, while deducting the built up area measuring 3270.83 sq.mtrs., exemption was granted by the State Government to the entire extent of vacant land measuring 4559.00 sq.mtrs. out of 7829.83 sq.mtrs. of land in Door No.25. In other words, learned Senior Counsel would submit that Sri.K.B.Ramachandraraje Urs, the owner of the land was entitled to deal with the other portion of the land in Door No.25, measuring 3270.83 sq.mtrs., in any manner, he wished to. This is why, it was also stated in the sale deed that other then the exempted portion of 4559.00 sq.mtrs, an extent of 753.4 sq.metrs of built up area was also sold under the sale deed and rightly neither

- 21 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

the State Government nor the Deputy Commissioner raised any objections. 11. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Sreenivas Raghavan, who appears for the petitioners in W.P.No.58949/2016 would join the learned Senior Counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawath in submitting that respondents No.5 and 6 herein have conspired against the petitioners for their own personal gain and sought to raise objections unnecessarily without verifying these facts. The Deputy Commissioner has also not looked into these aspects. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained both on facts and as well as law. Learned Senior Counsels would submit that the Deputy Commissioner had no authority in law to initiate proceedings for one more reason that the original order, passed by the competent authority on 27.07.1989 was challenged by the landlords before Karnataka Appellate Authority. When the said appeal was

- 22 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

dismissed by the Tribunal, the other landlords approached this Court in W.P.No.5076/1991 and connected matters. This Court by order dated 15.07.1998, allowed the writ petitions with costs and quashed the order dated 27.07.1989 passed by the competent authority. The competent authority was directed specifically not to give effect to the orders dated 27.07.1989 and 11.05.1992. The matter was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, the competent authority to decide the matter in accordance with law after due compliance with as per Sec.8(1) (2) (3) of the Act read with the Rules giving notice of draft statement with all required particulars as prescribed vide Form No.III, after the decision and disposal of petitioner’s application under Section 20 of the Act by the State Government for the exemptions sought by the petitioners.

- 23 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

question the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.5076/1991 and connected matters. However, during the pendency of the writ appeals the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1989 (For short ‘Repeal Act’) was enacted by the parliament. While noticing the saving clause contained in Section 3 of the Repeal Act, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that it is not the contention of the appellants (competent authority) that the vesting had already taken place and that the possession has been taken over. It was also noticed that since an order of stay was granted by the Court, the steps necessary for vesting and taking over possession could not be completed. Therefore, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that it is obvious that the orders passed or proceedings recorded under Section 8 of the principal Act have no validity and they abate by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. ANGOORI DEVI .V. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS (JT 2000 (Suppl.1) SC 295) was

- 24 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

also noticed and taking the same view the Division Bench set aside the order passed by the competent authority on 27.07.1989 declaring that the proceedings stood abated in view of the Repeal Act. The learned Senior Counsels would therefore submit that at any rate when the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the orders passed by the competent authority declaring the proceedings as abated in view of the Repeal Act, there is no order passed under the Act which could be held against the petitioners. Even on this count, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained. The learned Senior Counsels would submit that though the impugned order is said to have been passed under the provisions of the Repeal Act, the Deputy Commissioner has failed to notice the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

- 25 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, submits that the original owners could not have executed the Deed of Rectification expanding the subject matter of sale of the original sale deed dated 02.09.1982, since it was clearly stated in the order of exemption dated 22.04.1982 at condition (f) that the exemption granted by the Government was subject to one of the conditions that rest of the vacant land should be surrendered to the Government as per the Act. The learned counsel would therefore submit that if the owners of the lands were of the opinion that the rest of the land was a built up area, then they have not raised any objection to such a condition being imposed in the order of the Government. Moreover, before executing the Deed of Rectification the permission of the Government or the competent authority was also not taken by the owners of the land. At any rate, it is submitted that the contesting respondents have only sought to protect the interest of the State Government and therefore having noticed the violation of the

- 26 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

exemption order granted by the State Government, the respondents have moved the Deputy Commissioner to take action to recover the additional extent of land which was sought to be disposed of under the Deed of Rectification.

