Karnataka High Court
Sri Ajay vs Bangalore Development Authority on 4 April, 2022
Author: B. M. Shyam Prasad
Bench: B. M. Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.25861/2019 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN :
SRI. AJAY
S/O SRI SUKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O NO 21/2,
KEMPAPURA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N. PHANEENDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020.
2
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M S BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2,
SRI HEMA KUMAR AGA FOR R.3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL
NOTIFICATION DATED 18.6.2014 BEARING NO.UDD 426 MNJ
2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO, ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE
LANDS BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER AND BEARING SY
NOS.21/2, 21/3, 20/1, 20/2 IN KEMPAPURA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK; QUASH THE
ORDER/FINAL REPORT DATED 17.9.2018 BEARING NO.
LAC/903-906/2018-19 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-2
AND DIRECT THAT THE SCHEME AND ACQUISITION OF
PETITIONER'S LAND IN KEMPAPURA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA
HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK FOR THE FORMATION OF
ARKAVATHY LAYOUT, AS HAVING BEEN RENDERED AND
BECOME ILLEGAL, IMPRACTIVAL BEING SMALL DISJOINTED
POCKETS AND SMALL ISLANDS, NOT SUITABLE FOR FORMING
SELF-CONTAINED LAYOUT AND THEREY PETITIONER'S LANDS
BEING LIABLE FOR DELECTION/EXCLUSION FROM THE
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 18.6.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THIS COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner has impugned the Final Notification dated 18.06.2014 in No.UDD 426 MNJ 2011 (Annexure- H) and all further proceedings pursuant thereto insofar as a total extent of 4 acres 39 Guntas in Sy No. 21/2, 21/3, 20/1 and 20/2 of Kempapura Village Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk [the subject properties] and the Final Report dated 17.09.2018 bearing No.LAC/903-906/2018-19 [Annexure-A] with a prayer for declaration that the scheme vide the Final Notification 18.06.2014 insofar as the acquisition of the subject property is rendered illogical and impractical. This would be the third round of litigation, and the circumstances leading to this petition must be set forth at the outset.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] proposed acquisitions of a vast tract of lands for the formation of residential layout called 'Arkavathi Layout'. The respective notifications [the preliminary and final notifications] under Section 17 (1) and (3) and Section 19 (1) 4 were issued in the year 2003-2004. The preliminary notification [Preliminary Notification] was issued on 03.02.2003 and the Final Notification [Final Notification] on 23.02.2004. The petitioner questioned these notifications in W.P.No.20235/2004. The petitioner was granted the benefit of an interim order of Status quo1. In allowing this petition and other petitions, this Court quashed these notifications2, but a Division Bench of this Court3 upheld the notifications but confirming the finding of widespread discrimination in acquiring the lands and granted liberty to the landowners to file applications before the BDA for withdrawal of their lands from the acquisition proceedings on the ground of discrimination. The BDA was directed to consider such
1. This Court even in this petition on 15.0 7.2019, has granted to the petitioner the benefit of an order of Status quo as regards the subject properties.
2 Sharadamma and others versus State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2005 Kar 3710 3 The Commissioner, BDA and others v. State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2006 Karnataka 38 5 applications according to certain criteria. The directions are referred to as, 'the Division Bench directions'.
3. The petitioner, and the other landowners, who had succeeded before this Court in impugning the aforesaid notification but failed before the Division Bench insofar as the notifications, approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court by its judgement dated 05.05.2010 in its decision in Bondu Ramaswamy and others v Bangalore Development Authority and others4 has affirmed the Division Bench's directions subject to certain clarifications and further directions.
4. The petitioner, after the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has submitted his representation dated 12.06.2010 [Annexure - G] with the BDA for exclusion of the subject properties from the acquisition proceedings essentially on the ground that the adjacent lands were either 4 (2010) 7 SCC 129 6 excluded or deleted from the acquisition proceedings, and in terms of the criteria identified by the Division Bench, and confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the subject properties must be excluded from the acquisition proceedings.
5. The petitioner's case is that he was not informed about the outcome of the consideration of his representation dated 12.06.2010 until the petitioner filed an appeal under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 20055. The petitioner was furnished with a copy of the Report dated 15.09.2010 only on 09.06.2014. According to the petitioner, this Report dated 15.09.2010 would indicate that the BDA has decided to continue with the acquisition proceedings for the subject properties without considering the petitioner's application in the light of the Division Bench's directions, and more specifically by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5 The petitioner contends that initially, he was informed that his application was lost, but after he filed an appeal before the Karnataka Information Commissioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, he is furnished with the report dated 15.09.2010.
7
6. The BDA has issued Revised Final Notification dated 18.06.2014 [Revised Final Notification] revising the Arkavathi Layout Scheme, and the subject properties, which are part of the Kempapura Village Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, are included in this Revised Final Notification. This Court must at this stage record the total extent of lands in this village notified/deleted at various stages, including the Revised Final Notification, and these details6 would be as follows:
As per Preliminary
Notification dated 55 Acres 13
03.02.2003 Guntas
26 Acres 38 28 Acres 15 Gnutas
As per Final Notification Guntas deleted
dated 23.02.2004
The total extent that was
part of the acquisition 24 Acres 12 2 Acres 26 Guntas
proceedings as of the date of Guntas deleted
the Supreme Court's order in
Bondu Ramaswamy and
others [as a consequence of
certain deletion]
As per revised final 11 Acres 13 Acres 12
notification dated Guntas deleted
18.06.2014
6 These details are as mentioned by the petitioner in Annexure L and
the BDA, in its Sstatement of objections, has not contested these details 8 Out of this total extent of 11 acres, the petitioner's land [the subject properties] measures 4 acres 39 Guntas, Government Land measures 1 acre 2 Guntas and the rest are private lands.
7. The petitioner has challenged the Revised Final Notification and the Report dated 15.9.2010 with certain consequential relief in W.P.No.35573/2015 and connected matters. This Court has allowed this writ petition in part by the order dated 19.04.2018. The material part of this Court's order dated 19.04.2018 reads as under:
"18. The BDA has acted arbitrarily in excluding from consideration the request made by the petitioner for deletion of his lands from acquisition. It is unfortunate that the statutory authority like BDA acts in an unreasonable manner in taking up lands for deletion from acquisition and does not treat persons similarly placed equally, particularly in the wake of directions issued by this Court and also by the Apex Court.9
19. As materials on record clearly disclose that lands of the petitioner are situated abutting the lands which have been either excluded from acquisition or de-notified from acquisition and there is no possibility of forming any self-contained layout and the BDA has not considered the request for deletion of the lands as per the directions issued by this Court and resolution produced at Annexure - T dated 26.8.2010 does not conform to the directions issued by this Court and the Apex court, BDA has to re-do the matter as per law.
20. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in part. The resolution at annexure T is quashed. BDA is directed to re-consider the matter, keeping in mind, the treatment given to similarly placed landowners whose lands were either excluded from acquisition or deleted, strictly keeping in mind the directions issued by this court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case and also observations made in this order. Petitioner herein shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing before any order is passed by the BDA in this connection. Fresh decision in this matter shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."10
8. The petitioner has impugned this Order dated 19.04.2018 insofar as the direction to the BDA to reconsider his request in the Writ Appeal No. 1529/2018, and the BDA has filed its cross objections [Writ Appeal Crob. No. 1/2020] being aggrieved by certain observations in the course of this Court's order dated 19.04.2018. During the pendency of these proceedings, and consequent to this Court's order dated 19.4.2018, the BDA has issued the Final Report dated 17.09.2018 [Annexure-A, which is impugned herein].
9. The Division Bench has disposed of the aforesaid writ appeal and cross objections with the following observations:
"20. In the circumstances, we dispose of the writ appeal cross objections filed by the BDA reserving liberty to the BDA to raise all contentions in support of its order/final report dated 17.09.2018 in WP .No.25861/2019 without reference to the findings or observations made by the learned single Judge 11 in WP No.35573/2015 and WP Nos.36274- 276/2015.
21. The reason for reserving the said liberty to the BDA is an account of the fact that the BDA has passed order/final report dated 17.09.2018, which is the subject matter of WP No.25861/2019 and the same is been passed subsequent to the direction issued by the learned single Judge in WP No.35573/2015 and WP Nos.36274-276/2015. We think it just and proper to reserve liberty to the BDA to raise all contentions open to it in accordance with law, despite of observations made by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid WP No.25861/2019 which is yet to be adjudicated upon.
22. In the event the respondent - BDA raises contentions that the learned single judge was not right in making the observations or giving findings in WP No.35573/2015 and WP Nos.36274-276/2015, by the impugned order dated 19.04.2018, the appellant/writ petitioner is at liberty to support the same in WP No. 25861/2019.12
10. The Special Land Acquisition Officer - II, BDA [the second respondent], in issuing the impugned Final Report dated 17.9.2018, has tested the petitioner's request for exclusion of the subject properties from the acquisition proceedings as against six parameters. The second respondent has opined that the subject properties cannot be excluded because none of the parameters would apply. The six parameters as against which the petitioner's request is considered, and the second respondent's opinion are as follows:
Sl The six Parameters The opinion of No the SLAO - II .
1 If the lands are within the GreenbeltThe lands do not come within the Greenbelt 2 If covered by completed buildings The lands are not covered by completed buildings 3 If the buildings are constructed by There are charitable/educational/religious constructions by institutions such institutions 4 If the lands are nursery lands There are no nurseries in these lands 13 5 If there is a factory in these lands There are no factories 6 If the lands are similar to the lands As per the survey already excluded from the report, the acquisition proceedings boundaries of the subject properties have been mentioned in detail to indicate that these lands are abutted by lands that are part of the acquisition proceedings.
11. The petitioner has relied upon a set of sketches [Annexures-M-M4] to contest the second respondent's opinion that the subject properties are bounded by the lands that are part of the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner's contention, based on these sketches, is that the subject properties, which do constitute one block, are bounded either by the lands that were not proposed for acquisition [not included in the Preliminary Notification] or excluded from the Final Notification, and from the Revised Final Notification. One of the sketches, Annexure-M, must be referred to, and it is as follows:
14
12. The subject properties are indicated in 'Yellow', the lands that are not included even in the Preliminary Notification are indicated in 'Red', the lands that are excluded in the Final notification are indicated in 'Green', the lands that are excluded before the judgment in Bondu Ramaswamy supra are indicated in 'Purple' and the lands that are excluded from the Revised Final notification are indicated in 'Blue''7.
7 These details are as per the legends in the Skecth 15
13. This Court on 13.01.2020 has called upon the BDA to file an affidavit to affirm the veracity of the sketches as per Annexure-M and to take a specific stand as to whether the subject properties are surrounded by an acquired lands or lands that are already deleted. In compliance with this order, the Commissioner, BDA has filed a sketch and this sketch indicates the status of the lands surrounding the subject properties. The material part of this sketch reads as under:
The acquired portions are indicated in either 'Yellow' or 'Purple' or 'Green'. The portions marked in 'Yellow' indicate that certain sites have been proposed in these lands; the area 16 earmarked in 'Purple' is marked for civic amenities and the area in 'Green' is marked for park. These lands are the subject properties. It is undisputed that there is a lake below the subject properties [i.e., after the Land in survey No. 21/4 which is excluded from the acquisition proceedings prior to the Revised Final Notification].
14. At this stage, this Court must also record that some of the land losers aggrieved by the inclusion of the respective lands in the Revised Final Notification have approached this Court with their respective writ petitions in WP No.51929/2014 connected with multiple other petitions. These writ petitions have been disposed of by order dated 27.09.2021 appointing a Committee to look into various aspects. Some of the directions by this Court in this order would be relevant in the light of the canvass on behalf of the BDA and therefore, are extracted:
"[d] The Committee shall examine as to whether the claim of landowners for deleting their lands from being acquired is within the parameters or the directions 17 issued by the Division bench and the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case and if so, shall submit a report to the BDA to the said effect and pursuant to the same BDA shall take steps accordingly to either delete the land of proceed with allotment of the sites to the applicants that may be formed in such lands.
[e] The Committee shall examine as to whether deletion of land/s from acquisition made by the BDA is within the parameters fixed by the Division Bench and Bondu Ramaswamy's case by examining every such deletion made on a case to case basis and particularly with reference to deletion made on the ground of adjacent lands having been deleted, [f] The committee shall also examine the claims of the applicants on the case to case basis for deletion of lands on the ground of area being built up by considering or looking into the scientific evidence that may be secured by the Committee as noticed herein above;
[g] The Committee shall examine the claim of the applicants on case to case basis for deletion of lands from acquisition on the grounds of buildings having been constructed by ascertaining as to whether such 18 buildings have come up prior to the Preliminary Notification dated 03.02.2003 are thereafter. It is made clear that such buildings/sheds constructed with asbestos sheets are tiled roof, shall not be eligible to be considered as a pucca building for the purposes of exclusion from acquisition even if so claimed by the applicants.
[h] The Committee shall examine as to whether deletion of 983.12 acres of land by the Government subsequent to the notification dated 23.02.2004 and before the issuance of notification dated 18.06.2014 was in accordance of dicta laid down by the Division Bench and in compliance with directions/clarifications issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case and submit the report to the BDA, who shall take steps based on said report."
15. Sri K.N.Phanindra, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, arguing in support of the petition puts forth the following contentions:
[a] The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the question of discrimination, malafides and arbitrariness in issuing the Final Notification, has considered such 19 question in the context of Kempapura and Srirampura Villages. The Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasized the 'pick and choose method' adopted by the BDA referring to the Kempapura Village. He draws the attention of this Court to para 127 of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court to assert that 50% of the area in this village is not included in the Preliminary Notification, even though the entire surrounding area is notified. The Final Declaration is confined to 26 acres 38 Guntas deleting 28 acres 15 Guntas [more than 51% of what was initially notified]. The entire northern portion of the village is excluded from the acquisition proceedings, and even in the southern portion of the village, there are haphazard deletions.
[b] Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while clarifying the parameters issued by the Division Bench, insofar as the lands in Kempapura Village, has called upon the BDA to reconsider the objections filed with the specific 20 direction that the BDA must consider, whether in view of deletions to a large extent, the development has become illogical and impractical and if so, whether the balance area should be deleted from acquisition proceedings.
[c] Though the BDA, after a Resolution, has filed a report in terms of the directions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, but the same is not in consonance with the directions. As regards the subject properties, this Resolution for a Report before this Court to include the subject properties in the acquisition, stands quashed with the orders of this Court in WP No.35573/2015 and connected matters.
[d] As specifically directed by this Court in the earlier writ petition in WP No. 35573/2015, the BDA should have considered the question of continuation of the acquisition of the subject properties in the light of the directions by the Hon'ble Apex Court to ascertain 21 whether the acquisition of the subject properties is rendered illogical and impractical. However, the BDA despite specific directions has not considered the same.
[e] The BDA, in the impugned Final Report dated 17.09.2018 [Annexure-A], has tested the petitioner's request for exclusion of the subject properties as against the six parameters evolved by the Division Bench. But, the BDA has not considered whether the acquisition of the subject properties would be part of an organic and cohesive development, a condition that must be satisfied in the light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
[f] The subject properties are surrounded only by lands that are either excluded even from the Preliminary Notification or from the Final Notification and the Revised Final Notification. In referring to the different survey numbers that are part of the subject 22 properties, an impression is conveyed that the subject properties are surrounded by acquired lands. This is factually incorrect, and this can be ascertained on a conjoint reading of Annexure-M and the sketch annexed to the affidavit filed by the Commissioner, BDA without much of an enquiry.
[g] Hence, this Court must declare that the acquisition of the subject properties is rendered illogical and impractical leading to formation of 'self- contained layout and accordingly, quash the Final Notification.
16. Sri B. S. Sachin, the learned counsel for the BDA, submits that during the pendency of this writ petition this Court in W.P.No.51929/2014 and connected matters has issued directions constituting a Committee to look into the deletion of 983.12 acres from the Final notification, and prior to the Revised Final Notification, and to ascertain whether such deletion would be in accordance with the directions 23 issued by the Division Bench and by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner's twin contentions i.e., [i] that the acquisition of the subject properties and development thereof would be leading to a self-contained illogical and impractical layout, and [ii] that the subject properties are not bounded by acquired lands, must be examined by this Committee.
17. Sri B.S.Sachin submits that the entire acquisition, and the development of the acquired lands pursuant to this acquisition, will be re-examined by this Committee and therefore, to avoid multiplicity of consideration, the petitioner, at the most, even if he could demonstrate that the subject properties are surrounded by excluded lands must be relegated to file an application before the Committee constituted by this Court. Sri B. S. Sachin also submits that the petitioner's case that the subject properties are not surrounded by acquired lands is factually incorrect, and invites the attention of this Court to the sketch filed by the 24 Commissioner, BDA in compliance with the interim directions issued to buttress his contention in this regard.
18. Sri K.N.Phanindra, the learned senior counsel, in rejoinder submits that it is not disputed that the BDA has not considered the exclusion of the subject properties, which are in Kempapura Village in the light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court Bondu Ramaswamy's case. Even the sketch furnished by the Commissioner, BDA demonstrates that the petitioners lands are not surrounded by acquired lands. The utilisation of the subject properties could only lead to an impractical and illogical self-contained island layout, which has fallen foul with the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, this Court must not refer the petitioner to approach the Committee for reconsideration.
19. In the light of the rival contentions, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the questions that would arise for consideration are:
25
[i] Whether the Final Report dated 17.09.2018 [Annexure-A] filed by the BDA after this Court's direction in WP No. No.35573/2015, can be justified in the light of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case specific to acquisition of lands in Kempapura Village, and [ii] Whether this Court should consider the petitioner's case that the subject properties are not surrounded by acquired lands and the development thereof would lead to an impractical and illogical island layout, or should these aspects be examined by the Committee constituted by this Court in WP No.51929/2014 and connected matters.
20. The Division Bench's directions as regards exclusion of lands from the acquisition are as follows:
(D) In so far as the land owners excluding the site owners, are entitled to the following reliefs : -
(i) All the petitioners who are the land owners who are seeking dropping of the acquisition 26 proceeding in so far as their respective lands are concerned, on the ground that
(a) their lands are situated within green belt area;
(b) they are totally built up;
(c) properties wherein there are buildings constructed by charitable, educational and/or religious institutions;
(d) nursery lands;
(e) who have set up factories;
(f) their lands are similar to the lands which are adjoining their lands but not notified for acquisition at all, are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their contentions within one month from the date of this order.
It is made clear that the BDA shall consider such request keeping in mind the status of the land as on the date of preliminary notification and to exclude any developments, improvements, constructions put up subsequent to the preliminary notification and then decide whether their cases as similar to that of the land owners whose lands are notified for acquisition, and whose objections were upheld and no final notification is issued.
(i) In the event of BDA comes to the conclusion that the lands of those persons are similarly placed, then to exclude those lands from acquisition.27
(ii) Petitioners who are interested in availing this benefit shall make appropriate application within 30 days from the date of this order and thereafter the BDA shall give notice to these persons, hear them and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.
(iii) Till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the BDA and the application filed by the petitioners either for allotment of site or for denotifying or exemption sought for are considered their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished. After consideration of the applications, in the light of the aforesaid directions, if the lands are not excluded then the BDA is at liberty to proceed with the acquisition.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court has affirmed the directions of the division bench subject to the following further directions and clarifications, and insofar as Kempapura Village, the clarification and direction read as under:
In regard to the acquisition of lands in Kempapura and Srirampura, BDA is directed to re-consider the objections to the acquisitions having regard to the fact that large areas were not initially notified for acquisition, and more than 50% of whatever that was proposed for acquisition was also subsequently deleted 28 from acquisition. BDA has to consider whether in view of deletions to a large extent, whether development with respect to the balance of the acquired lands has become illogical and impractical, and if so, whether the balance area also should be deleted from acquisition. If BDA proposes to continue the acquisition, it shall file a report within four months before the High Court so that consequential orders could be passed The aforesaid directions and clarifications are in the light of the following observations as regards the acquisition of the lands in Kempapura Village.
The acquisition was for planned development of the city and to avoid haphazard growth. But when the layout plan is examined with reference to the preliminary notification and final declaration, several startling facts emerge. We may first refer to the pick and choose method adopted with reference to Kempapura and Srirasketchura villages, to which the division bench made specific reference.
(i) In Kempapura village, large areas, that is nearly 50% of the area of the village (Sy. No.2, 4 to 16, 23, 24, 30, 31) had not been included in the preliminary notification, even though the entire surrounding area had been notified. Only 55.13 29 acres were notified in the preliminary notification but the final declaration was only in regard to 26A.38G and the remaining 28A.15G (more than 51% of what was notified) were deleted. After deletion of Sy. No.1, 3, 18(Part) and 33 the entire northern portion (north of the Road bisecting the village) is free from acquisition (except part of Sy.
No.17). Even in the southern portion of the village, there are haphazard deletions.
22. In the considered opinion of this Court, after the directions and clarifications by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case, it was incumbent upon the BDA, as regards the lands in Kempapura Village, to consider, in the words of the Hon'ble Apex Court, "whether in view of deletions of a large extent, whether development with respect to the balance of the acquired lands as become illogical and impractical, and if so, whether the balance area also should be deleted from acquisition". The impugned Final Report dated 17.09.2018 does not even refer to these specific directions in the aforesaid case, and the decision to continue with the acquisition proceedings is based only on the consideration of 30 the petitioner's request in the light of the six parameters in the Division Bench's decision. This Court must observe that the consideration of the petitioner's request even according to the aforesaid parameters, despite the orders of this Court in WP No. No.35573/2015, is rather perfunctory and without application of mind.
23. As is obvious from the petitioner's repeated efforts in the first as well as the second round of litigation, as even in this round of litigation, his asserting that the subject properties are surrounded by lands that are excluded from the Preliminary Notification and deleted from the acquisition proceedings in the Final Notification [Final Declaration] and the Revised Notification. The impugned Final Report dated 17.09.2018 does not indicate that the petitioner is extended an opportunity to put forth the details in this regard though this Court has observed that the "petitioner shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing before any orders are passed". 31
24. Further, the petitioner's case is that, without indicating the correct details of the subject properties, an impression is created in the impugned Final Report that subject properties are adjacent to acquired lands but these lands are not bound by the acquired lands. In this regard, the petitioner relies upon the details of the extents in each of the survey numbers and a juxtaposed reading of the sketch [as per Annexure-M] and the sketch furnished by the BDA. The details of the lands that make up the subject properties are as follows:
Sl Survey Extent Notified as Extent Notified as per No. No per Preliminary Preliminary Notification Notification 1 21/2 1 Acre 18 Guntas 1 Acre 18 Guntas 2 21/3 2 Acres 00 Guntas 1 Acre 33Guntas 3 20/1 0 Acre 36 Guntas 0 Acre 36 Guntas 4 20/2 0 Acre 32 Guntas 0 Acre 32 Guntas 32 A juxtaposed reading of the aforesaid two sketches would be as follows:
25. This Court, based on the details available, can only record a prime facie view that the conclusion in the impugned Final Report dated 17.09.2018 that the subject properties are bound by the acquired lands may not be justified, and this prima facie view cannot lead to a declaration against the acquisition of the subject properties. In any event, the petitioner's grievance with the continuation of the acquisition of the subject properties will have to be considered in the light of whether the acquisition, and 33 utilization of the same for Sites, a Park and for civic amenities purposes, would be in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case. The petitioner's grievance must receive a conspectus consideration and in the light of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid.
26. As could be seen from the records, these aspects have not been considered by the BDA, and this Court is also of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, all aspects must be considered by the Committee constituted by this Court in terms of the order dated 27.09.2021 in W.P.No.51929/2014 and connected matters. The consideration of the petitioner's grievance by such Committee, in the light of the observations as aforesaid and the material extracted, would facilitate a complete adjudication and would be as part of the scrutiny directed by this Court in the aforesaid petitions eliminating bias or such other grounds. The impugned Final Report dated 17.09.2017, in the light of 34 the above discussion, cannot be sustained and must be quashed, and the petitioner given liberty to approach the Committee constituted by this Court on 27.09.2021 in the aforesaid writ petitions. The questions framed are answered accordingly.
27. The petitioner has the benefit of protection against demolition, in the second round of litigation and also during the pendency of this petition. Therefore, while the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Committee within a time frame, there must be an order directing both the petitioner and the BDA to maintain status quo as regards possession of the subject properties until a decision is taken by the BDA upon a report submitted by the Committee. For the foregoing, the writ petition stands disposed of by the following:
ORDER [A] The writ petition is allowed in part and the Final Report dated 17.09.2008 in No.LAC/903- 906/2018-19 [Annexure - A] is quashed.35
[B] The petitioner's request for exclusion of the subject properties from the acquisition proceedings for Arkavathi Layout is restored for re-
consideration by the Committee constituted by this Court in terms of the order dated 27.09.2021 in W.P.No.51929/2014 and connected matters with the observation that such request must be considered in the light of the directions by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case as regards the acquisition of the lands in Kempapura Village;
[C] The petitioner, within 4 [four] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, shall be at liberty to file an application before the Committee as aforesaid enclosing all the documents, including a certified copy of this Order.36
[D] The petitioner and the BDA, until a decision is taken by the BDA on the Committee's report based on the petitioner's application, shall maintain status quo as regards possession of the subject properties.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA*