Karnataka High Court
Smt Rama Adiga vs State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2011
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
21
Taluk said to have been purchased on 4.9.1997 and
other dates from Sniit. Yeiamma, and otbersvothigorigh
power of attorney holder Smt. JayantEjt' ' V1.
According to the petitioner the lands fro:Ii"v¢l.iie»fi"bisV site "
was Carved out was converted
agricultural purpose, espeoialiy for» re;3.ideintiépi4-vp1.1i'poseV.i'
by Deputy Commissioner, p_BVétn_ga1ore hibistrievti, as per
order dated 28.8. 1995; be approved
by Gottigere Gzjarna it
3. the petitioners
have siteswin Sy. Nos.65/8, 65/4,
69/1 ungieasev¢r;;§fi'--spai§_"d'éeds of the year 1995. The
saigft 'iands4.Were'eon{'e1:ted on 28.8.1995. The layout
by Gottigere Gram Panohayat. The
petitiiofiei_=s__ vbonght the sites with an intention to
eonstrtietfesidential houses after their retirement.
23
The List of purchasers is as follows:
S1. Site No.
No.
Date of
Name of the Purehaser
Purchase ' " "
1. 82 24~6~2006 Petitioner I V 'x
2. i 24-62006 gpétitionér No:,2»v _
3. 26 7~8~1995_. % }E5etiti0nerN'e..'3' '
4. 25 1132006 i 'Petitic5i1efi:Tio.;1';§
5. 16 28+é 5}2ooi_3w A mtitioner N55
6. 86 13- 1,1 J1>e:<t:iiic;::<§;* No.6
7, 28 H 51 :.. Pet1ti(:)ner No.7
'Petitioner No.8
413ffi3'1.995 Petitioner No.9
10. % i':i':_;i§.95 Petitioner No.10
15§:l 1» 1995 Petitioner No.11
1~3,14,'1~S
H " 5.' 3 Nos. 14189-14210/O9 the petitioners are
the abeelute owners and possessors of various sites
A ieffized in converted iands bearing sy. N{:>S.64/2 ta
64/5, 65/3 & 4 & 70 of Gettigere Village, Uttarahalii
Hebli, Bangalore South Taiukw The said lands were
24
convertecl on 28.8.1995. The layout was _
the Gottigere Gram Panchayath. p€fitiQI?,€rfl$:=.ptil%ChaEi€§Cl-«..
their respective sites since the j,;j_ea1j...19i95.tinlder'Varie.tis
registered sale deeds. The .4petiti'oriers
sites with an intention to construct lioulses and reside
therein after their retiiiementilll Afterl"purchas'e of the said
sites consequential entries 'were ailso'_"vefi'ected based on
registered sale -£:;leeds.i;A
"eras follows:
'he List'-oflaurelras
...J
_-« 1Vw'~«n1"ln - Klnrmo nf +1/xn 13111»-rxj/\nn(x1~
_.I./lfll/K./"'.J.l J.V(/l,.l1.l\./ \.},l LJ.1\./ L LKI K/Llakjk/1
final
(0
'Fr
:% .
.'«:'l': l
' WP~ure.ha»se-~
62 . 1311121995 MRHDAMODAR
46 - A ~.is«:o~?..:~i995 MRS.MIRIAM.J.E.
47 ._ "18~'07~1995 CONTRACTOR8:
= MRZAKIRABBASBHOY
N'-'Z (0
_o.
30~ lO~ 1995 RAKSHA JAYANDRA
DOSHI
Q3
'we :7;
4 >-----
3040-1995 MR. YASHU KUMAR
V «V 5, % 1s~o7-1995 MRJAYA RAJAN
PAD IYATH
no l8~O7--~l995 MRJOSE MANIAM
KOTTIL FRANCIS <31
MRS. JOLLY JOSE
MANIAM
(L1: "
§§E,.
27
10. 83 18-0791995 Petitioner No.10
18 O2~11~1995
1 1. Petitioner No. 11
12. 19 10~O4~1995
13. 40 07-091995 _}?eti?ii0n_eE"N<1..'.;f1I371'
14. 65 029114995 :'1?eté't1o1*1ef'~NC..::14:VV1:.V'"'*--~
15. 64 02-11- 1995-»,
Pet1tioner11No11V1'E3~
I
16. 02» 11« 199.5. vPe"t1.tione1' No.
17. 02- 112995 Pet1ti:1n'er No.17
~ .1'I'.etiti'o:1er No. 18
18. 44 8:
Petitioner A
19. 1
'1 "..f1>a:it1oner No. 19
the contend subsequent to the
purchase 151' names of the petitioners came
to entered 1i1'the records of Gram Panchayath and
thenee 4V1\g1t1':.1icipa1 Council, now Bruhat Bangalore
--f:'estruCtt1re
Palike (BBMP). They have paid the
propeftyi' tax to BBMP regularly. The Bangaiore Mysore
Corridor [B1\/HC) proposed by the
....-respondent no.4 is approved by the 13* respondent.
28
Petitioners contend that the 2"" respondent ~ acqniring
authority, had to notifir the names of the
since they were in possession of the pro;}erty_:haVirn'g
purchased the sites carved out.--of the -converted' lands
which was much earlier to the pre1i,minary_.noti.ficatioii._
under sec. 28(1) of the slArealV'
Development Act (for...short""'th:e' Ac:=) and final
notification under section No notice of
any sort came' -petitioners mentioned
above and thl.ev'lnames of vendors of the
had no right, title or
interest and who parted with their
possession lninch prior to the above said notifications.
all the petitioners have no serious
chailengel'.V-to the very BMIC project and the development
worli according to them they are entitled to retain
A 'll'thefifespective property {site} purchased by them tili
statutory authority took the property from them in
accordance with law. The Frame 'Norl-: Agreement
29
(FWA} between the 4"} respondent and the concerned
authorities refers to formation of residential ia3%o'z;¢[j'néar
Bidadi township involving about 1,000 acres?
well as Basapura and Basavanapiiraiof C}ot;tigei*e village;
Several sites are available and o'i]tl*ie
the respective owners have losttheir sitesia'nd'inlovv they V
are not in a position residential sites
of equal dimension condition
and due to retirement.
Thei'efore,€'tbe_v':goave direction for quashing
the it and alternatively seek
for a l to 4 to allot
residential sites of equal dimension in the layout to be
.tV"for'tiil€5(i_'-.t:,th€ respondent at Basapura and
t I
A'--Basavariapuraf"Gottigere hobli, as the first option or at
Bidadi .town'ship as second option.
According to the respondents, none of the
eontentions raised by the petitioners are tenable,
therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. They
80
brought to our notice several details right:
Frame Work Agreement dated 3._4~rl9'97 till' liltigatio-n it it
which was concluded by the Apex Kiateti
20.4.2006. So far as the oth-ejr lellgallllaspeccitsgpi
to the 431 respondent, the lproceedings
for implementation 'ar1_d Various other
challenges were inade V offvpvearlier litigation.
All conceivable'ltfojpccvtioris"lrellaltiné project and its
implementa.ti:}l_n;.w_.lit matter and the
challenged to be rejected, in the
alprivate parties and also public
litigation filed ' £5{ex}ei<.
interest litigation; Therefore, the petitioners are barred
' from} agitating tlfi'e"saIne issues which have reached
..:the decision of the Apex Court dated
" .20,%l..2006,_.
" llC&:., According to them, the final notification was
is_siig3d on 5.72004 and even the possession of the land
in question was taken over on 21.12.2005 and
l 30.11.2005 and on several dates as contemplated under
31
section 2s (8) of the KIAD Act, the ianeg
handed over to NECEL - a 4";_*éuu
respondent. Therefore, the pres._ent_f'petitio_ns "wh'i::'h_ are
filed with a delay of 7 yearsiiafter isis-trance ;
and final notifications aI'€._FVI'1.(:)_1;*.,_»Et'£ .aii.i_:rnaii31tainab1e
According to them,' A._'€."V€1'1.TOthVt§i?§{iSVt§';«.Mthé purpose for
which the lands were fcompleted by
constructing'tlieppipperiipherai road--§_"--a,_.ctj=n1ponent of BMIC
project.
1., _ci1_aii----erige the writ petitions on the
ground that the p'redecessor--in--tit1e of these petitioners
one{S'rnt. Yiefiarnrna and others, owners of the different
91ifve3!}e."i'n1in1_bers"have participated in the proceedings
andi to its acquisition and they voluntarily
.§;;§:Er;£he said land. Therefore, it is not open to
the present petitioners to grieve about the same.
A iaeieorditig to them, the oniy course open to the
petitioners would be to approach the concerned
acquiring authority for payment of compensation.
32
12. So far as issuance of notice as contemplated
under KIAD Act, the acquiring authorities did 'proceed
with the acquisition proceedings _
contemporary revenue records and tl1e_--saivd.::proce'ss
in accordance with law settled by theaArpe:;_Colurt1l:"il\lo1::ge
of the names of the petitioner so were .shown_asj owriers of. V "
these lands in the revenue re_cords',V.__whiclhare produced.
Therefore, question of"'islsui'ng§any"n'otice_ to them is not
contemplated _an__d th7e""alle1gati.o1i1 norrservice of
notice is b_ase'lesis_ and .wi_tn.ou'¥tI anymerit.
dergr any obligation on their
part tola1lot_any_ls'i.te alternative relief as none of
the jpe'titioneIi'-stiixfere notified as owners or occupants of
land at the relevant point of acquisition,
can only proceed against the earlier
lanldltorvd redressing their grievance or to approach
xt"ne..concerned authority to receive the corripensation.
33
14. On verification of the >rI1até:1'*'ial--: :Tg>laeeci.V =
record and with the submissierls IIf18,Cl?3 aefo's's the, Bar;
we note that the preliminary'n0tifi(:a'éier1s.were bef?¢een"'~.
3.6.1999 to 29.1.2003 in 0f..séVeral*.4lahds of
Gottigere village, Utta::ahallil'H0hl;,Vllfiangalefe Seuth. So
far as the conversiohll {if<:l'<§:v:° 'at AnneXure--A
dated. 2.8.8.l"'.;l4¥3§:E3 No.70. The
e0nVersi01j)_4--V:lr(;lelr:_perta§_hs..l..to belonging to Smt.
Yellammal lof Gottigere village
meas'i.;xriI1_gll~aeres of Sy. Nos. 64/2, 64/3.
64/4 &'S_4'/.5.' is a Xerox copy of the lay out
and,-- this 'list llsalfietioned or approved by any
e0hilfie.ten't ..auth(l)fity. Even if the lay out is approved,
_ 'there ':16' for aealuisition of such land for public
" pi:1ép0'se';"_~.,,__ 'She allege
purchase of the property by
different' persons was from one Smt. Jayanthi N. Rae as
' peyvvexx"-.0l" attorney holder for several owners. Wife and
¢a.:2§;irer; of late BR. Paparma refers to only sy. N964
the subaiumbers and not sy. No.70 in WP.
34
No. 16413/2010. If the land in question"wa§~'..eonV'erted " 'V ,
as alleged by the petitioners in the
same had to be referredV.e"to_ in the revenuev reeordsme.
Apparently revenue records"'*pertaining_ to theleye several
survey numbers for the yea:*"'2€ill():3;Oél filed"as;*'--lnneXure
R~13 series are from They are at
AnneXure~R~l;3f\v.to year 2003-04
the name of 0 BR. Papanna,
B.M. Mojappa, Rayappa,
Puttai:f_1m__a- digs.' the owners of several
properties "in 64/3, 64/4, 64/5, 65/3,
63/4. andlsy.'_VNo.'.'7OL_ Unless the conversion is brought
,.,_to snotiee oflltherevenue authorities, it would not be
':;n'dieatedr the records. Subsequent to the purchase
"revenue records,
made by several petitioners herein, none of the revenue
reehordslowere got mutated in the name of the petitioners.
it 'i'he_ aequisition proceedings would he proceeded by
"'se{:1:{ring the necessary information from Contemporary
Notices would also be sent in the
38
notifications under section 28 (1) and also
Act.
proceedings consenting for thezvacotiieition-:.'
petitioners have any claim they can talte" =actiori~_in,
accordance with law against the owner's.§A_rhov have not
informed the petitioners about.nfthle""acquisi"Liori'sand they
can seek for payment' to them as they
have steppepvriyinto _Vthe:i'y;.~"V6ndors. Under
these cannot challenge
the basis of non-service of
notice,
V. _Vl5. .tl1eA4'5"respondent approached the Govt.
of»-':r.j'l{arIt1ataka,V"V'project technical report came to be
_ sliibniittedéfhereafter, Frame Work Agreement came
on 3.4.1997 between the Govt. of
Karraatakax and NECEL. This was a proposal to promote
an--integrated infrastructure corridor between Bangalore
Mysore in the State of Karnataka consisting of
'residential, industrial and commercial facilities such as
They even participated in acqttvisitiegjp V'
37
among other things, Selfisustaining townships,
expressways, utilities and amenities, including power
plants, industrial plants, water treatment_.planta----l: _
other infrastructural developments. T'r'1'e""
approved by the Government as it;'WoulCE._enure'l
benefit of the people of aleowll
others as the same envisapgeai'prornotihonT. industrial,
commercial and the State of
Karnataka opportunities,
promotion of traffic in
Banga.l'ore..an.d ll/}j;'$.Of€.>SO as"'to...ensure smooth and safer
traffie:"'het\f_xreenV Mysore.
"16. The project' needed about 20,198 acres of land;
'oe.long.:in.g.l:to._Vthe Government and also private parties.
private lands, they had to be acquired and
Karnatalialllndustrial Area Development Board (KIADB)
is oentrusted Withi the said work. In the earlier litigation
pertaining to this project in H? SOMASHEKAR REDDY
five. STATE: or KARNATAKA in W.P.2922l/i997 the
38
Frame Work Agreement dated 3.4.199?' was found valid
and proper opining as a project in public interest;,_:llThis
order of the High Court was H
SLP.No.1423/99 by its order dated 25.339919. "'l~lSeyeral'«».
land~owners approached this l'».Co{irt:' dtiestionii'ig.___A
acquisition of land. The learned single
the writ petitions in Qart to the
extent of 60% for the road
'~30mP0n'3flt _ ;_'A'll9s'~l3' quashed the
remaining with the toll
road. before the Division
Bench:_gii.d disposed of the matter
setting aside the the learned single Judge so far
asitjuashing 40°/é>"---o-f' acquisition which was unconcerned
Witt}. road formation on 28.2.2005 in
and other connected matters. Meanwhile,
gganotlaer' writ petition came to be filed by one J.C.
lllllll-.Avlx4il.%jl3HUS¥K?%/IY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA in W.l3.
at _ ..l\io.45386/2004» disposed of on 3.5.2005 in the form of a
40
with reference to the Frame Work Agreement.
undertaken to offer rehabilitation pael{age:&p:"to'*i
specifically worked out for the l3_l_\_/»lI.C__ project." V'
informed as of now whether any1'_"sL'iC1'i=.1'€h--€1bfi5]E'8fi<*JlI1
package was specially worked out-for the"vl3§.{llCH'projects'
in order to offer the same to owners of the
land. Article 5.1.1.1' Wo.rL<[Agreement reads as
under: I
" 'V "bes~fi.' efforts and
cause. its linstrurnentalities to
use1their;»'_best to; exercise its and
domain (or other
of under the Laws of
Indiapto, acquired land. Prior to
"aequiriiigjl_Vany acquired land, GOK will obtain
A. the cornpany written confirmation of its
to purchase such acquired land
A at the purchase price (Whether in
'lorrri of cash or comparable land)
_ a required under the Laws of lndia (the
"Acquired Land Compensation"). GOK shall
offer to the eyepropriated owners of the land
the Rehabilitation package specifically
. "KW
rziifi _
l Hcorriclor project.
4l
worked out for this Infrastructure Corridor
Project with mutual consultation of the"-._
consortium and the Revenue Authorities':i1i'f"~«._"'.,'
accordance with the applicable rules''.__--- l
Article 5.4 also refers to so'me'*.velfare.
thought of at the time of
between the parties which reacl's.as i.1r'i--:i_er=:i
" GOK wilt~»tmai:¢ii'ia§<ai1gi'b1:¢ to persons
and families tile"l.l'nfra.structure
Corridor Proj ect" " ' " it 'programs
gene.rally the State of
Karriatafiliiall in enabling such
any relief that
:r"r_1&ay"_be G01. GOK covenants
that other set forth above, the
' ''Clomoany_rshall have no obligations with
' rersp'ect to avnyhdisplaced persons or families."
«A _GAov'ernment of Karnataka has not placed
be.i"ore"~--V:1«isj'any welfare programme generally available to
i'ti:e_ citizens of the State of Karnataka so as to help the
Atoersons and families displaced by the infrastructure
In View of the above 2 terms of the
43
is any welfare programme generally available ta the
citizens 0f the State of Karnataka, the petitiene_rsV_:a.re.._at
liberty to approach the cencerned .
redressal of their grievarlce.
With these observatiehs, we"_pr9ceedv-hm :'pé1sé;3 there
following:
The \R7I'it,'p€titi:Ol1S'_ However,
liberty is to approach the
concerned' .:'K:3.r:V$z_:ijreeherbilitation programme
is or if any welfare programme is
genera11'y""ayai1ah1._e': * 44 V
t 'A V Ségfw
.....
Sdéfe §§:§§§E