Karnataka High Court
Venkatarasappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2023
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42241
WP No. 20364 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 20364 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. VENKATARASAPPA,
S/O GALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
GATTIGERE PALYA, SOMPURA DHAKALE,
VIDHYAPEETA POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
2. SMT. NAGAMMA,
W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
GATTIGERE PALYA, SOMPURA DHAKALE,
VIDHYAPEETA POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
GURURAJ D URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
Location: High M S BUILDING,
Court of Karnataka BENGALURU-560 001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42241
WP No. 20364 of 2021
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NO.2 BANGALORE,
SOUTH SUB DIVISION, OFFICE NO.2,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BANGALORE - 560 070.
5. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AMENDED VIDE COURT
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ORDER DATED 16.03.2023
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
6. GSB PARIVARU,
NO.203, HABITAT OCRE,
NEAR BIPS,
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
CHIKKALLASANDRA,
BANGALORE - 560 061.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI KIRAN C.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI V. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO ISSUE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY WHICH IS UNACQUIRED BY THE
RESPONDENTS. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO VACATE THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ALSO REMOVE ANY CONSTRUCTION OR
STRUCTURES PUT BY THEM IN THE UN-ACQUIRED PORTION OF THE
LAND AS PER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. IN THE ALTERNATIVE
ISSUE WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT 100
PERCENT OF THE AREA AS ALTERNATIVE SITE IN RESPECT OF THE
LANDS UTILIZED WITHOUT ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS BY THE
RESPONDENTS IN SY.NO.28/3 MOREFULLY DESCRIBED IN THE
SCHEDULE. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE DAMAGES FOR
AN AUTHORIZED UTILIZATION FROM THE DATE OF POSSESSION
UNTIL PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE
PETITIONERS LAND LEFT UN-ACQUIRED IN SY.NO.28/3 MOREFULLY
DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:42241
WP No. 20364 of 2021
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue no objection certificate in respect of the schedule property which is un-acquired by the respondents.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to vacate the schedule property and also remove any construction or structures put by them in the un-acquired portion of land as per the schedule property.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant 100% of the area as alternative site in respect of the lands utilized without acquisition proceedings by the respondents in Sy.no.28/3 morefully described in the schedule.
(d) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide damages for an- authorized utilization from the date of possession until payment of compensation in respect of the petitioner's land left un- acquired in Sy.no.28/3 morefully described in the schedule and etc.
2. Sri M. Narayana Bhat, learned counsel for petitioners at out-set submitted that petitioners would not press for prayer '(C)'.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:42241 WP No. 20364 of 2021
3. It was submitted that petitioners were owners of 02 acres 22 guntas of land in Sy.no.28/3 situated at Sompura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It was submitted that though entire extent was notified for acquisition for formation of Banashankari VI Stage layout under Preliminary Notification dated 15.11.2000, but while issuing Final Notification on 21.08.2001, acquisition was restricted only to extent of 01 acre 15 guntas and even award was passed on 30.10.2001. But, compensation was paid only in respect of 01 acre 07 guntas excluding 08 guntas of kharab land.
4. Out of land remaining after exclusion from acquisition by Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short), extent of 15 guntas was notified by Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('KIADB' for short). It was submitted that petitioners were not aggrieved by acquisition by KIADB.
5. It was submitted that petitioners were aggrieved by high-handed action of respondents no.2 and 3 in utilizing remaining land of petitioners to extent of 31 guntas without paying compensation.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:42241 WP No. 20364 of 2021
6. It was submitted that since utilization of petitioners' land without acquisition and payment of compensation would be in violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and therefore, petitioners were entitled for relief as sought for.
7. On other hand, Sri Hanumantharaya Lagali, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1; Sri Kiran C.V., learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4; Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and Sri V. Manjunath, learned counsel for respondent no.6 sought to oppose writ petition.
8. Since, there was dispute about excess land utilized, this Court by order dated 12.06.2023 directed to joint survey of petitioners' land, land acquired by BDA and KIADB, demarcate same, and submit report.
9. It was submitted that in terms of said order, joint survey was conducted and survey report/sketch was submitted along with memo dated 12.10.2023, wherein an extent of 241/2 guntas marked with blue colour is identified as excess land belonging to petitioners utilized by respondent - BDA. -6-
NC: 2023:KHC:42241 WP No. 20364 of 2021
10. During course of hearing, thereafter, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 - BDA submitted that in order to resolve dispute, it was intended to offer benefit of allotment of alternative developed land to petitioners in terms of directions issued by respondent no.1 in its communication no.UDA 442 BLA 2017, dated 09.10.2018, namely 50% of developed land, which would be 11,975 sq.ft. per acre.
11. Learned counsel for respondent - BDA submitted that extent of excess land utilized was absolutely necessary to provide access road to layout formed by BDA.
12. However, said offer was not readily acceptable to petitioners.
13. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.
14. From above, it is seen that main ground on which petitioners are seeking relief is that respondents no.2 to 4 - BDA has utilized land belonging to petitioners without acquisition. Though respondent - BDA submitted that said land was utilized for providing access road, whether same would be sufficient to deny relief to petitioners requires examination. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:42241 WP No. 20364 of 2021
15. Firstly, in view of report submitted by ADLR in terms of order dated 12.06.2023, said assertion would stand vindicated. Consequently, it is held that respondents no.2 & 3 have utilized extent of 241/2 guntas in excess of land notified by them for acquisition.
16. Secondly, utilization of private land without acquisition and payment of compensation would be violative of petitioners' right to property under Art.300-A of Constitution of India as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lalaram Vs. Jaipur Development Authority reported in (2016) 11 SCC 31 and Tukaram Kana Joshi Vs. M.I.D.C reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353 and referred to by this Court in P.G. Belliappa Vs. Commissioner, BDA reported in 2020 (1) KLJ 504.
17. Consequently, Writ petition succeeds direction is issued to respondents no.2 and 3 to restore extent of 241/2 guntas of land marked in blue color, in ADLR report/sketch produced along with memo dated 12.10.2023, to petitioners in state it was prior to utilization, by paying damages for period of illegal occupation of excess land. * *Deleted vide Court Order dated 24.11.2023 -8- NC: 2023:KHC:42241 WP No. 20364 of 2021 Action as above shall be taken within an outer limit of six months from today.
It is clarified that no relief is granted against respondents no.1, 5 *.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Deleted vide Court Order dated 24.11.2023.
GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [VENKATARASAPPA AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS] RVHJ 24.11.2023 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) ORDER ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO' Matter was disposed of on 23.11.2023. However, learned counsel for petitioners sought to submit that since it was not case of either petitioners or respondents that respondents should initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of petitioners' land utilised in excess of extent acquired, liberty reserved to respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings would go beyond scope of writ petition and therefore requires to be omitted. -9-
NC: 2023:KHC:42241 WP No. 20364 of 2021 Learned counsel for petitioners, however submitted that in case respondent - BDA offered to utilize only such portion of land as utilized for laying road by compensating petitioners for same and returning remaining extent, they would consider said offer. It was submitted that petitioners were open to consider even offer for allotment of alternative land in same or other layouts of similar value.
It was further submitted that clarification insofar as no relief granted against respondent no.6 would not be appropriate as it would obstruct decision by respondent - BDA, whether to retain or return excess land back to petitioners.
There is no opposition to said submission. Upon hearing learned counsel and finding substance in submission, firstly, words "OR alternatively initiate proceedings for acquisition" in lines 6 and 7 at para no.17 of page no.7 and likewise, in page no.8, in penultimate line words "and 6" are omitted from operative portion of order dated 23.11.2023.
Insofar as offers for settlement made by petitioners today, same would be open for consideration by respondent - BDA.
This order shall be part of order dated 23.11.2023.
Sd/-
JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1