- 27 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

owners went before the Government seeking exemption of three (3) properties and an order was passed by the Government taking into consideration the application made by the owners and exempted only 4559 sq. mtrs. with a condition that rest of the vacant land should be surrendered to the Government as per the provisions of the Act, then, it does not lie in the mouth of the owners or the petitioners to contend that rest of the area was a built up area and therefore there was no question of surrendering the built up area. Viewed from any angle, it is submitted that unless the order dated 22.04.1982 passed by the Government granting exemption only in respect of 4559 sq. mtrs., of land was modified at the instance of the owners, the owners could not have executed the Deed of Rectification.

- 28 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

application filed under Section 20, the owners have sought exemption of 6521 sq. mtrs. of land and what was exempted by the Government was 4559 sq. mtrs. by order dated 22.04.1982. The learned Additional Government Advocate would further submit that exemption was granted by the State Government taking note of the request made by the owners and imposed such a condition in its order dated 22.04.1982 that the sale proceeds of the two properties should be applied for fully settling the tax arrears (income and wealth) and necessary receipt for having settling the dues should be produced before the competent authority. The learned Additional Government Advocate would therefore submit that the owners after disposing of the property to the petitioners herein, have filed necessary information before the competent authority stating that the sale proceeds have been applied for settling the tax arrears.

The learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that when the owners of the land understood that the order of exemption passed

- 29 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

by the State Government as reflected in its order dated 22.04.1982, they cannot now contend that what remained beyond 4559 sq. mtrs., was built up area and that it belonged to the owners and the same was available for the owners to be disposed of in favour of the petitioners herein.

- 30 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

violation of the order of exemption granted by the State Government. The other question is whether the Deputy Commissioner could have passed the impugned order having regard to the order of the competent authority being set aside at the hands of this Court and whether the saving clause of the Repeal Act would save the proceedings and order passed by the State Government under Section 20(1) of the Act, having regard to the section 3 of the Repeal Act.

- 31 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

available on record namely the order passed by the competent authority on 27.07.1989, the recommendation made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru, on 02.02.1981 to the Secretary, Department of Urban Development and the sketch annexed thereto, the total extent of land in the property in question i.e., door No.25 is 7829.83 sq. mtrs. It is clear from both these documents that in the said 7829.83 sq. mtrs. of land 3270 sq. mtrs. was built up area and the vacant land was 4559 sq. mtrs. The fact that the owners mentioned the extent of land as 6529 sq. mtrs and sought exemption accordingly does not make any difference in so far as the order of exemption passed by the State Government. 19. The crux of the matter is that having regard to the application filed by the owners seeking exemption under Section 20 of the Act and the recommendation made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru as noticed herein above, it was clear to the State

- 32 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

Government that the vacant land in property bearing door No.25 was 4559 sq. mtrs. The entire extent of vacant land has been exempted, by the State Government having regard to the prayer made by the owners that they are required to pay the outstanding arrears of income tax and wealth tax. That brings this Court to the nature of the remaining extent of land. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the remaining extent of land i.e., 3270 sq. mtrs. was considered as built up area and therefore having regard to the provisions of the Act, since a built up area would not fall within the teeth of the provisions of the Act, the Government granted exemption in respect of the entire extent of vacant land. Since the remaining extent was built up area, the Government could not have asked the owners to surrender the property. If by inadvertence, if it was stated in the order of the Government while granting exemption that the remaining extent have to be surrendered to the Government, nevertheless, the Government never really proceeded to take possession of

- 33 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

the remaining extent of land, it was because the remaining extent of land was a built up area and the Government could not have imposed such a condition to surrender the built up area even according to the provisions of the Act. Going by the plain reading of Section 20 although the State Government is empowered to impose conditions while granting exemptions, it cannot be read and stretched to the extent that Government could impose a condition asked the owner to surrender the built up area. The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners are also right while pointing out from the original sale deed dated 02.09.1982 that what was sold under the said sale deed was an extent of 5312.4 sq. mtrs. which comprises of 4559 sq. mtrs. of vacant land and 753.40 sq. mtrs of built up area. Copy of the said sale deed was in fact placed before the Government and the competent authority, by the owners after the execution of the sale deed to show compliance of the order of exemption granted by the State Government and that there is no

- 34 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

violation. The Government and the competent authority had the occasion to look into the sale deed wherein 753.40 sq. mtrs. of built up area was sold by the owners even under the original sale deed which was beyond the vacant exempted area of 4559 sq. mtrs. Obviously neither the Government nor the competent authority could raise an objection stating that the owners have sold 753.40 sq. mtrs. of land contrary to the order of exemption passed by the State Government. 20. On facts, this Court has found that the understanding of the contesting respondents and the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru in having regard to the orders passed by the Government and the nature of land which remained beyond the exempted land i.e., 4559 sq. mtrs. is flawed. It may be true that the owners could have sought for a clarification of the condition imposed in its order dated 22.04.1982 regarding the owners having to surrender the rest of the vacant land. Nevertheless, the

- 35 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

owners may also have taken it for granted that the said condition would apply in respect of the other two pieces of property for which the order of exemption was granted by the State Government. Such a condition may be applicable for the other pieces of land, if there was any additional extent of vacant land available and which was required to be surrendered to the Government. Equally, it should also be understood that the competent authority never pressed for compliance of the orders of exemption passed by the State Government and never tried to ensure that the remaining extent of land was either surrendered or forcibly taken possession by the authority, since they knew that the State was not entitled to. No such action having been initiated by the Government or the competent authority, the owners may have proceeded to execute the Deed of Rectification. Ultimately, the real question is as to whether the owners of the land were entitled to dispose or hold the remaining extent of land which was in the possession of the owner beyond the exempted piece of

- 36 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

4559 sq. mtrs. of vacant land. Therefore there cannot be any cavil, having regard to the provisions of the Act that the Act would not apply to built up area and what is applicable is only to the vacant urban lands. 21. In so far as the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Additional Government Advocate, that the Deputy Commissioner was empowered to proceed to take action against the owners of the land for having violated the conditions of the exemption, this Court is of the considered opinion that clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 saves and empowers the authority to action taken under Section 20, notwithstanding any judgment of any Court to the contrary. The competent authority is empowered to proceed against any violation of the order of exemption granted by the State Government. To that extent, this Court holds that the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to proceed if the owners of land had indeed

- 37 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

violated the order of exemption passed by the State Government. 22. Nevertheless, on facts, this Court has found that there was no occasion for the Deputy Commissioner to proceed against the petitioners herein stating that there is violation of the orders of the exemption passed by the State Government. As noticed hereinabove, this Court has found that the remaining extent of land beyond 4559 sq. mtrs. whether it is 3,270 sq. mtrs. or any lesser than that, nevertheless, the remaining extent of land was built up area and there was no requirement of surrendering the land to the Government. It would have been better if the owners had sought for a clarification at the hands of the Government or the competent authority. Nevertheless much water has been flown under the bridge after the incidents which had occurred more than two or three decades ago.

- 38 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

- 39 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

the order of the exemption dated 22.04.1982 passed by the State Government as well as the declaration made by the competent authority on 27.07.1989, this Court would take a lenient view against the contesting respondents. Nevertheless, the contesting respondents are required to ponder whether they should continue the proceedings initiated by them in the civil suit and the private complaint before the Magistrate. 25. Consequently, this Court having found that the Deputy Commissioner could not have proceeded against the owners of the land or the subsequent purchasers i.e., petitioners herein, since the lands purchased by the petitioners was the private and absolute property of the owners which remained beyond the extent of land exempted by the State Government and was a built up area belonging to the private parties, should hold that the Deputy Commissioner could not have proceeded on the complaint made by the contesting respondents.

- 40 -

WP No. 58949 of 2016 C/W WP No. 14158 of 2015, WP No. 14166 of 2015, WP No. 19251 of 2015

Sd/- JUDGE

DL/KLY