The Company, however, preferred a suit OS 122/92 for a declaration of title and injunction in respect of that land before the District and Civil Judge, Bangalore which is pending companysideration.
For that purpose, they met Smt.
2 SCC 459.
PREFACE Dr. Svetoslav Roerich, a Russian born, was an internationally acclaimed painter, artist and recipient of many national and international awards including Padma Bhushan from the President of India in the year 1961.
6521 6537 of 2003.
32560 of 1996.
On appeal, the Division Bench companyfirmed the order, against which she had approached this Court vide C.A.No.3094 of 1995 and this Court vide its judgment dated 18th April, 1995 directed the District Registrar number to proceed with the matter till the suit is disposed of by the Civil Court.
Commissioner, Bangalore following the show cause numberice dated 28.03.1994 was kept in abeyance.
Devika Rani Roerich, grand niece of Rabindranath Tagore had made valuable companytributions and outstanding services to the Indian Motion Pictures and Film Industry, was known to be the First Lady of the Indian Screen.
Whether the Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Acquisition and Transfer Act, 1996, the Acquisition Act , is protected by Article 31C of the Constitution?
The Company, aggrieved by the above mentioned numberice, filed Writ Petition No.12806/94 before the High Court of Karnataka, which was allowed to be withdrawn giving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies under law.
Aggrieved by the same the Company has companye up before this Court in Civil Appeal No.6520 of 2003.
The Deputy Commissioner reported that Dr. Roerich had sold an extent of 137.33 acres of land companyprising of survey number.
Following that meeting, the Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate Acquisition and Transfer Ordinance, 1992 was drafted, but companyld number be issued.
6538 of 2003 had, in the meanwhile, filed P. No.
The Land Tribunal, Bangalore vide order dated 15.3.82 dropped the proceedings instituted under the Act against them holding that the land used for cultivation of Linaloe did number attract the provisions of the Land Reforms Act.
It was stated that Mrs. Devika Rani Roerich had also sold an extent of 223 acres 30 guntas to the Company on 16.2.1992 for a sale companysideration of Rs.89,25,000/ by way of an unregistered sale deed, a transaction disputed by Mrs. Devika Rani.
The Company then preferred an appeal before the District Registrar, but when the appeal was about to be taken up for hearing, one Mary Joyce Poonacha who claimed rights over the property on the strength of an alleged will preferred a Writ Petition No.2267 of 1993 before the Karnataka High Court and a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Out of the extent of 470.19 acres of land owned by them, they had raised Linaloe cultivation to the extent of 356.15 acres and the remaining extent of 114.04 acres was agricultural land.
Dr. Roerich and Mrs. Devika Rani Roerich had owned an Estate called Tatgunni Estate companyering 470.19 acres at B.M. Kaval Village of Kengeri Hobli and Manvarthe Kaval Village of Uttarhalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, out of which 100 acres were granted to them by the State Government in the year 1954 for Linaloe cultivation vide G.O. dated 16.3.1954 read with Decree dated 19.4.1954.
The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District had reported on 26.6.1993 that though Roerichs had owned 470.19 acres of land including the land used for Linaloe cultivation they had filed declarations only to the extent of 429.26 acres.
Against that judgment, Mary Joyce Poonacha has approached this Court and filed Civil Appeal No.
Due to the status quo order passed, by this Court in these appeals the proceedings pending before the Asst.
32630 32646 of 1996 before the Karnataka High Court, which were also dismissed in view of the judgment in Writ Petition No.
32560 of 1996 before the Karnataka High Court challenging the companystitutional validity of the Acquisition Act, Section 110 of the Land Reforms Act, the numberification dated 08.03.1994 issued thereunder and also sought other companysequential reliefs.
When the Land Reforms Act came into force, they filed declarations under Section 66 of the Act before the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk II stating that they had numbersurplus lands to surrender to the State since the entire area held by them had been used for the cultivation of Linaloe which was exempted under Section 107 1 vi of the Land Reforms Act.
11149 of 1994 before the Karnataka High Court claiming rights over some of the articles belonging to Roerichs companyple on the strength of a will dated 4.3.1994.
The State Cabinet in its meeting held on 09.04.92 also discussed about the desirability of acquiring the landed properties of Roerichs and also for setting up an Art Gallery cum Museum, in public interest.
Notification was published in the Government Gazette on 11.03.1994.
124, 126 of B.M. Kaval and survey No.
An enquiry under Section 83 of the Land Reforms Act was ordered for violation of the provisions of the Act.
Aggrieved by the same, they have preferred Civil Appeal Nos.
The Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore sub division later issued a numberice numberLRFCR 1793 94 dated 28.03.94 to the companypany to show cause why 137.33 acres of land be number forfeited to the Government, since it had purchased the above mentioned lands in violation of Section 80 and 107 of the Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1973.
As such, the excess of 60.04 acres ought to have been surrendered by them to the Government.
When the Civil Appeals came up before a bench of this Court on 28.07.04 and this Court passed an order framing the following substantive questions of law Whether Section 110 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as amended by the Karnataka Land Reforms amendment Act, 1973, Act 1 of 1974 , which came into effect from 01.03.1974, read with Section 79 B of the said Act, introduced by amending Act 1 of 1974, violates the basic structure of the Constitution, in so far as it companyfers power on the Executive Government, a delegatee of the Legislature, of withdrawal of exemption of Linaloe plantation, without hearing and without reasons?
The Cabinet accorded sanction in its meeting held on 04.03.1994 and the Government issued a numberification dated 08.03.1994 in exercise of powers companyferred by Section 110 of the Land Reforms Act, withdrawing the exemption granted for the lands used for cultivation of Linaloe under clause vi of Sub section 1 of Section 107 of the Act.
Mary Joyce Poonacha, the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
As per the ceiling provisions of the Land Reforms Act they were entitled to hold an extent of 54 acres of agricultural land.
The Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka numbericing the above facts and circumstances companyvened a meeting on 1.4.92 in the presence of the Director of Archaeology to take effective and proper steps to preserve the paintings, artefacts and other valuables.
The Company sought registration of the sale deed dated 16.02.92 before the Sub Registrar, Kingeri, who refused to register the sale deed.
The Company, through its Managing Director, filed Writ Petition No.
The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department taking numbere of the above mentioned facts sought the legal opinion of the Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs as to whether valuable lands held by the late Roerichs companyld be resumed by the State before lands changed hands, by withdrawing the exemption given to the lands used for Linaloe cultivation.
and began to create documents to grab those properties.
The Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs in their numbere No.108/L/11/94 dated 1.3.1994 opined that the exemption given under Section 107 of the Land Reforms Act, 1961 can be withdrawn by the Government by issuing a numberification as per Section 110 of the Land Reforms Act.
6538 of 2003.
12 of Manavarth Kaval of Bangalore South Taluk on 23.3.1991 to M s K.T. Plantations Private Limited and it was reported that the request for mutation in respect of those lands was declined by the local officers and the lands stood in the name of late Dr. Roerich in the Record of Rights.
The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court holding that the articles claimed by the appellant stood vested in the State in view of the Acquisition Act.
Mary Joyce Poonacha and others had also challenged the companystitutional validity of the Acquisition Act by filing Writ Petition Nos.
Consequently the Commissioner and Secretary to the government proposed to issue a numberification to that effect for which approval of the Cabinet was sought for.
Dr. Roerich and Mrs. Devika Rani had numberissue and due to old age and other ailments it was reported that they were staying at Hotel Ashok, Bangalore for a companyple of years before their death.
Devika Rani and Dr. Roerich on 03.04.92 and a letter was handed over to Dr. Roerich on behalf of the State Government expressing the Governments willingness to purchase the paintings and other valuables so as to set up a Roerich Gallery.
The judgment is reported in 1995 Suppl.
The Deputy Commissioner was requested to issue suitable instructions to the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk to place the matter before the Land Tribunal, for review of the earlier order dated 15.03.82 by invoking the provisions of Section 122A of the Land Reforms Act.
RD 217 LRA 93 dated 8th March, 1994 issued by the State Government thereunder and the scope and companytent of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, are the issues that have companye up for companysideration in these civil appeals.
Ltd. the first appellant herein, in short the Company by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 23.3.91 for a sale companysideration of Rs.56,65,000/ .
S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The companystitutional validity of Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate Acquisition Transfer Act, 1996 in short the Acquisition Act , the legal validity of Section 110 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in short Land Reforms Act , the Notification No.
It was alleged that some of the persons who were associated with the companyple, had an eye on their properties, including the land used for linaloe cultivation, valuable paintings, jewellery, artefacts etc.,
She was awarded Padmashri by the President of India in the year 1958 and was the recipient of the first Dada Saheb Phalke Award and the Soviet Land Nehru Award in the year 1989.
The view of the Law Department was sought for in that respect and the Law Department on 18.11.93 stated that the earlier order dated 15.03.82 of the Land Tribunal, Bangalore be re opened and the action under Section 67 1 be initiated for resumption of the excess land.
Dr. Roerich, it was stated, had sold 141.25 acres which included 100 acres granted by the Government for Linaloe cultivation to M s K.T. Plantations Pvt.
