Karnataka High Court
Sri D N Gopalakrishna Reddy vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary on 4 January, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.44276 OF 2011 AND
45880 TO 45881 OF 2011 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. D.N. Gopalakrishna Reddy,
Son of Narayana Reddy,
Aged 62 years,
2. Sri. D.N. Venkatesh Reddy,
Son of Narayana Reddy,
Aged 52 years,
3. Sri. Bhoopala Reddy,
Son of Narayana Reddy,
Aged 58 years,
All the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are
Resident of No.155,
Domlur Village,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore.
All the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are
Represented by their Power of Attorney
2
Holder,
1. Sri. Narasimha Reddy,
Son of Muniswamy Reddy,
Aged 60 years,
Resident of No.125/1,
Konena Agrahara,
N.R.Layout,
H.A.L.Post,
Bangalore.
2. D. Venkatesh,
Son of H.M. Devappa,
Major,
Resident of No.667,
Lakshmi Krupa,
Murugesha Palya,
NAL Wind Tunnel Road,
Bangalore - 560 017.
3. Sri. A. Venkatesh,
Son of Annaiah Reddy,
Major,
Kodihalli Village,
J.D.Nagara Post,
Bangalore - 560 017. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. M.R. Rajagopal and Shri. H.N. Basavaraju,
Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka by
its Secretary,
Department of Housing and
3
Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Additional land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. K. Krishna , A.G.A., for Respondent No.1
Shri. M.N. Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to declare that acquisition
of the 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.216 of Kodihalli Village is
abandoned for want of passing of the award and not taking
possession as stated in the award and calculation sheet at
Annexure-B and declare that the subject land was never vested
with BDA in view of Section 76(3) and provision to the BDA
in view of exclusion of the subject land from awarding
compensation under Annexure-B.
4
These Writ Petitions are coming on for Hearing this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
The controversy is restricted to 17 guntas of land, which according to the petitioners, was to be reconveyed along with another parcel of 13 guntas of land, in respect of which, two resolutions were passed by the Bangalore Development Authority (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA', for brevity), in subject nos.507 and 597 respectively. It transpires that insofar as the extent of 13 guntas of land is concerned, there was a deed of reconveyance. However, the controversy was kept alive insofar as 17 guntas of land was concerned. Incidentally, the petitioners had filed a suit for bare injunction, restricting the BDA from interfering with the extent of 17 guntas of land, which after contest, was dismissed. However, in appeal, this court, on examination of the records produced by the BDA, had found that there was an inexplicable circumstance of two sets 5 of documents being produced before the court, one indicating that the entire extent of 2 acres 32 guntas of land had been acquired, whereas another set of documents indicating only 2 acres 2 guntas of land having been acquired. In this background, the court further examined other material, which disclosed that two parcels of land, namely, 13 guntas and 17 guntas, were excluded for the purpose of computing the compensation and therefore, this court concluded that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the prayer for injunction, as apparently even according to the BDA, the two parcels of land were left out of the acquisition proceedings and no compensation was paid and accordingly, had allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff - petitioners. That has been questioned by way of a special leave petition before the apex court and the same is pending consideration. In the meanwhile, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings insofar as 17 guntas of land is concerned, has lapsed on 6 account of the BDA never having taken possession of the same nor having passed an award in respect of the same. On such declaration being made in favour of the petitioners at this point of time, though there is already a finding of this court, on the appellate side, as to the petitioners having established their possession over 17 guntas of land, may appear to be surplussage. However, in the pending proceedings before the apex court in the Special Leave Petition, if the apex court should reverse the judgment of this court assigning reasons, which may or may not address the acquisition proceedings and the anomalies that are thrown up insofar as the claim of the petitioners is concerned, it may be open for the petitioners to question the same in appropriate proceedings. Accordingly, the present petition being considered at this point of time, may not be warranted, in view of the petitioners already being protected by a judgment and decree of this court.
7
2. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, without prejudice to the case of the petitioners.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv