Karnataka High Court
Doddaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.141 of 2014 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN
1. DODDAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1(A). SMT. RANGAMMA
W/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED: MAJOR
1(B). SRI. HOTTAPPA D.
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED: MAJOR
1(C). SRI. YARAPPA D.
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED :MAJOR
1(D). SRI. THIMMPPA D.
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED :MAJOR
1(E). SMT. SHILPA NAGARAJ
W/O LATE NAGARAJ
AGED :MAJOR
ALL PETITIONERS 1(A) TO 1(E)
ARE RESIDENT OF NO.3
DODDAGOLLANAHALLI
NAGADEVANAHALLI
2
BANGALORE VISHWAVIDAYALAYA
BENGALURU SOUTH
KARNATAKA - 560 056.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. ANUSHA L., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
DR. T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU -560 020.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DR. T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU -560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER BDA ACT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN 3 LAPSED IN VIEW OF SECTION 25 OF ACT 30/2013 OF ACT 30/2013 ENTITLED AS RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPERANCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENTTHIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents under Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short 'BDA Act') is deemed to have been lapsed as per Section 25 of Act 30 of 2013 interalia sought for a declaration that, the award passed by the respondent-authorities is contrary to order dated 03.03.2000 in W.P.Nos.5359-64 of 2000 (Annexure-G) and the respondent-Bangalore 4 Development Authority (for short 'BDA') has failed to implement the scheme as required under Section 36 of the Act and further challenged the notice issued under Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, by the respondent-authorities. The petitioners have also sought for alternative prayer, reserving liberty to the petitioners to make application for enhancement of compensation before the competent authority/Court.
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the case as averred in the writ petition are that, the petitioner-
Doddaiah claims to be the owner of the land bearing Sy No. 46/1 measuring 03 acres, 15 guntas; Sy No.46/2A, measuring 23 guntas; Sy No.46/2B, measuring 01 acre, 21 guntas; Sy No.48/1, measuring 02 acres, 34 guntas and Sy No.48/2, measuring 01 acre, 18 guntas, of Nagadevanahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore 5 South Taluk. It is stated in the writ petition that, the respondent-authorities have issued Notification dated 10.05.1989 proposed to acquire the schedule land for the purpose of formation of "Jnanabharati Layout" and copy of the Preliminary Notification issued under Section 17 (1) and (3) of BDA Act is produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition. Thereafter, respondent-BDA has issued Final Notification dated 19.01.1994 under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act (Annexure-D). It is stated in the writ petition that, the aforementioned notifications were challenged before this court in W.P.Nos.5042-45 of 1998 and connected matters and this Court, by order dated 31.08.1998, (Annexure-C), dismissed some of the writ petitions, and some other writ petition, this court upheld the acquisition proceedings being challenged thereunder and allowed certain writ petitions in the connected 6 matter by quashing the Final Notification issued under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act insofar as the petitioner's land therein was concerned. Thereafter, the respondent-BDA has issued another Final Notification dated 07.10.1999 under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act, (Annexure-D). The aforementioned Final Notification dated 07.10.1999 was challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.1179-80 of 2000 and this Court, by order dated 02.07.2002 (Annexure-E) dismissed the writ petitions. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the above writ petitions, the petitioners along with others preferred W.A Nos.4728- 33 of 2002 and connected appeals and the Division Bench of this court by order dated 04.03.2003 (Annexure-F) dismissed the writ appeals following the order passed in W.A Nos.4681-82 of 2002 and connected matters.
7
3. It is further stated by the petitioners that, this court in W.P.Nos.5359-64 of 2000 has granted interim order dated 03.03.2000, i.e. stay of dispossession of the petitioners from the schedule land as per Annexure-G. It is pleaded by the petitioner- Doddaiah that, during the pendency of the above writ petition i.e. W.P.Nos.5359-64 of 2000, the respondent- authorities have passed Award dated 12.05.2000 (Annexure-H) in respect of the subject lands. It is the contention of the petitioners that, though the acquisition proceedings were challenged before this court in the above writ petitions which ultimately reached finality, as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the acquisition proceedings have been upheld, however, no fresh Award has been passed and no Mahazar has been drawn as required in law and therefore, acquisition proceedings are deemed 8 to have been lapsed in view of Act 30 of 2013, and accordingly, the petitioners have sought for declaration that, the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent-BDA is deemed to have been lapsed. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that, the Award dated 05.01.1998 (Annexure-L), passed in respect of the subject land and the said Award is not binding on the petitioners on the sole ground that, this Court has passed interim order dated 03.03.2000, in W.P.Nos.5359-64 of 2000 (Annexure-G) and therefore, it is contended that, as already an order of stay of dispossession has been passed by this Court, which amounts to stay of all further acquisition proceedings, including passing of award as such and therefore, it is contended that, Mahazar dated 09.08.2002 and Award dated 17.05.2000 (Annexures-Q and R) are nullity in law and accordingly, the petitioners have presented this 9 writ petition by contending that, no steps have been taken by the respondent-BDA in furtherance of the acquisition proceedings and as the petitioners were continued in possession of the schedule land and as such, respondent-BDA has no jurisdiction under the BDA Act to pass impugned award. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.
4. I have heard Sri. V.Lakshminarayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Anusha. L., for the petitioners; Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri. K.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3- BDA.
5. Sri. V. Lakshminarayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further contended 10 that, as the respondent-BDA has not taken possession of the land in question and has not passed Award in respect of the acquisition proceedings under challenge and therefore, the acquisition proceedings become lapsed as per Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is the principal submission of the learned Senior Counsel that, this Court, quashed the Final Notification dated 19.01.1994 by allowing W.P.Nos.5042-45 of 1998 dated 31.08.1998 and therefore, it has to be held that, the respondent-uthorities have not passed Award in furtherance of the above acquisition proceedings. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that, even after termination of the proceedings by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein acquisition proceedings was upheld, however, no Award has been 11 passed in accordance with law. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the respondent-BDA has not issued notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, before passing the impugned award and that itself makes it clear that, no Award is passed insofar as the subject land is concerned and in this regard, he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Premji Nathu vs. State of Gujarath and Another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 250 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
6. Nextly, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that, though this Court dismissed the writ petition in W.P.Nos.1179-80 of 2000 12 by order dated 02.07.2002, however, this court has granted interim order on 03.03.2000, staying the dispossession of the petitioners from the schedule land and therefore, the order of stay of the dispossession amounts to stay of the entire acquisition proceedings and accordingly, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the respondent-BDA has no jurisdiction to pass Award and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Others vs. Antony Fernandez and Another reported in (1998) 3 SCC 556 and in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Lichho Devi and Others reported in (1997) 7 SCC 430 and argued that, the stay of dispossession of the writ petitioners would amounts to 13 stay of all further acquisition proceedings and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, Sri. K.Krishna, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA sought to justify the impugned Award and contended that, the Award notice was served on the petitioners and the original petitioner herein had challenged the acquisition proceedings in W.P.Nos.5359-64 of 2000, which came to be dismissed on 02.07.2002 and therefore same was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.4728-33 of 2000 on 04.03.2003, later confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.9079-84 of 2003 on 07.10.2010 and therefore, Sri. K.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable challenging the acquisition proceedings as 14 the same has reached finality and as such to support his arguments, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Beerbal Singh (Dead) Though Legal Representatives vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2018) 13 SCC 675.
8. Nextly, it is contended by Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA that the petitioners are not entitled for compensation under New Act of 2013, as the petitioners were aware about the land acquisition proceedings before the Civil Court as the compensation is deposited therein and therefore, he contended that petitioners cannot seek fresh Award under the New Act, 2013, after delay of 11 years and accordingly, it is argued that, the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be accepted.
15
9. Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-- State argued on similar lines of respondent-BDA.
10. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is not specifically with regard to challenging acquisition proceedings, which ultimately confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.9079 -84 of 2003, however, the claim made by the petitioners is to seek fresh Award to be passed by the respondent-BDA under New Act, 2013. On perusal of the writ papers, it is not in dispute that, the original petitioner was the owner of the properties mentioned in the paragraph 1 of the writ petition and the respondent-BDA has passed Preliminary Notification dated 10.05.1989 under 16 Section 17 (1) and (3) of BDA Act, proposed to acquire the land for formation of 'Jnanabharati Layout'. Thereafter, respondent-BDA issued Final Notification dated 19.01.1994 under Section 19 (1) of the BDA Act. These notifications were challenged by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.5042-45 of 1998 and connected writ petitions, which came to be dismissed by this Court on 31.08.1998 (Annexure-C). It is also to be noted that, some of the petitioners have filed W.P.No.5359-64 of 2000, which came to be dismissed on 02.07.2002, and thereafter, the petitioners have preferred WA Nos.4728-33 of 2002 and same came to be dismissed on 04.03.2003. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred SLP (C) No.9079-84 of 2003, which came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 07.10.2010 and therefore, the challenge made to the acquisition proceedings has reached finality 17 where acquisition proceeding was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in this regard, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-BDA.
11. Insofar as the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that, there was an order of stay of dispossession passed by this Court and in view of the declaration made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to above by the learned Senior Counsel, that stay of dispossession includes stay of all further acquisition proceedings including passing of Award, is concerned, I am of the view that, the said submission cannot be accepted on the sole ground that, the entire acquisition proceedings has reached finality in view of the confirmation of the acquisition made by 18 respondent-BDA in the writ petitions, writ appeals and the Special Leave Petitions referred to above as the interim order passed merges with the final order passed by this court and therefore, the judgments referred to above by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. Though it is contended by the petitioners that, no Award has been passed and Mahazar has not been drawn and in this regard on careful perusal of the original records makes it clear that, the respondent-BDA had taken possession of the land in question on 09.08.2000 and Award has been made on 12.05.2000 insofar as land bearing Sy No.46/1, Award on 10.05.2000 in respect of the land bearing Sy No. 46/2A, Award on 17.05.2000, in respect of the land bearing Sy No.46/2B, Award on 23.06.2000, in respect of the land bearing Sy No.48/1 and Award on 19 17.05.2000 in respect of the land bearing Sy No.48/2 of Nagadevanahalli, Bangalore South Taluk and thereafter, the Government has approved the Award. Though the Preliminary Notification was issued notifying the extent of 900 acres, 30 guntas for the purpose of formation of 'Jnanabharati Layout', the respondent-authorities have passed the Final Notification to an extent of 729.31 acres, and possession was taken and handed over to the Engineering Section to an extent of 639.21 acres of land as per the records produced by the respondent- BDA. In that view of the matter, as the respondent- Board has produced the Award Notice and the Award has been passed during the pendency of the proceedings, before this Court, despite the fact that, the order of stay of dispossession has been passed, same cannot be considered as stay of the further 20 proceedings of the acquisition proceedings in view of dismissal of writ petitions and therefore, the judgments referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the case on hand on the sole ground that the entire acquisition proceedings in the present case has reached finality in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.9079-84 of 2003 disposed of on 07.10.2010. It is also pertinent to mentionhere that, by the time, Award came to be passed by the respondent- authorities, the proceedings have been initiated by the petitioners as per the observations made above and the respondent-BDA had taken possession of the land on 09.08.2000 and therefore, the petitioners were well aware about the passing of Award by the respondent- BDA and therefore, the petitioners ought to have sought for reference immediately and as such, the 21 contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be accepted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, though the petitioners were well aware about the passing of the Awards, have not taken any steps to seek reference before the competent Civil Court, immediately after the passing of the Award as required under law and therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioners challenging the impugned Awards cannot be accepted at this juncture and therefore, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed not only ground of Res Judicata but also as devoid of merits.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB