Karnataka High Court
H M Shivanna S/O Late Mallappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 March, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar
iN??§§HKXiCQURT€WTQ%®JA%fiTBANGALGRE
BATED THIS THE §» DAY :3? MARCH gim
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT:c£=:v_,Q,SAB:%:;é;%i:*:** &"
AND A
mg HQNBLE MR.JޤSTICEAB.MANQH21;R;"'
WRIT APPEAL ,N0.3:3-5:; ;'(2.mF0{LA§lBaA;V
W.A.N0s. 147G¥~?"2=,!2G1 }.{[;A;..BD_A)
BETWEEN: &
1. H.M.sHIV;&;NNA, ~
S/Okjuafm i\rif,i%3;LLA}?1%
A-.GE.D AB-{.",5Uf1"65'v~YE;ARS,
R/O ULLA;{A'L.VI1J;:.x(.;=E
YEsi4xAr.aN'mAPU;§;a_ HOBLI,
BANGAL_C')RE'-- NORTH TALEJK.
" :2.' 5 . :P.i..ASHIVAGZVXN'GAVIAH,
. V u ;";.z<:>.%;:m*£.'; PUTTASIDDAPZPA,
' AGED AB;(i>UT 65 YEARS,
-- A ' %..R/(3: .'U.LLA;HAL VILLAGE
YES~H\?¥AI\§THAPURA HQBLL
BANGALGRE NORTH TALEJK. ...A.PPELLAE\ITS
K " LL..[fgB Y $.RI.,§¢I.R,RAJAGOPAL§ ADV}
/'33/sq
£2'.
AND:
1.. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY;
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILI)ING,
BANGALORE. 1
2, 'I'HE COMB/IISSIONE.Rg
BANGALORE DEVELOF?_1§?1'r!5;N'I' A1..I'FE{QRI"i'"§:'V"'
KUMARA PARK WEST ' ._
BANGALORE A 560 O20;A' -
3. THE ADDmONALL:ANO>'
ACQUISITION OI?7:"+*I.(3E.R---_ é
BANGALCERE. D E:VE1..CsPM A[j'}"HORITY
KUMAR33 PARA:.mrE:3fI', , jg A'
BANGAL£3§{E'é-.. 58J.--Q20,:_A- RESPONDENTS
[BY SR.1."IiS'.{5::NEu§H 'VAN/' FOR C /R2,
SR'I,.eK.--I'iRISf~I'f€A;~AG.A*FUR R1 82, R3]
5wR1T ''Az:é'P1§:ALs ' FILED 13/8 4 OF THE
, V "'KA1iNA'J7AKrX,A H1O"1~{"OOUR'r ACT PRAYING TO SET
A5133 "-"ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT
PE'Ii'f7{'I(V).V1'&':-§'Zj1 O>1;21 04/2010 DATED 6 / 8/ 10-
.. .__'3I'H'}":';SE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AANI.) RESERVED AND COMING ON FOR
z,,
PRONOUNCEMEN'l' OF JUDGMENI' THIS IEAY,
B,M.ANOEiAR J,. IDELIVEREID THE FOI,I,OW'1NG:_'...VV':
JUDGMENT
The alppeilamis. who are t11e*'Jfpi"é3f1'tior1ers'§I1"t1'1§: Wi"it poi.i1:1'ons, being aggrieved by the deatofi passed by the learned Jod'g§é:'_ 21o1w21o4/2010, whsjreila si§§;_;1é;%V Judge dismissed the Writ order dated 5v 1-2010 " heave prefefyed - ,
2. T as follows:
The S'ta_4t:' GoVeri::i1o;§'t sanctioned an improvement "--'fo__zj_niaation of a layout called "Sir V'VM.Vishvosw;::*aiah Nagara layout" by the Bangaiore Doi?'oioj5mo;"1if'j_fiaithority. Pursuam: to the Scheme 4 'approxsodifiyy the State Govornm€:nt:_. the BDA issued :no"Uf1'catioI1 on 1442-2001 a<:qui1"i:1g Vast _.__"'éXt:o%{1t of Iéiiiid sif:ua1:<::d at Kengori and Yeshwanthpura Hobii and ;E:+;s'L:e<ii rmtificrzatizm c:2r:.}_ii}:1g_;§ for {}bje::'t:.i<:;ns :9 {E153 said p1'€i1'.mmary 13(3f,ifiC3J['.iO£'1. After c::c>:':s91'ci<-":_rr1_'1"';§_"'-«flag objectiolls fiic-rd to the pre1i.min2Hy 11otificé;::ii:;4:'i'; V' Iiotificaiiiori issmed on 3}»~10.~2GQ2.
award has been passed and BDA' .h;»_1S «. }i)i;')-SS8-S8101': of the a.cqL1iz°ed under Section. 16 (2) Qt7~flf.1e
3. The issued by the BDA number of writ patitiornié' Court by its order dated «in a batch of writ petitions reported i1L1 "'U;R. .'--2(5O5 KAR 608 in the Case of 3I;N;:15;Mz~.m~x.:/s STATE OF KARNATAKA dismissed the 2wfr'it;_T.p€3ti1fiQ::L:§V"::p~h.01ding the notificai":'021 isstled by the ' BDfX"-..f¥Vit_h'C €§1"faiI} di1"e<:t;'.011s. The relevant Cli1'(fCTZiO1'1S iS:~1ued i:1..-the: above said case are as under:
"2{a_) All the petitiozlers who are the iand owners u./#10 are seeking dropping of She ;.
aim» Ct(?C]tt,tSilf0I'Z proeeedirige irisofczr as i}'t.€i}' respecrtfue lands are eoncerried.. on the grou.r2dt that {at} their lands are situczited wttliin g:*eeit._.l__"
belt area: {b} they are tootally L"
{e]eom.;ert'ed 'for ztortvagrteultiurfdl --'_4itse;"";('d)Vv A garden land and rtiirsery ld:1ol.;:f{e,?" tL.t?*1OA'l1l',tt1et built hospitals, E?(3lLt,CClV1f'iO-Ifitctt l;ftE$t.ii'I4ti'fOfitS"
joetories, (I) who have "laeen éieriied-Z Lttiltft, the notice of aeq;utsti"iou""attd who in doubt about the ,tCt»z1d tn the notificat'ion are petrmitjtedv to Aidgoptopriate appltcaittiul"tt;t:io' the zreelctng such exclusiiou ~ ._ Z'Tt:(.:)_T1lu arid producing doei.t.rrzei1~t'_§ lie, their contentions tultltiri . -;!:--I""!')>r:I:r'i;l.i,'I§.'SV"'wj'!'Cj!'r}'l, the date of this order. "
(Io) "tS«v.I_?1(td€ Clear that the authority sh_atl..eofieiider such request keeping in mind the land as on the date of pi"elin2tt:t--:tfy rtottficctttort and to exclude any deUel;.r)pmerits, improuentents, constructions i'"put up subsequent to the preliminary V"r'toti]tCatio;'i and then decide ukhether their eiitses are similar to that. of the land owners I ;'§f§-'-"' {S u;l2_ose el:3jeei:'f(3r1s were upheld. :0 Elie exle1'zz"of___ 357 acres 25 games and in respeel Qf lands nczfinal :1ol§j"icaI'ierz is issued.
{C} In the event the Auil1or"iiy...eor;{le conclusiorl that those perse4ns;'"are siniilally placed, then to 13clem"_i/Q tliezf' la:'1c?,;s%:{V'h' exclude Zhemflom acc;ais'i!j0r1..
3. Petitioners wlzo * V"ih£'erested in availing this beaefg-i:...sl1al-llééiffaalée 'iapjfihropriate «-
applzktaligjfzi"';l§.é'll1if'%-. 93.'?'V§liaé}$;}'?:?}l'?E"'{3I€ dale ej' this the 'authority shall gi;2el...neuii.g:e 'tE;v.,_thosev-_gfiefs0r1s;'§ hear them and pass expeditiously.
4, Till lheafofesaid exercise is undertaken V_fl:1.yEl§hev_AutliOrzv§y..a:1d the applicaIion.sfilecl by 'the pe-iilierlers either for allotment of site or *I'fer'~ :Cle_:1a7l'§;1}ing or exempiions sought for A»...4eonsld_e:':ed their possession shall not be <:li;s:u;rbed and the eyaistlng constructions shall AA °":r1Qi. be demolished. Afiter' eonsideratien Qf the V"'a:;3plieaf'i0r'1s in ihe light. of afbresaid EM W-J d.z'recz.io:'z:s; the Aui'i'z.oriii€s are :15 fiberiy £0 proceed :'_L}iU'1 ihe C£CC1L£iSiZiOI'1. 4, The Iand belonged to the a1ppe1iantév_A4_:':}1Va§§..:b.ee§;'"
acquired by the BDA for the purppscg.{pffjviIi:.Tpi;QVE:ft1eén}fV .A scheme and formation of ,__.1;he ¥1;€L3k'0ut; M.Vish_weShwe1';'a1uiah Nag/jara I;ciygjL1:?:, The following' a1fe.the 1a;11vé%::'béi--Q:1giH;_§ Vt;5[.j;}:;e appeilants have been '1g._,y«.,t 'i16::' :1' . " 'V Sy.N0. V» Final Notification 69 " 37 guntas 98 _ 34"é1C;::9es.f:34: 2 acres 9 guntas :01. aCreVé;'2-3-gvuntas 3 acres 15 guzntas ':_1Q(:V)"/i,V .. ".39_ gL1;1tas 35 guntas " <»As "stated above, though in the pmiiminary
-Q1-'1<:§1i.i;fifi:'af:,ic>r1 larger extezrzt, of Ezmd has been 3110a.-*n, after "".;:§3'njsid€rir1g3; the {}bj€C?.i§(}I1S¢ <::§2rt,air1 e:2«<i:€:n'€. of the iand is deieted in the fimzi .r1ot:i:i'ie.21t.ien since the said lands were covered either by 'ouiit up area or by the a.re<:aI1t':i":.arid' coconut gardens. The _pre1im.inary .-finci._ ':£3"1'13;1"'--sM' not..ifieat1'o11s issued by the BDA h.:.1d' the appeilants in W.P.%\Ec).]35O;°§'1 "
Cou.r'é. 'T't1is Comrt by its disposed of the said vvrit. order made in JUNJAMEA/[A's" reported in ELR 2005 KAR. proceedings and directioies 'consider the ease of the their iands under acquisition protreedi » ~ «.
5»-.p1;msuan(:e"Wt'o the directions issued by this "C?t3t;.:ft'VjAiici;g.§~meI1t cited supra, the petitioners have stxbhiattiee; e..vLA15eA}§resent:ation dated 1{)»6~2006 requesting _Au.ti"2----or:'ty to drop the acquisition p1"oceed1'I1gs .e'(1~2jt,e:1&1ing that the Govemmer1t itself denotified vast of the mild belonged to other feted owners. /saw-' 1 9 F-'iirther they have raised eireeamii: sgiici eee«;3I1ui: gardens in the said lands and the boreweii is also dug in Iand. It is their ctoziterition that the Goverrirnerii' V' has taken a d€CiE§i()Il to drop._t1fiieVéiéiieizmisitiioriv-. proceedings, in respeeiz. of the 1an':is§--.vi?hicFi' gi_re.Ve«.oi5::'re§i". under the garden land sjiihf-3 aequie-._'1tion p1"c)eeedi1jg3_f CCiriS1'd€'1:f3Cf thé representation of the Conducting 3173 3130* iI1Sp§?C5ioi_i. issued an e:ndorsen1erii: rejecting the I'€}3T€:S€3:vf1't{;J';'ti0V;1:].;vf'v(:)v}'. petitioners being aggrieved. dated 18*3~20()8 flied W.P.Ne,V896i4/2:OO8.'* eo1ifendi_ng that without holding "'r2eeesSfa1?y enqziirievéri endorsements are issued in a ieytrirostyfeaforrii.and no reasons have been assigned in the e~r:do;:?'se.nienf,. The oniy reason given is iihai the land A is AArequ_i1'*e-éi for the ibrmaiiioii of layout and their ease i.hae,'»--n:>i. been eoneiciered in terms of the guideftinee by this Court in JUNJAix/IMAJS Caeer This Court zéfw as";
by its erder dated 22~4~2009 z1}i<}we:d the saaid writ pet1't:i0rL. quashed the €I1d0fS€3II1€I1f1 and direc:t.eVd~'-.,_the BDA to COI'1Sid€1' the application filed by the in accordance with Law, The petii:i():ne1*s were__'perm.Vi'iteed V' to produce addit.iona3. drjcurnerltga rt?"£=;«1;b~st.aa'12ii§at:e_fh:ei3:"*'1 C2186,
7. The BDA issued V ._p'etit.i0nerVad te appear for the Enquiry on 14g;_0{2a09j_'das1.¢1argather day, the petitioners sL;'b1':2TjVt1*:ed:3._0rre '-representation dated 14-- verjfeame contentions which were taken V in __:Vear.?;ier represemation dated 10~3~_2QO6. he '.>vr--itfenVAatVaterr1er1t was also flied on the dffie'ers of BDA once again visited the "'iari<;'_.. 'Vin 22«-102009 and found that there is no ef the contentions of the petitioners. Iarid...ri{vhi(:h is covered under the built up area and _areea2jut garden has aiready been deieteci while Issuing firml r10t:ifiea3d0I1 and reported that the 1ayc>'L1ii has ;§*""' ii already been fem1ed and aflofieci ta the geI1er'aE pubiie in the {and beaarirag" Sy.N<:>.101/1. The }?3I)AV.~~.<a._;_fter considering the represeniiation 01' the pei:ii:i()I1e_re"---}fi'ei'd. that the iands whicrh were a(:qL1ired by {he garden lands or the iemcis eeve:'eei "by "1I§'«(}1"'4E;Z"»«"?'fj,.'E:1'\,' t;:§'rn'b_.'. school bz:u'Iding and they have b.;ee:1f1 The lands in question have f1ef"e0n1e 'u_r:1<:':e:r"'.= the guidelines of the e'Ace0r(iif1giy, by its order dated 5- 1-2010 reje~cAtVef'1'_ .-reVpfeee_£1tatie11 of the i>6iiii0n€rs.
8. Beiing'agjI'1eVeC1.,by._{he said order, the petitioners once again._.appfoaehediiftllis court, in W.P.Nos.21O1.W c1r1a}1_engi11g the rejection of the Ie,prese:1fati'e11iv gmcl also the noizifieaiion issued 'under Seefieia the Land Aeqmsitien Act on various greL:1"J<i.s;" a_z1d eonfzended that the reasexiinge assigned by Cf1fi.h(;>V LBSA fie reject. the 1*eprese11ta.tic)'r: is eentzrary to iawn petitieraer 'further eentendeci iihat, the waist; extent; of 4%,, E'! the Ea}:'1d has been cieriotmed on the gr'o'L11."1d that the iands have been covered by the geudezn as well zzisfithe built up area, Whereas the ease of the petitioiiefsihias. been diserimi1'1at.eci. The record of righfisf}:.]eaif1y_f discloses thaig: the petitioners ;h2id"':"e_1isec;1' .g}."1e_ea{na;:t,"1 Coconut: and banzlna plantation. The 'iamd in,."qi,iestio.§1'is V' a garden land. The on 22-1042009 does not v(ie}:)_i<::t facts; Further, no notice was issued. inspection.
Even though }'3;asse'd.j{i1:iev.fiizvard and 16(2) notificafioii beer: i'ssi;1ed, 'fhe petitioners continued to be iIiV'1possessiore1§:_i'o_fitlfiessiid iand and no layout has been Syi.No';v_1O"'iV/ 1 measuring 3 acres and 15 «games ofland arid'a1i:5ued to the public. Single Judge after Consid.eriIig the mai.i:_er in dismissed the Writ pe,tit3';on Elolding that iaiid_:';1'n question has not been demarcated as a VA iand arid the record of 1"ights produceci by the petitiezlers elezzrly ciiecttiesse that: the Iarzd in c§L1esT.i<3n is 2:
kuehkii (dry) Iarzd. Just because the pe't._iti0ners.----3g:_ad missed some it c:ar111<>t: be classified as and EDA Whiie issuing final notificaiiion deiet.efiI d which is covered by buih: ';:~;::'e_a',.-, aizeebrdindy, dismissed the writ petition on 6m8~:20i"Q:
10. The petitioners thedefdder dated 6--8~201O passed by the preferred these appealsxtd
11. Couneei appearing for the appe1Ia1;ts,V the very same contentions urged§¥}de170re leegflzed Single Judge and contended f{,he_v12::I1d"'i;1r1_ question is a garden Eand and before ldeiding inspeetiorz on 22»}O«2009 no notice Cwas :'s::3t.ie.d. The spot inspection does not depict. the A facts. It is fartiher eubmiited that in .___"".'J{§;NJAMMA's ease this C{}'L"£I'f, direeied the EDA to drop .5 \ the 21<;:quis~3i{;io11 pmeeedinggs in resspeet. of the __1aI1& eitu.at,e£i withiza (21) the green beit, area [33] totally area (<::) converted for non#agric:u1_tura}. ueefiid) ' and 11tEi"S€E'y' land (63) who _7r1av.e_ 2 edueat,io11a1_ institzutions and fa1ct.o1'iee:--3t{t] who -hagre' been served with raotiee in doubt about the aCC11;3§it1'01Aé.-*--'o?,:'i}ief.?i Iétlticis; Jim the instant case, the landett within the purview Without conesidering extent of coconut and tjit1e;:"1tepfes"et:1tation made by the appellartt-S H.355 tvhich is contrary to law and sought e1iloxX'ri1ig the writ petition by setting aside 'V1138 oteie2:_}-.t.passed 't)y"'tIhVe learned Single Judge and also EDA.
j 01.i-fliie other hand, Sri.P.S.Di.nesh Kumar, learned te<;~I.:':1.s:e7i' appearing for the second reSpo:1dent~B.D.Ak 'contended that: in pur:3L:an»<:e to the directions iseued by this Ceurt, in W.P.Nei6964/2008, the repreeentatien ef the appeilante has been eerieiciereé. P'urt§ie:?:.f"~«fii*:e Officers ef the EDA have inspected the V' they have submitted the report eiaiizfig E of iarid in Sy. N369 is fuiiy x.racai'i':f7 eef;"fL'ieeree" 9 games of land in SyiNo.VQg;"fiflerevh isflnei er nursery except few ve0eonui=""i;iiie}'uV"3Ii_e_nge'"trees. In Sy.Ne.101 measuring V%aereie}'i;:5 of land, the layout has eilotted to the allottees. :ie1v"'ii§y';'No.1OO/2 is Vacant and iiherewaleV5fexi;3:eeC:§5i:i;it On the basis of the said hae passed the order rejecting rehpreeeiiiation of the petitionersw ' 'a:ppe'1--1.eri»fe. There iemno infirmity or irregularity in the 2f;€.£iVi':E'l€C§. Counsel further submitteci that, en 3;; €sa;I'1ievr'eecasien, inspection of the land hae been ' "4"--..ve3o:e§iuei;eei:' in presence of both the parties. In View of ._'«Ei1'ee§t';,- while eendueting inspection 0;: 2i2--i€}~2G09, me i ..: V'i'"'£'€i§j.C'€ has been iseueei aiifi eniy in erder 'Le verify the if} et.at,e:nent, ef the pe1':i"i.ie1";e1's, i:r1s3pe.<:t;ien has been eendnleteck There is no m1.reery or the are.C21:m1i g.:L1"--den as alieged by the appeilants and sought for V. the Writ appeals.
13. We have carefully gene f:.hf'm_,1'g'31 i:.fip:L'1gi;1e.C1 . orders passed by the 1eara1e&;1::S1r1g1eV" the Second respondent efguments addressed by theVpa1'ties_._ _ A
14. It:'e'i'e'VTVI'1e:1'jVi, the;iEV"'Ier1d belongiryg to the appellafit. 'h-as} by the BDA for the imblementafiofiv ' ~ of s the scheme of Sir .' V. EVEVis}§Wesh'wa1"aiaA}i"mNAagara layout. The vast extent of file.1a,f1'd..:he;s ?j'ee.f1 acquired for that purpose. Though in ' theApre1i1:1invLe'r§,r netifiCati011, larger exterm of the land as ne'"tified in paragraph 4 of {his judgment, whiie e._i's's':i1i*z:Ag; zfinal 110f;.i:{"ic:21t.ier1., the {EDA E1215 deieted the Eand w--}'1ic:}'1 is <:0ve1fed by the scrheei building. boreweil, tomb A' "X 1/' , I?
arlefi a1re:(:21I1'L:t. garden and acqui:'ed Eesger ext}:-znt {}_f the land. The EDA has; p£Z1SSE3'd the award and p()9sSeégi5i:d:3 has been i:.a}<;en after drawing the mahaze1;j'':2111d '''1 6{f2)''V "
n0t;i_fi<:at:i01'1 under the Land ACqL1isi.1:io1'i_' Agti,"T'h;:sV v;»1i.sd- been issued. Thereafter, Aihé'-._ A'z1p;51€H.211'1,?;«. W.P.Nos. 1350 1351 /2003 ermjxengjgfig V'-Efillié-3:' $_a{f;é:" The "
said writ petitions hafvé/__ befiéri' "2'O--"1;2~2005 gphoiding the and also directed the Case of the peti'ti011ers ;i+':i of JUNJAMMAS Case. Considered and an on 18-3-2008 and the said _63nd0'fs§Vm'e:1<it Has been questioned in I- 'Vi.f-APL'i\3;Ej.é596i%X20OE§." """ This Court quashed the said 22-+2009 and directed the BDA 1:0 C01i1s:i.(:1er_vt11c.f~V'matt€r in accortiance with the guideiines "'.4"'--. vEE1idV(d0\;\7i3 E11 JUNJAMMAB case. Pursuant tn the same, "."€.i1:§'1*e.:sp011denf.s I. and 2 considered 'aha rc:*pres3€:I1t.ati013 . '"i-:17acc::<::;r°da.11{:<3 with {he gL1ide1im3S Eaid down in the , z/ JUNJAMMAE; easse and passeeci a detailed esrder, Before c::o:1sider.i11g the :represer1t;21tie'ra, the Au.t,1101*ities have eonciueted the spot: iI1speet.io'n on 22~«5~2005 report and aettordingly the passed V' 5~1~2010. The said order has bee':'1'--e'}:.1e'_stiQIied_ beielretng the learned Singie Judge. The after examining the matter ir1*v.._:c.1'"e--t.»ai1, of the appellant has beer; c0nS'i'dCt'er:iV"irt aceefdafice with the guidehnes issued For the first time, 16{2':}«.._V;fjotifi_catie.ii V chailenged in W.P.No§§V.'2"1"Oe1.:;2_} the appellant has approaehefi'-thie he has not chalienged the Said I1otif7¢ati.e'n.A°. Fifirther the record of rights in 't the xandt':n" question dearly shows that the 'x'I21'r:1d- as dry iazacf {kushk.i) and not a. garhd-e.;r1 1V_e;r1dA.i'~vEhagayath). Hence, the e0nt.entioI1 ef the 'A ' " 4" -- ei'p.peE1a:hte5' cannot be accepted. / fie"
x' 20 acquired the Eemd in qtieaiiixtam The 21<:quisii:i()n of the land is; \vit,hi_n the domain cf the Stigma Gove1'nmer1t'...___We find 1::.hai 1319 appc:'~:1Ia,r1t.:~3 have not made out any <;éé1saé"
ir1t:e1"fe1"<211.<::e with the Order of the Eezlrzled Singéif: T. * V"
16' 'i'he're is no irz*<:gL11arity or Ji£1cga,1ity'"§:1"
passed by the 16:-ar11ed Single Judge fez.) an mtra Court appeal. 'A_C'eQrdi1i'g'Iy, . A "the foilowingz " _ mph---;.*