Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Basavaraj Bhimappa Illiger, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a notification dated 05.06.2007 published in the Official Gazette on 14.06.2007, issued by the Belagavi Urban Development Authority (respondent No.2), which notified his agricultural land bearing Sy.No.173/7 measuring 39 guntas situated at Hindalga Village for acquisition for the purpose of formation of a residential layout. The petitioner also sought a mandamus directing the respondents to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to enable him to utilize the petition lands. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the land by virtue of a sale deed dated 17.03.2012, i.e., after the notification was issued. The court examined the facts and noted that the notification was issued in 2007, while the petition was filed in 2017, resulting in a delay of about 10 years. The court held that the unexplained delay and laches disentitle the petitioner to any relief under Article 226. Additionally, the petitioner purchased the land after the notification, and therefore cannot claim any right based on such purchase. The court dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches, without going into the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Challenge to Acquisition Notification - The petitioner challenged a notification dated 05.06.2007 by filing a writ petition in 2017, i.e., after a delay of about 10 years. The court held that the unexplained delay and laches disentitle the petitioner to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition was dismissed on this ground alone. (Paras 3-4)
B) Land Acquisition - Purchase Pendente Lite - Locus Standi - The petitioner purchased the land on 17.03.2012, after the notification was issued. The court held that the petitioner cannot claim any right based on a purchase made after the notification, as the acquisition had already been initiated. The petitioner is bound by the doctrine of lis pendens. (Para 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the acquisition notification dated 05.06.2007 is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, and whether the petitioner who purchased the land after the notification has any locus to challenge the acquisition.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay and laches
- Land acquisition
- Writ of certiorari
- Limitation for challenging notification
- Purchase pendente lite
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (04) 18
W.P.No.107510/2017 (LB-RES)
Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar for petitioner; K.Vidyavathi, V.S.Kalasurmath for R1; M.A.Hulgal for R2
Basavaraj Bhimappa Illiger
State of Karnataka, Belagavi Urban Development Authority
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a land acquisition notification and seeking NOC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of notification dated 05.06.2007 and direction to respondents to issue NOC to utilize petition lands.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's land was notified for acquisition; he purchased it after notification and wanted to challenge the acquisition.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches?
Whether the petitioner, who purchased the land after the notification, has any locus to challenge the acquisition?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he purchased the land and sought to quash the notification and obtain NOC.
Respondents likely argued delay and laches, but specific arguments not mentioned in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition challenging a land acquisition notification filed after an unexplained delay of about 10 years is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. A person who purchases land after the notification has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition.
Judgment Excerpts
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification dated 05.06.2007 published in Official Gazette of 14.06.2007 issued by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A.
The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner claims to be the owner of agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.173/7 measuring 39 guntas situated at Hindalga Village.
The petition lands were notified for acquisition in favour of respondent No.2 for the purpose of formation of residential layout.
The petitioner claims to have purchased the lands by virtue of sale deed dated 17.03.2012.
The grievance of the petitioner before this court is that the notification is bad in law.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents.
On perusal of the records, it is seen that the notification was issued in the year 2007 and the present petition is filed in the year 2017.
There is a delay of about 10 years in filing the petition.
The petitioner has not explained the delay.
Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed W.P.No.107510/2017 before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, on an unspecified date in 2017, challenging a notification dated 05.06.2007. The court heard the matter and dismissed it on 20.04.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
