Shivangini Bhartia vs State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2025

[Cites 30, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shivangini Bhartia vs State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2025

Bench: Krishna S Dixit, M.Nagaprasanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.8048 OF 2024 (LA - BDA)

BETWEEN:

SHIVANGINI BHARTIA
D/O SRI ALOK BHARTIA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDENT OF 101,
PARIJAT APARTMENTS,
FAIRFIELD LAYOUT,
NO.45/1, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
MR.NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN,
RESIDING OF 22,
17TH 'E' MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
6TH BLOCK, KORAMANAGALA
BENGALURU - 560 095.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.EKTA PRADHAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
2

REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020
KARNATAKA.
EMAIL: [email protected]

3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020
KARNATAKA
EMAIL: [email protected]
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI SHVAPRASAD M.SHANTANAGOUDAR,
ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) DIRECTING THE R-2 TO
REGULARIZE THE ENTIRE SCHEDULE PROPERTY;
b) DIRECTING THE R-2 TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGULARIZATION FOR THE ENTIRE SCHEDULE PROPERTY
INCLUDING THE LAND AND OTHER CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS
OWNED BY THE PETITIONER, AS PER THE ORDER DTD 06.12.2022
3

PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN MISCELLANEOUS
APPLICATION NO.(S) 1614-1616 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S)
7661-7663 /2018 VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

In this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by issuance of

a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to

regularize entire schedule property, for it having been regularized

partially by the Committee. As a consequence thereof, she also

seeks a writ, in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting respondents 2

and 3 from acquiring or taking possession of any portion of the

schedule property.
4

2. Heard Sri K N Phanindra, learned senior counsel appearing

for the petitioner, Sri M Rajakumar, learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Shivaprasad M

Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession

and enjoyment of the land to the extent of 5 acres 36 guntas in

Sy.No.18 situated at Ramagondanahalli Village, IVRI Road,

Yelahanka Hobli and Taluk, Bangalore Urban District (hereinafter

referred to as 'the schedule property' for short). Portions of the

schedule property were originally purchased by the mother of the

petitioner in terms of two sale deeds dated 07-04-1999 and

01-02-2001 and through one gift deed from the aunt of the

petitioner. These are not in dispute. In 2001, the mother of the

petitioner files an application seeking approval of a plan for

construction of farm house in the schedule property from

Gantiganahalli Panchayat. Permission sought was granted by the

Panchayat. The farm house is constructed and upon completion of
5

construction and inspection of the schedule property building

completion certificate was also issued on 19-12-2006 by the

Competent Authority. The mother of the petitioner was residing in

the farm house itself and developed the farm house into a

horticulture and vegetable farm. All the necessary revenue entries

are made in the name of the mother of the petitioner and statutory

taxes that are to be paid qua the schedule property are all in place.

In the year 2008, on an apprehension that her property would

become subject matter of acquisition by the Karnataka Industrial

Areas Development Board ('KIADB"), the petitioner files an

application seeking information whether the property would be

notified for acquisition. The KIADB in response to the said

application replies clarifying that the schedule property was not the

subject matter of acquisition by it.

4. When things stood thus, the 2nd respondent/Bangalore

Development Authority ('BDA' for short) formulated a scheme for

formation of a layout in the name and style of Dr. Shivaram

Karanth Layout and issued a preliminary notification on

30-12-2008. After issuance of the said notification, the mother of
6

the petitioner files an application before the Competent Authority

under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ('the

Act' for short) seeking change of land use from the property being

described as a park-zone to a residential main in terms of the Act.

The same is accorded by the Competent Authority. The mother of

the petitioner then complies with all the statutory necessities issued

from to time by paying betterment charges also. The mother of the

petitioner and the petitioner did reside in the said property. On

17-05-2011, the mother of the petitioner gifts the schedule

property in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner comes into

picture and is said to be in continuous possession since then. Katha

and other statutory necessities of the local authorities are complied,

and the petitioner is said to be in possession throughout.

5. As observed hereinabove, the preliminary notification that

was issued by the 2nd respondent/BDA for formation of Dr.

Shivaram Karanth Layout had received several objections from all

the stake holders. The said objections, as also the preliminary

notification, became the subject matter of proceedings before this

Court in Writ Petition Nos. 55863-55865 of 2014. The said writ
7

petitions come to be allowed. The BDA then challenged it before a

Division Bench. The writ appeal is dismissed. The dismissal of the

writ appeal leads the BDA before the Apex Court. The axe of

acquisition falls on the petitioner in the proceedings before the Apex

Court. The BDA, in terms of the order of the Apex Court dated

03-12-2020, issued a public notice on 11-12-2020 directing all the

stake holders to file their objections/claim statements before Justice

A.V. Chandrashekar Committee constituted for regularization of

certain properties in terms of respective orders.

6. The petitioner files a composite application of all the

properties seeking regularization of entire schedule property by

representations dated 27-03-2023 and 31-03-2023. There was no

response from the Committee. Therefore, the petitioner approached

this Court in Writ Petition No.9892 of 2023 and sought

regularization of entire schedule property - the farm house and

other structures. During the pendency of the writ petition, it

appears, that the petitioner gets to know that the Committee has

not favourably considered the representations of the petitioner and

the Apex Court had approved the said partial consideration of
8

regularization of land of the petitioner. On the said development of

the Apex Court approving what was done by the Committee, this

Court disposed of Writ Petition No.9892 of 2023 reserving liberty to

the petitioner to approach the Apex Court. The Apex Court directed

the petitioner to approach this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is

before this Court in the subject petition.

7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri

K.N. Phanindra would vehemently contend that the petitioner had

placed entire material before Justice A.V.Chandrashekar Committee

for regularization of entire property. The Apex Court, in terms of

several orders that are passed had directed issuance of

regularization certificate for the property of the petitioner partially

and the same order prohibited the BDA from acquiring entire

schedule property of the petitioner. The petitioner later had

communicated several letters to the Committee, all of which go

unheeded and, therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court

and when the BDA had brought it to the notice of this Court that

the Apex Court on 06-12-2022 had accepted the recommendation

or report of the Committee, liberty was given to the petitioner to
9

approach the Apex Court. The Apex Court has now directed the

matter to be placed before this Bench. All the material that was

necessary to be given before the Committee had been given. In the

entire farm house property, the Committee has regularized only the

structures and not the land though the petitioner is residing therein.

Five acres of land is regularized on the ground that there are

structures. The remaining is not. The learned senior counsel

submits that the two cannot be separated. Land and the farm house

go hand in hand. If the farm house is regularized, the land

surrounding the farm house, which the petitioner had developed in

these 25 years should also be regularized. The learned senior

counsel submits that the Committee fell in error and now the

Committee is not in existence and, therefore, this Court should

allow the petition in furtherance of what the Apex Court had

directed for reconsideration.

8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Shivaprasad M.

Shantanagoudar representing the 2nd and 3rd respondents/BDA

would only take this Court through the report of the Committee to

contend that the Committee had regularized the structures and the
10

BDA cannot now go beyond what the Committee has done, as the

recommendations of the Committee are accepted by the Apex

Court.

9. We have given our anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The dates and

the link in the chain of events upto 2008 would not need any

reiteration. The mother of the petitioner generates a doubt as to

whether her property would become subject matter of acquisition.

She communicates with KIDAB seeking information. KIADB issues

an endorsement on 28-02-2008 which reads as follows:

"¸ÀASÉå:¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ/«¨sÀÆ¸ÁéC/3239/2007-08 ¢£ÁAPÀ:28/2/2008

-::»A§gÀºÀ::-

«µÀAiÀÄ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ºÉÆÃ§½,
gÁªÀÄUÉÆAqÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.18gÀd«ÄÃ¤£À ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀzÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30/1/2008 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 31/1/2008
_ _ _ _ _ _
11

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ºÉÆÃ§½,
gÁªÀÄUÉÆAqÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.18gÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ªÀÄqÀ½ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À
¥Àr¹PÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ, E®èªÉÃ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄµÉÖ.

¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÀbÉÃj zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀzÁUÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ
f¯Éè, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ºÉÆÃ§½, gÁªÀÄUÉÆAqÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.18gÀ
d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±Á©üªÈÀ ¢Þ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀzÉÃ
AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÀÆ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ »A§gÀºÀªÀ£ÀÄß F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ ¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÉÆ¼À¥Àr¹
¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

(C) F »A§gÀºÀªÀÅ PÀ.PÉÊ.¥Àæ.D.ªÀÄAqÀ½ ¤ÃrzÀ ¤gÁPÉëÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæ
JAzÀÄ w½AiÀÄ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ;
(D) ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ¤£À°è C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ZÀlÄªÀnPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä EzÀÄ
C£ÀÄªÀÄw ¥ÀvÀæªÉAzÀÄ w½AiÀÄ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ;
(E) ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÉ.L.J.r.© UÉ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀÄ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ
CªÀ±ÀåPÀ«zÀÝgÉ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À ¥Àr¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä EzÀÄ
CrØAiÀiÁUÀÄªÀÅ¢®è;
(F) EzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ¤£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ zÀÈrüÃPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæªÉAzÀÄ
w½AiÀÄ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ."

On the communication, the mother of the petitioner develops the

property by seeking change of land use from park zone to

residential property. This is permitted by the Competent Authority

under the Act, by order dated 08-02-2010 which reads as follows:

"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ

ಷಯ: ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತರ ಾಲೂಕು, ಯಲಹಂಕ ೋಬ , ಾಮ ೊಂಡನಹ
ಾ ಮದ ಸ#ೆ$ ನಂ.18ರ %ೈ' 5 ಎಕ ೆ 36 ಗುಂ)ೆ *ೕಣ$ದ ಪ -ೇಶವನು0
ಉ-ಾ1ನವನ ವಲಯ2ಂದ ವಸ3 ಉಪ4ೕಗ5ೆ6 ಭೂ ಉಪ4ೕಗ ಬದ8ಾವ9ೆ
:ಾಡುವ ಬ ೆ;.

...
NzÀ¯ÁVzÉ: ಆಯುಕರು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅ>ವೃ2@ %ಾ A5ಾರ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು, ಇವರ ಪತ ¸ÀASÉå:
¨ÉAC¥Áæ/£ÀAiÉÆÃ¸À/¹J¯ïAiÀÄÄ/01/09-10/2123/2009-10, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06-
10-2009.
12

ಪ CಾವDೆ:
Eೕ8ೆ ಓದ8ಾದ ಪತ ದG ಆಯುಕರು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅ>ವೃ2@ %ಾ A5ಾರ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು, ಇವರು
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತರ ಾಲೂಕು, ಯಲಹಂಕ ೋಬ , gÁಮ ೊಂಡನಹ ಾ ಮದ ಸ#ೆ$ ನಂ.18ರ
%ೈ' 5 ಎಕ ೆ 36 ಗುಂ)ೆ *ೕಣ$ದ ಪ -ೇಶವನು0 ಉ-ಾ1ನವನ ವಲಯ2ಂದ ವಸ3 ಉಪ4ೕಗ5ೆ6
ಭೂ ಉಪ4ೕಗ ಬದ8ಾವ9ೆ :ಾಡುವ ಬ ೆ; ಕDಾ$ಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು ಾ ಮ 4ೕಜDಾ 5ಾJK, 1961ರ
ಕಲಂ 14(ಎ) ರLಯG ಪMNೕG*, ಈ ಷಯವನು0 2Dಾಂಕ:09-09-2009 ರಂದು ನPೆದ
%ಾ APÁರದ ಸQೆಯ ಷಯ ಸಂRೆ1 : 160/09 ರG ಚT$*ದ ನಂತರ %ಾ A5ಾರದ NUಾರ*VDೊಂ2 ೆ
ಸ5ಾ$ರ5ೆ6 ಪ CಾವDೆ ಸG*, ಭೂ ಉಪ4ೕಗ ಬದ8ಾವ9ೆ :ಾಡಲು 5ೋMರು ಾ ೆ. ಸ5ಾ$ರವW ಈ
ಷಯವನು0 ಕೂಲಂಕಷ#ಾX ಪMNೕG*, ಈ 5ೆಳಕಂಡಂ ೆ DzÉÃ²¹zÉ.

ಸ5ಾ$M ಆ-ೇಶ ಸಂRೆ1:ನಅಇ 255 ೆಂಆCೇ 2009, ೆಂಗಳ ರು,
2Dಾಂಕ: 08-02-2010.

ಪ CಾವDೆಯG ವMಸ8ಾದ ಅಂಶಗಳ ZDೆ08ೆಯG, ಕDಾ$ಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು ಾಮ
AiÉÆÃd£Á 5ಾJK, 1961gÀ PÀ®A 14(J) G¥À ¥ÀæPÀgÀt(1) (J) ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತರ
ಾಲೂಕು, ಯಲಹಂಕ ೋಬ , ಾಮ ೊಂಡನಹ ಾ ಮದ ಸ#ೆ$ ನಂ.18ರ %ೈ' 5 ಎಕ ೆ 36
ಗುಂ)ೆ (ಐದು ಎಕ ೆ ಮುವ ಾರು ಗುಂ)ೆ :ಾತ ) *ೕಣ$ದ ಪ -ೇಶವನು0 ಉ-ಾ1ನವನ ವಲಯ2ಂದ
ವಸ3 ಉಪ4ೕಗ5ಾ6X ಭೂ ಬದ8ಾವ9ೆ :ಾಡಲು ಈ 5ೆಳಕಂಡ µÀರತುಗ\ೆ ಂ2 ೆ ಸ5ಾ$ರದ
ಅನು]ೕದDೆಯನು0 ¤ÃL DzÉÃ²¹zÉ:-

1) %ಾ A5ಾರವW ಪMಷ6M*ದ ಭೂ ಬದ8ಾವ9ೆ ಶುಲ6ವನು0 ಪPೆಯತಕ6ದುK,

2) ಪMಷ^ತ :ಾಸ_` %ಾa 2015ರಂ ೆ ಉ-ಾ1ನವನ ವಲಯ2ಂದ ವಸ3 ಉಪ4ೕಗ5ೆ6
ಭೂ ಬದ8ಾವ9ೆ :ಾL5ೊಳb ವWದು.

3) ವಲಯ cಯ:ಾವ ಯGನ µÀರತುಗಳನು0 ಕPಾdಯ#ಾX %ಾGಸುವWದು.

4) %ಾ A5ಾರವW Aಸಬಹು-ಾದ ಇತರ µÀರತುಗಳb.

ಕDಾ$ಟಕ ಾಜ1%ಾಲರ ಆ-ೇeಾನುCಾರ
ಮತು ಅವರ ೆಸMನG.
¸À»/-
(ಎಂ.ಎf.%ೆ ೕಮಚಂದ )
13

ಸ5ಾ$ರದ ಅAೕನ 5ಾಯ$ದN$,
ನಗ ಾ>ವೃ2@ ಇ8ಾRೆ."

The petitioner then comes into the picture by a gift deed executed

by her mother in her favour.

11. When things stood thus, the BDA issues a preliminary

notification seeking to acquire certain lands including the land of

the petitioner for the purpose of Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout. The

preliminary notification comes to be challenged before a learned

single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 55863-55865 of

2014. The petitions come to be allowed by the following order:

"4. The respondents have filed the objection statement.
In the objection statement it is contended that since there were
large extents of lands which had been notified, the respondents
require sometime to go through the process and thereafter
complete the acquisition proceedings.

5. In that background, I do not propose to refer to the
contentions in detail for the reason that in respect of the very
same notification, this Court had made a detailed consideration
in W.P.No.9640 of 2014 and connected petitions on 26-11-2014.
During the said consideration, this Court had taken note of
contention put forth on behalf of the respondents with regard to
the delay that has occasioned in the process as there were
certain deletions at the initial stages and when subsequent
deletions were made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the
Government has initiated enquiries in that regard and therefore
14

there was delay. This Court having not accepted such
contention and further relying on a decision of this Court had
arrived at the conclusion that the delay as explained by the
respondents is not acceptable and therefore, the notification
insofar as the lands of the petitioners therein was held as
lapsed. Since in the instant case also the position is not
different from the said cases, a similar consideration requires to
be made.

6. Accordingly, the notification dated 30-12-2008 assailed
in these petitions is held as having lapsed as against the lands
of the petitioners referred to in these petitions which were
included in the said notification.

In terms of the above, these petitions are allowed to that
extent.

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.2/
2014 for dispensation also stands disposed of."

A writ appeal comes to be preferred by the BDA assailing the order

passed by the learned Single Judge supra. The writ appeal comes to

be dismissed by the following order:

"2. As prayed for by Mr. G.S. Kannur, learned Advocate
appearing for the appellants, the appeal is taken up for
preliminary hearing.

3. The writ petitioner assailed a notification dated
December 30, 2008, proposing to acquire the land for formation
of a layout. The preliminary notification was issue on December
30, 2008. Thereafter, neither the final notification was issued
nor possession was taken. Consequently, the Hon'ble single
Judge held that as within the reasonable time, no further action
was taken, the proposal for acquisition got lapsed.

4. We do not find any merit in the appeal
15

5. The application for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is, also
dismissed."

BDA challenges both the orders in several cases before the Apex

Court. The Apex Court in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 sets aside both the

orders of this Court and issues several directions holding:

".... .... ....

15. First, we take up the question as to whether the High
Court was legally justified on merits in quashing the preliminary
notification issued under Section 17. The Constitution Bench of
this Court in Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. [Offshore Holdings (P)
Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] has
decided the question affirmatively. The BDA has issued
preliminary notification for acquisition of the lands. Non-
finalisation of the acquisition proceedings resulted in the filing of
the writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka by the
owners in the year 1987. Certain lands were denotified and the
permission which was granted earlier was withdrawn. The
denotification of the land was also withdrawn. It was urged that
the time-frame which was prescribed under Sections 6 and 11-A
of the LA Act would form an integral part of the BDA Act. This
Court considered the scheme under the BDA Act and has
observed thus: (SCC pp. 158-59, 162, 164-66 & 192, paras 33,
35, 50, 55, 123, 124 & 125)

"33. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
which provide for time-frame for compliance and the
consequences of default thereof, are not applicable to
acquisition under the BDA Act. They are Sections 6 and 11-
A of the Land Acquisition Act. As per Section 11-A, if the
award is not made within a period of two years from the
date of declaration under Section 6, the acquisition
proceedings will lapse. Similarly, where declaration under

1
(2018) 9 SCC 122
16

Section 6 of this Act is not issued within three years from
the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act [such notification being issued after the
commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and
Validation) Ordinance, 1967 but before the commencement
of Central Act 68 of 1984] or within one year where Section
4 notification was published subsequent to the passing of
Central Act 68 of 1984, no such declaration under Section 6
of the Land Acquisition Act can be issued in any of these
cases.
***

35. Be that as it may, it is clear that the BDA Act is a
self-contained code which provides for all the situations that
may arise in planned development of an area including
acquisition of land for that purpose. The scheme of the Act
does not admit any necessity for reading the provisions of
Sections 6 and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, as part and
parcel of the BDA Act for attainment of its object. The
primary object of the State Act is to carry out planned
development and acquisition is a mere incident of such
planned development. The provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, where the land is to be acquired for a
specific public purpose and acquisition is the sum and
substance of that Act, all matters in relation to the
acquisition of land will be regulated by the provisions of that
Act. The State Act has provided its own scheme and
provisions for acquisition of land.
***
50. Applying the above principle to the facts of the
case in hand, it will be clear that the provisions relating to
acquisition like passing of an award, payment of
compensation and the legal remedies available under the
Central Act would have to be applied to the acquisitions
under the State Act but the bar contained in Sections 6 and
11-A of the Central Act cannot be made an integral part of
the State Act as the State Act itself has provided specific
time-frames under its various provisions as well as
consequences of default thereto. The scheme, thus, does
not admit such incorporation.
***
55. The principle stated in Munithimmaiah
case [Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC
326] that the BDA Act is a self-contained code, was referred
with approval by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Bondu
Ramaswamy [Bondu Ramaswamy v. BDA, (2010) 7 SCC
129 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 1] . The Court, inter alia,
17

specifically discussed and answered the questions whether
the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act will
apply to the acquisition under the BDA Act and if the final
declaration under Section 19(1) is not issued within one
year of the publication of the notification under Section
17(1) of the BDA Act, whether such final declaration will be
invalid and held as under: (Bondu Ramaswamy case [Bondu
Ramaswamy v. BDA, (2010) 7 SCC 129 : (2010) 3 SCC
(Civ) 1] , SCC p. 170, paras 79-81)

'79. This question arises from the contention raised
by one of the appellants that the provisions of Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the LA Act", for short) will
apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act and
consequently if the final declaration under Section 19(1) is
not issued within one year from the date of publication of
the notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, such final declaration will be invalid. The appellants'
submissions are as under: the notification under Sections
17(1) and (3) of the Act was issued and gazetted on 3-2-
2003 and the declaration under Section 19(1) was issued
and published on 23-2-2004. Section 36 of the Act provides
that the acquisition of land under the BDA Act within or
outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, shall be regulated
by the provisions of the LA Act, so far as they are
applicable. Section 6 of the LA Act requires that no
declaration shall be made, in respect of any land covered by
a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, after the expiry
of one year from the date of the publication of such
notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. As the provisions
of the LA Act have been made applicable to acquisitions
under the BDA Act, it is necessary that the declaration
under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act (which is equivalent to
the final declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act) should
also be made before the expiry of one year from the date of
publication of notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) of
the BDA Act [which is equivalent to Section 4(1) of the LA
Act].

80. The BDA Act contains provisions relating to
acquisition of properties, up to the stage of publication of
final declaration. The BDA Act does not contain the
subsequent provisions relating to completion of the
acquisition, that is, issue of notices, enquiry and award,
vesting of land, payment of compensation, principles
relating to determination of compensation, etc. Section 36
of the BDA Act does not make the LA Act applicable in its
18

entirety, but states that the acquisition under the BDA Act,
shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are
applicable, of the LA Act. Therefore, it follows that where
there are already provisions in the BDA Act regulating
certain aspects or stages of acquisition or the proceedings
relating thereto, the corresponding provisions of the LA Act
will not apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act. Only
those provisions of the LA Act, relating to the stages of
acquisition, for which there is no provision in the BDA Act,
are applied to the acquisitions under the BDA Act.

81. The BDA Act contains specific provisions relating
to preliminary notification and final declaration. In fact the
procedure up to final declaration under the BDA Act is
different from the procedure under the LA Act relating to
acquisition proceedings up to the stage of final notification.
Therefore, having regard to the scheme for acquisition
under Sections 15 to 19 of the BDA Act and the limited
application of the LA Act in terms of Section 36 of the BDA
Act, the provisions of Sections 4 to 6 of the LA Act will not
apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act. If Section 6 of
the LA Act is not made applicable, the question of
amendment to Section 6 of the LA Act providing a time-limit
for issue of final declaration, will also not apply.'

We may notice that, in the above case, the Court declined
to examine whether the provisions of Section 11-A of the
Central Act would apply to the acquisition under the BDA
Act but categorically stated that Sections 4 and 6 of the
Central Act were inapplicable to the acquisition under the
BDA Act.
***
123. Accepting the argument of the appellant would
certainly frustrate the very object of the State law,
particularly when both the enactments can peacefully
operate together. To us, there appears to be no direct
conflict between the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
and the BDA Act. The BDA Act does not admit reading of
provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act into
its scheme as it is bound to debilitate the very object of the
State law. Parliament has not enacted any law with regard
to development the competence of which, in fact,
exclusively falls in the domain of the State Legislature with
reference to Schedule VII List II Entries 5 and 18.

124. Both these laws cover different fields of
legislation and do not relate to the same List, leave apart
19

the question of relating to the same entry. Acquisition being
merely an incident of planned development, the Court will
have to ignore it even if there was some encroachment or
overlapping. The BDA Act does not provide any provision in
regard to compensation and manner of acquisition for which
it refers to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. There
are no provisions in the BDA Act which lay down detailed
mechanism for the acquisition of property, i.e. they are not
covering the same field and, thus, there is no apparent
irreconcilable conflict. The BDA Act provides a specific
period during which the development under a scheme has
to be implemented and if it is not so done, the
consequences thereof would follow in terms of Section 27 of
the BDA Act. None of the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act deals with implementation of schemes. We have already
answered that the acquisition under the Land Acquisition
Act cannot, in law, lapse if vesting has taken place.
Therefore, the question of applying the provisions of Section
11-A of the Land Acquisition Act to the BDA Act does not
arise. Section 27 of the BDA Act takes care of even the
consequences of default, including the fate of acquisition,
where vesting has not taken place under Section 27(3).
Thus, there are no provisions under the two Acts which
operate in the same field and have a direct irreconcilable
conflict.

125. Having said so, now we proceed to record our
answer to the question referred to the larger Bench as
follows:

For the reasons stated in this judgment, we hold that
the BDA Act is a self-contained code. Further, we hold that
provisions introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by
Central Act 68 of 1984, limited to the extent of acquisition
of land, payment of compensation and recourse to legal
remedies provided under the said Act, can be read into an
acquisition controlled by the provisions of the BDA Act but
with a specific exception that the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act insofar as they provide different time-frames
and consequences of default thereof, including lapsing of
acquisition proceedings, cannot be read into the BDA Act.
Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act being one of such
provisions cannot be applied to the acquisitions under the
provisions of the BDA Act."
(emphasis supplied)
20

16. This Court has emphasised that the primary object of
the BDA Act is to carry out planned development. The State Act
has provided its own scheme. The time constraints of the land
acquisition are not applicable to the BDA Act. Making applicable
the time-frame of Section 11-A of the LA Act would debilitate
the very object of the BDA Act. It is apparent that the decision
of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench is directly
juxtaposed to the decision of the five-Judge Bench of this Court
in Offshore Holdings [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011)
3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] in which precisely the
question involved in the instant cases had been dealt with. By
indirect method by making applicable the time period of two
years of Section 11-A of the LA Act mandate of BDA Act has
been violated. However, it is shocking that various decisions
have been taken into consideration particularly by the Single
Judge, however, whereas the decision that has set the
controversy at rest, has not even been noticed even by the
Single Judge or by the Division Bench. If this is the fate of the
law of the land laid down by this Court that too the decision by
the Constitution Bench, so much can be said but to exercise
restraint is the best use of the power. Least said is better, the
way in which the justice has been dealt with and the planned
development of Bangalore City has been left at the mercy of
unscrupulous persons of the Government and the BDA.

17. It is apparent from the fact that the Single Judge has
relied upon the decision in H.N. Shivanna [H.N.
Shivanna v. State of Karnataka, 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 8956:
(2013) 4 KCCR 2793] in which it was observed by the Division
Bench that scheme was to be completed in 2 years otherwise it
would lapse. It was precisely the question of time period which
was dwelt upon and what was ultimately decided by this Court
in Offshore Holdings [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011)
3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] has been blatantly violated
by the Single Judge and that too in flagrant violation of the
provisions and intendment of the Act.

18. It is also apparent from the facts and circumstances
of the case that there were a large number of irregularities in
the course of an inquiry under Section 18(1) of the BDA Act.
The Government had nothing to do with respect to the release
of the land at this stage, as the stage of final notification had
not reached but still the landowners in connivance with the
21

influential persons, political or otherwise, managed the
directions in respect of 251 acres of the land and the Special
Land Acquisition Collector also considered exclusion of 498 acres
of the land against which the question was raised in the
Assembly and eyebrows were raised in public domain. Two
inquiries were ordered on 24-11-2012 and 19-1-2013 by the
State Government and based upon that inquiry, it was ordered
and a public notice was issued on 3-5-2014 that the BDA will
consider the entire matter afresh.

19. In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts, the writ
petitions came to be filed, it would not be termed to be the bona
fide litigation, but was initiated having failed in attempt to get
the land illegally excluded at the hands of the Special Land
Acquisition Collector and the State Government and after the
inquiries held in the matter and the notice was issued to start
the proceedings afresh. At this stage, the writ petitions were
filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was not at all open to
the High Court to quash the preliminary notification issued
under Section 17, as the landowners, the State Government and
BDA were responsible to create a mess in the way of planned
development of Bangalore City.

20. The scheme which was framed was so much
benevolent scheme that 40% of the 55% of the land reserved
for the residential purpose was to be given to the landowners at
their choice and they were also given the choice to obtain the
compensation, if they so desired, under the provisions of the LA
Act. Thus, it was such a scheme that there was no scope for any
exclusion of the land in the ultimate final notification.

21. It is apparent from the circumstances that the matter
cannot be left at the mercy of unscrupulous authority of the
BDA, the State Government or in the political hands.
Considering the proper development and planned development
of Bangalore City, let the Government issue a final notification
with respect to the land which has been notified in the initial
notification and there is no question of leaving out of the land in
the instant case as option has been given to landowners to
claim the land or to claim the compensation under the relevant
LA Act which may be applicable in the case.
22

22. It was contended on behalf of the landowners that
certain developments have taken place after the orders were
passed regarding exclusion of the land and when Section 27
provides a limitation of five years after final notification, in case
development was not undertaken within five years, even the
final scheme would lapse. Thus, the principle enunciated in
Section 27 should be followed by this Court with respect to the
lapse of preliminary notification as well. We find that there is a
vast difference in the provisions and action to be taken pursuant
to the preliminary notification and the final notification under
Section 19. In the instant case, the facts indicated that it was in
the interest of the public, landowners, BDA and the State
Government. The scheme had prior approval of the State
Government however at the cost of public interest yet another
scheme was sought to be frustrated by powerful unforeseen
hands and the issuance of final notification had been delayed.
Three inquiries were ordered, two by the State Government and
one by the BDA as the release of the land was being proposed in
an illegal manner. Hue and cry has been raised about their
illegalities in the Assembly as well as in the public. Thus, for the
delay, owners cannot escape the liability, they cannot take the
advantage of their own wrong having acted in collusion with the
authorities. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that in the
facts of the case the time consumed would not adversely affect
the ultimate development of Bangalore City.

23. The authorities are supposed to carry out the
statutory mandate and cannot be permitted to act against the
public interest and planned development of Bangalore City
which was envisaged as a statutory mandate under the BDA
Act. The State Government, as well as the authorities under the
BDA Act, are supposed to cater to the need of the planned
development which is a mandate enjoined upon them and also
binding on them. They have to necessarily carry it forward and
no dereliction of duty can be an escape route so as to avoid
fulfilment of the obligation enjoined upon them. The courts are
not powerless to frown upon such an action and proper
development cannot be deterred by continuing inaction. As the
proper development of such metropolitan is of immense
importance, the public purpose for which the primary
notification was issued was in order to provide civic amenities
like laying down roads, etc. which cannot be left at the whim or
mercy of the authorities concerned. They were bound to act in
23

furtherance thereof. There was a clear embargo placed while
issuing the notification not to create any charge, mortgage,
assign, issue or revise any improvement and after inquiry, it
was clear that the notice had been issued in May 2014, thus, no
development could have been made legally. Notification dated
3-5-2014 was issued that re-inquiry was necessary in the
matter. The development made, if any, would be at the peril of
the owners and it has to give way to larger welfare schemes and
the individual interest and cannot come in the way of the larger
public interest. The acquisition was for the proper and planned
development that was an absolute necessity for the city of
Bangalore.

24. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in
condoning the delay. Though, it is apparent that the authorities
had come with certain delay, in certain matters and the writ
appeals were also filed belatedly with the delay in the High
Court, however, considering the provisions of the scheme and
the method and manner, wrong has been committed, it has
compelled us not only to condone the delay but also to act in
the matter so as to preserve the sanctity of the legal process
and decision of this Court in Offshore Holdings [Offshore
Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ)
662].

25. We, therefore, direct the State Government as well as
the BDA to proceed further to issue final notification without any
further delay in the light of the observations made in the order.
The impugned orders passed by the Single Judge and the
Division Bench are hereby quashed and set aside. The scheme
and notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act are hereby
upheld with the aforesaid directions.

26. As noticed above, the Land Acquisition Officer
proposed exclusion of 251 acres of land from acquisition on
being asked by the Government after the preliminary
notification was issued. The Land Acquisition Officer, has
considered another 498 acres of land to be excluded from being
acquired. In connection to this, several questions were raised in
the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, as a result of which two
inquiries were ordered by the State Government i.e. on 24-11-
2012 and 19-1-2013. However, result of the inquiry is not
forthcoming. Further, it appears that the exclusion of the lands
24

from acquisition was proposed in connivance with influential
persons; political or otherwise. We are of the view that the BDA
and the State Government have to proceed with the acquisition
of these lands. We are also of the view that it is just and proper
to hold an inquiry for fixing the responsibility on the officials of
the BDA and the State Government for trying to exclude these
lands from acquisition.

27. Therefore, we appoint Hon'ble Mr Justice K.N.
Keshavanarayana, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court as
the inquiry officer for fixing the responsibility on the officials of
the BDA and the State Government who were responsible for
the aforesaid. The Commissioner, BDA is hereby directed to
consult the inquiry officer and pay his remuneration. Further, we
direct BDA to provide appropriate secretarial assistance and
logistical support to the inquiry officer for holding the inquiry. In
addition, we authorise the inquiry officer to appoint requisite
staff on temporary basis to assist him in the inquiry and to fix
their salaries. Further, the BDA is directed to pay their salaries.
The State Government and the BDA are directed to produce the
files/documents in relation to the aforesaid lands before the
inquiry officer within a period of four weeks from today. We
request the inquiry officer to submit his report to this Court as
expeditiously as possible.

28. The State Government and the BDA are further
directed to proceed with the acquisition of the aforementioned
lands without excluding land from acquisition and submit a
report to this Court the steps taken by them in this regard
within a period of three months from today."

The Apex Court, on the reasons so rendered, directs the State

Government and the BDA to proceed with the acquisition for

formation of layout without excluding any land from acquisition and

submit a report to the Apex Court the steps taken towards the said

acquisition. It directed completion within 3 months.
25

12. Pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court, the BDA

issues final notification. In the final notification, the axe falls on the

land of the petitioner, as the Apex Court had directed that all the

lands that had been given up be acquired, as the lands were given

up illegally. Then comes a few miscellaneous applications in the

disposed of case before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, on the

miscellaneous applications, to consider several nuances of the lands

to be dropped from acquisition appointed a Committee. The order

directing constitution of the Committee reads as follows:

"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
affidavit dated 26-11-2020, filed by the Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority.

2. During the course of hearing, it is pointed out that
after quashing of the preliminary notification by the High
Court and before setting aside of the said order by this court,
several constructions have been put up either by the land
owners or purchasers of the sites from the land owners. It is
submitted that these constructions are mainly dwelling
houses. In this factual background, we are of the considered
opinion that some protection against demolition of dwelling
houses may be justified. Further the layout is meant for
residential sites and this object of formation of layout would
not be frustrated by saving lawfully constructed dwelling
houses belonging to poor and middle income groups.

3. Judgment dated 3-08-2018, inter alia, observes
that 45% of the land covered under the scheme was to be
utilized for the civic amenities like play grounds, roads etc.
26

and residential sites would be formed by utilizing remaining
55% of the land covered under the scheme. It is also clear
that out of the said 55% of developed residential area, 40%
of 55% will be offered as compensation to the land owners
as specified in the scheme and remaining 60% of 55% will
be the share of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).
The land-owners would be given option to accept the
developed eligible residential land or opt for compensation as
per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the LA Act').

4. Needless to state that the acquisition of the land
under the BDA Act is regulated by the provisions of the LA
Act so far as they are applicable. (See: Section 38 of the
BDA Act). The borrowed provisions of LA act, become an
integral part of the BDA Act and are totally unaffected by the
repeal of the LA Act. In other words, the provisions of the LA
Act are incorporated into the BDA Act so far as they are
applicable. Of course, the bar contained in Sections 6 and
11-A of the LA Act, are not applicable to the BDA Act. We
have discussed this aspect of the matter in our main
judgment dated 3-08-2018. It is also clear that the
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation &
Resettlement Act, 2013 are not applicable for the acquisition
made under the BDA Act. Final notification has also been
issued after the pronouncement of judgment by this court in
Civil Appeal No(s). 7661-7663 of 2018 dated 3-08-2018. We
direct the BDA to proceed with the acquisition of the land as
proposed in the notification.

5. if the land-owner who has put up the construction
opts for land by way of a developed plot in lieu of
compensation, the constructed portion would be adjusted in
the land that would be allotted in his favour. It is also
clarified that the persons who have put up construction/
dwelling house are not entitled for compensation in respect
of the constructed portion of the land. If the incentive
scheme as per Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive
Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989, is
applied, the constructed portion can also be adjusted
towards incentive site for voluntary surrender of land.
However, where a person has constructed a dwelling house
or any other building and where the constructed portion is
27

not adjusted for any reason, betterment charges could be
levied on him under Section 20 of the BDA Act. BDA is
directed to integrate the said constructions into the layout.

6. As stated above, the buildings constructed in the
layout with valid sanction/permission from the competent
authority/authority(ies) needs to be saved from demolition.
Therefore, it is important to identify the lawful constructions
made in the notified lands. For this purpose, we appoint a
Committee comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.V.
Chandrashekhar, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court,
as its Chairman, Mr. Jayakar Jerome, former Commissioner
of the BDA and Mr. S.T. Ramesh, former Director General of
Police as its Members. The Committee is required to look into
each of the requests of the owners of the dwelling
houses/buildings for its regularization. The Committee should
also find out whether the said dwelling houses/buildings have
been constructed in accordance with the sanction/permission
of the competent authorities. The constructions which have
come up after the date of pronouncement of the judgment
by this Court i.e.,3.08.2018, shall not be eligible for
regularization. The Committee is permitted to devise its own
mechanism/ procedure for holding the enquiry including
issuing notices in the local newspapers in this regard. Final
orders regarding dwelling houses/buildings which will be
protected, would be passed after we receive the report of the
Committee.

7. To ensure that in the interregnum and from now
onwards no further constructions come up, the
Commissioner, BDA, would undertake exercise for satellite
imaging of the area in question for identifying and noting the
constructions as they exist. The said exercise would be
undertaken within a period of three days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. This exercise would be
repeated periodically every month and in case any new
constructions are noticed, they would be brought to the
notice of the Committee and action, including demolition etc.
would be undertaken.

8. The Commissioner of the BDA is hereby directed to
consult the Chairman and its Members of the Committee and
accordingly fix and pay their remunerations. We direct the
28

BDA to provide appropriate secretarial assistance, transport
and other logistical support to the Chairman and the
members of the Committee for holding an enquiry within two
weeks from today. We authorize the Chairman of the
Committee to appoint requisite staff, if needed, on a
temporary basis to assist the Committee in conducting
enquiry and fix their salaries which would be paid by the
BDA. The BDA is also directed to provide enough office
space in its headquarters for the smooth functioning of the
Committee within two weeks. The Committee is also
permitted to take assistance of any of the employees
including surveyors from the BDA or of the State
Government for the purpose of spot inspection,
measurement and for its overall functioning.

9. We make it clear that there is no bar for the
Chairman or the Members of the Committee to accept any
other engagement/arbitration matters during the subsistence
of the Committee.

10. The Committee is requested to submit its report
before this court preferably within a period of six months
from to-day.

11. It appears that certain writ petitions are pending
before the Karnataka High Court challenging the final
notification for acquisition of lands for the formation of
Dr.ShivaramaKaranth Layout. BDA is directed to furnish the
list of pending cases in respect of the said layout to the
Registrar General of the High Court within a week from
today. We request the Registrar General to list them before
the Court within two weeks. We request the high Court to
dispose of the said cases on their merits expeditiously.

12. The State Government is directed to grant
approval to the 60:40 scheme in respect of the layout in
question, if necessary within two weeks from to-day. The
State Government is also directed to depute additionally six
Land Acquisition Officers to the BDA within two weeks from
today.

13. BDA to file status report on or before 11.02.2021.
29

14. List these cases on 19-01-2021."

13. Pursuant to the aforesaid constitution of the Committee, a

public notice comes to be issued seeking claim statements to be

made before the Committee by all stake holders. The petitioner files

a claim statement before the Committee. The gist, the schedule and

the prayer in the claim statement read as follows:

".... .... ....

21. Firstly, it guaranteed that "All citizens shall have the right
to acquire, hold and dispose of the property." The State,
however, could impose reasonable restrictions (i) to serve
the exigencies of public welfare and (ii) to protect the
interest of any Scheduled Tribe [vide Article 19 Clauses (1)
(f) (5)].

22. Secondly, in the phraseology of Article 300-A, the
Constitution makers in Article 31(1) guaranteed that "No
person shall be deprived of his property save by the
authority of law." The provision indicated that a person can
be deprived of his property only through an Act passed by
the Parliament/State Legislature and not by executive order
or fiat. The word "Law" in Article 300-A means an Act of
Parliament or a State Legislature, a rule or a statutory
order, having the force of law, that is positive or state-
made law.

23. The Constitution 44th Amendment Act, 1978, changed the
"right to property" of its fundamental right-character, and
adorned it with status of Constitutional/legal right. Articles
19(1) (f) and 31 were deleted from the Part III-
"Fundamental Rights" and only a fraction in the form of
Article 300-A which corresponds to Article 31(1) only, has
been inserted in Part XII under a separate Chapter V "Right
to Property"
30

24. The effect of this amendment of vast magnitude is that the
"right to property" is no more a fundamental right but is
only a constitutional/ legal right and in the event of breach
thereof the remedy available to an aggrieved person is to
approach the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and not the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution, a speedy, remedy available
earlier. Article 21 essentially deals with personal liberty. It
has little to do with the right to own property as such.

25. The entire surrounding area is fully developed with a
number of residences (example Towns End Layout with
above 50 residences). Government Establishments
(example CRPF).

In view of the above justification, it is once again
requested to de-notify the schedule property from acquisition
owned by the objector considering the following:

• The property is identified as, Residential (Main)
in the 2007

• The Objector spent huge amounts to construct
her farm house and obtain necessary statutory
approvals, electricity connection, obtain change
of land use, sink borewells, grow plants etc.

• Spotted developments are already existing in
and around the schedule property.

• The adjoining land of about 51 acres 11 guntas in
Sy. Nos. 66, 69/1, 69/2, 70, 71 and 73 as well as
11 acres bearing Sy. No. 110, is approved for
Residential (Main) use by BDA and Residentially
(Main) converted and developed.

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, if this
objection of the Objector is not considered by the Urban
Development Department, Government of Karnataka and the
Bangalore Development Authority, the Objector will be put to
irreparable financial loss, mental agony and hardship.
31

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the Objector respectfully prays that the
Government of Karnataka UDD Department and the Bangalore
Development Authority.

(a) Pass an order to de-notify the schedule property.

(b) Take into account that the Objector is living in the
schedule property and has spent huge amount for
purchase / construction of the schedule property,
development charges, obtaining change of land use,
obtaining electricity sanction, sinking of borewells and
installation of DG set and is presently residing in the
schedule property

(c) Take into account that all the adjoining properties are
used for residential and all of them being residentially,
converted land.

(d) Pass such other order or orders as the Government
/Bengaluru Development Authority may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice taking into all the facts
stated hereinabove.

SCHEDULE PROPERTY

All that piece and parcel of property being portion of Survey
No.18, situated at Romagondanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli,
Bengaluru North. (Additional) Taluk, presently Yelahanka Taluk
measuring an extent of 5 acres and 36 guntas of 23876.254
Square meters with a Residential (Main) farm house measuring
602.46 Square meters built-up area constructed on the land
having permanent electricity connection, bore-well water supply
and bounded on the:

East by: Village Boundary of Ananthapur Village and
Property owned by Mr.Muniyappa and
Mr.Joginder Singh Sahani
32

West by: Portion of Sy. No. 18 of Ramagondanahalli
Village and I.V.R.I. Experiment Station

North by: Sy. No.66 of Avalahalli Village

South by: Portion of Sy. No. 18 & Sy.Nos.62, 63 & 64
of Ramagondanahalli Village and part of
I.V.R.I. Experiment Station."

The endorsement of receipt of claim statement and the clarification

reads as follows:

"JUSTICE A.V. CHANDRASHEKAR COMMITTEE
BDA HEAD OFFICE, KUMARAPARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020

No.JCC/28/2021-22 Date: 10-08-2021

ENDORSEMENT

Sub: Buildings in the proposed Dr. K.Shivaram
Karanth Layout, Bangalore North Taluk.

Ref: Your application dated 05-03-2021.

With reference to the above subject and reference cited
above, I am desired to invite your attention to the claim
statement you have submitted to Justice A.V. Chandrashekar
Committee and to state that the matters raised by you are
concerned directly with the BDA and not with the Committee,
which is mandate to go into the question of buildings which
have come up in Shivaram Karanth Layout prior to 3-8-2018. In
case you have constructed any building prior to 3-8-2018, you
may please approach the following help Desks:

1. Somashettyhalli, Samudaya Bhavana,
Somashettyhalli.
2. Medi Agrahara, Government Urdu Primary
School.
33

You can visit the Committee on 18-08-2021 for collecting
your memorandum.
Sd/-
(Jascintha Vaz)
Secretary."

The Committee, on considering the claim statements, places its

report before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, in terms of its order

dated 06-12-2022, directed certain action to be taken and certain

action not to be taken in respect of the report filed. The order

dated 06-12-2022 reads as follows:

"(1) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
Mr. Anand Sanjay M.Nuli, learned counsel appearing for the
justice A.V. Chandrashekar Committee.

(2) Bangalore Development Authority has not filed any
objections to the Twenty-Fifth Report dated 09-11-2022 sent
by the Justice A.V. Chandrashekar Committee. The Twenty-
Fifth Report is accepted accordingly.

(3) We have also perused Twenty-Nineth and Thirtieth
Reports both dated 02-12-2022 sent by the Justice A.V.
Chandrashekar Committee.

Twenty Ninth Report

(4) For the reasons set out in this Report, BDA is directed
not to acquire land in Sy.No.7/1 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas,
Sy.No.7/2 measuring 27 guntas, Sy.No.7/3 measuring 13
guntas and Sy.No.9/2 measuring 2 acres 39 guntas, totally
measuring 5 acres 17 guntas of Kempanahally Village,
Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, bounded on East by:
Remaining land in Sy.No.9/2 and land in Sy.No.12, West by:
Remaining land in Sy.No.9/1 and Sy.No.1 and Gramathana,
34

North by: Land in Sy.No.2, Sy.No.5 and Sy.No.8 and South by:
Road. The land acquisition proceedings in respect of these lands
are hereby quashed.

(5) The Justice A.V. Chandrashekar Committee is
requested to furnish a copy of this report to the Commissioner,
BDA.

Thirtieth Report

(6) For the reasons set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this
Report, the approval granted for regularization of certain
buildings as per Annexure-"W" is hereby withdrawn.

(7) For the reasons set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this
Report, we direct the BDA to regularize the buildings described
in Annexure-"X" subject to the conditions that what is partially
required for the Revised Master Plan Roads shall be handed over
to the BDA for which the land owners be compensated in
accordance with law.

(8) For the reasons set out in paragraph 7 of the Report,
earlier order dated 05-05-2021 stands modified and the BDA is
directed not to acquire 32.38 guntas of land in Sy.no.70 of
Avalahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.

(9) In paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the Report, the
Justice A.V.Chandrashekar Committee has recommended
regularization of total 205 buildings contained in Annexure-L
125 buildings Sl.No.2248 to 2285, Annexure-M 38 buildings
Sl.No.2378 to 2502, Annexure-N 15 buildings Sl.No.343 to 357,
Annexure-AN 14 buildings Sl.No.1 to 14 and Annexure-X 13
buildings Sl.No.1 to 13.

(10) For the reasons stated therein these buildings are
required to be regularized in terms of our order dated 03-12-
2020.

(11) We direct the BDA to regularize the buildings
specified in Annexure-L Sl.No.2248 to 2285, Annexure-M
Sl.No.2378 to 2502, Annexure-N Sl.No.343 to 357, Annexure-
AN Sl.No.1 to 14 and Annexure-X Sl.No.1 to 13, which are made
part and parcel of this order. We direct the BDA not to acquire
35

or take possession of the land/buildings specified in Annexure-L,
Sl.No.2248 to 2285, Annexure-M Sl.No.2378 to 2502,
Annexure-N Sl.No.343 to 357, Annexure-AN Sl.No.1 to 14 and
Annexure-X Sl.No.1 to 13 subject to the conditions indicated in
our order dated 03-12-2020 and paragraph '12' of the Thirtieth
Report. However, betterment tax may be levied at a later
stage.

(12) The Justice A.V. Chandrashekar Committee, for the
purpose of record, will hand over a copy of the Thirtieth
Report along with Annexure-L Sl.No.2248 to 2285, Annexure-M
Sl.No.2378 to 2502, Annexure-N Sl.No.343 to 357, Annexure-
AN Sl.No.1 to 14 and Annexure-X Sl.No.1 to 13 to the
Commissioner of BDA.

(13) The Commissioner of BDA is directed to issue
regularization certificates to the concerned applicants in a
transparent manner under the supervision of the Justice A.V.
Chandrashekar Committee as early as possible.

(14) The suggestions made by the Justice A.V.
Chandrashekar Committee in paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18
are accepted.

(15) For the reasons set out in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21,
BDA is directed to regularize the 48 residential flats built by M/s
Indradhanush Properties Pvt. Ltd., on the land bearing Sy.No.5,
measuring 0.17½ guntas, Ganigarahally Village, Yeshwanthpura
Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. However, regularization certificate
will be issued only on production of occupancy certificate.

I.A.No(s)163190/2022 & 163191/2022 - Applicant(s):
Smt. Nagalakshmi & others.
I.A.No(s). 163203/2022 & 163205/2022 - Applicant(s):
Smt. Nagalakshmi & Ors.

(16) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the factual report (Twenty-Seventh Report) sent
by the Justice A.V. Chandrashekar Committee.

(17) We do not find any merit in these applications which
are accordingly dismissed.
36

I.A.D.No(s).189165/2022: 189165/2022 & 189167/
2022 - Applicant(s): Smt. Padmavathamma.

(18) We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and
also learned counsel for the BDA.

(19) It is hereby clarified that there is no bar for the BDA
to consider allotment of sites to the land owners whose lands
have been acquired under 40:60 scheme or incentive sites for
voluntary surrender of lands or allotment of alternative sites in
lieu of acquisition of revenue sites either in the same layout for
which their lands/sites have been acquired or in a subsequently
formed lay-out.

(20) there is also no bar for the BDA to consider
allotment of sites in accordance with Rule 11-A of the Bangalore
Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) (Amendment) Rules,
2003 by adhering to the condition s mentioned therein.

(21) However, BDA shall not allot sites carved out of the
recovered properties in the developed lay-outs. BDA shall form
sites in the recovered properties in the developed layouts and
auction these sites in accordance with law unless it intends to
retain the said land/sites for its own purpose.

(22) BDA at its own discretion may auction
intermediary/stray sites in its developed layouts.

(23) To the above extent, the conditions contained in
paragraph (7) of the order dated 26-10-2021 stands modified.

(24) The Cancellation Deed dated 9-11-2022 executed by
the applicant - Smt. Padmavathamma in favour of the BDA in
respect of Site No.467, 2nd Block, Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah
Layout (Annexure-A-17 to the paper book of I.A.) is hereby
quashed. BDA is directed to restore this site in favour of the
applicant - Smt. Padmavathamma forthwith.

(25) I.A.D No.(s) 189165/2022: 199166/2022 &
199167/2022 are disposed of accordingly.

Status Report dated 3-12-2022 filed by the Commissioner
of the BDA:
37

(26) We have perused the above status report and noted
the contents therein.

(27) For the reasons stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this
Report, the action taken by the BDA to entrust the work to M/s
Navigem Data Pvt.Ltd. is approved.

(28) Justice A.V. Chandrashekar Committee is permitted
to extend the time for receiving applications from the revenue
site holders for allotment of alternative sites

(29) We have held vide our order dated 2-11-2022 that
the buildings in existence in the lands notified vide preliminary
notification dated 23-08-2022 and final notification dated 21-10-
2022, for the formation of Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout, as on
the date of preliminary notification dated 23-08-2022 are also
required to be regularized on the same terms and conditions as
being done as per the order dated 3-12-2020. The
Commissioner of BDA is directed to regularize these buildings in
terms of the recommendations which may be made by the
Justice A.V. Chandrashekar Committee without reference to this
Court.

(30) The Commissioner, BDA, is also directed to allot
alternative sites to the applicants whose revenue sites have
been acquired for the formation of Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout
in accordance with the report of the former District Judges
Committee constituted as per our order dated 5-05-2021.

(31) All the pending application(s) stands closed."

14. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction/order passed by the

Apex Court, the status of the claim of the petitioner was not known,

as there was no communication from the hands of the Committee.

That led the petitioner to communicate to the Committee seeking
38

information. The said communication is germane to be noticed. It

reads as follows:

"1) That Ms. Shivangini Bhartia is the owner of land to the
extent of 5 acres 36 guntas located in Survey No.18 of
Ramagondanahalli Village, IVRI Road (Behind CRPF),
Yelahanka Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru Urban
District, more particularly described in the Schedule hereto
(hereinafter referred to as "Schedule Property").

2) That, the Bangalore Development Authority ("BDA")
published a scheme and notified the formation of a layout
named "Dr. K. Shivaram Karantha Layout". The
Government of Karnataka vide a G.O. No. UDD 553 MNX
2018 dated 29.10.2018 sanctioned the said scheme and
issued a final notification dated 30.10.2018.

3) That we learnt from our neighbours that the Schedule
Property is also notified for acquisition for formation of "Dr.
Shivarama Karantha Layout" by BDA. However, we did not
receive any notice from the BDA till date with respect to
the said proposed acquisition.

4) That, Mrs. Alpana Bhartia, who is the mother of Ms.
Shivangini Bhartia, acquired the portions Schedule Property
vide two sale deeds and a gift deed executed in the year
1999, 2001 and 2004 respectively. Mrs. Alpana, thereafter,
applied to the BDA for conversion of land use from
agricultural to residential and the same was granted by the
BDA vide the Order no. NAE 255 BDA 2009 dated
08.02.2010 upon payment of Betterment charges of Rs.
4,89,470/- on 09.03.2010 as well as inspection fee.

5) That, Mrs. Alpana, obtained permission for construction of a
farm house in the Schedule Property from the
Gantiganahalii panchayat in the year 2006.

6) That, Mrs. Alpana constructed a farm house in the said
Schedule property and also planted several medicinal trees,
fruit trees, and vegetable farms. The electricity connection
39

was also provided in the year 2006; a 35 KVA Generator &
borewell was also installed in the Schedule Property.

7) We employ about 15 workers in our property such as
Gardeners, Drivers, helpers, security guard & Manager.
They live in quarter constructed on the Schedule Property
with their families built on the same land/and if the
buildings are demolished all of them will be unemployed &
without any accommodation.

8) That, subsequently, Mrs. Alpana transferred the Schedule
Property to her daughter Ms. Shivangini Bhartia by way of
a gift deed dated 17.05.2011. Please note that we have
carried out substantial development on the Schedule
Property and have incurred huge expenditure on the
purchase, conversion and construction thereof.

9) That, we had submitted its objections before SLA03 BDA &
yourself on 19.06.2020 & 04.03.2021 and, respectively.
However, no orders have been communicated to the us on
the same till date. Please note that no order(s)/award(s)
has been communicated to us by the Justice A.V.
Chandrashekhar Committee either on the objections.

10) That, we came across a Public Notification published in the
newspaper on 07.03.2023 calling upon the landowners to
submit applications seeking compensation either for cash or
developed sites as per the scheme before 15.04.2023 to
concerned Special Land Acquisition Officer.

11) That, the said Public Notice dated 07.03.2023 presupposes
issuance of notice/passing of award in favour of the
landowners of Ramagondanahalli Village when no such
notice/award has been communicated to us.

12) That, we don't have any other residential property and we
will be left without any accommodation if the Schedule
Property is acquired by the BDA not to mention that it will
defeat the very objective of the entire scheme of BDA.

13) That, JCBs have been levelling the lands of the adjoining
properties. Under these circumstances, we request you to
40

stop all works/proceedings until order are passed on the
objections filed by Our Client and communicated to us.

14) Our first prayer will be to drop the acquisition proceedings
for the entire extent of 5 acres 36 guntas or in the
alternative exclude all the buildings with the land
appurtenant thereto from acquisition proceedings in the
interest of justice and equity. This representation is given
since no personal hearing was afforded to objector.
Principles of natural justice demand that a personal hearing
should be afforded to the objector before passing any
order/award.

15) Hence please consider or request sympathetically and
regularise all the buildings which have been put up in the
year 2006 itself in the interest of justice.

SCHEDULE PROPERTY

All the piece and parcel of property bearing portion of
Survey No.18 situated at Ramagondanhalli Village,
Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North (Additional) taluk,
presently Yelahanka Taluk measuring an extent of 5 acres
and 36 guntas or 23876.254 square metres with a
residential farm house along with other buildings
constructed on the land having permanent electricity
connection and bore-well water supply and bounded on
the:

East : Village Boundary of Ananthapur Village and
property owned by Mr. Muniyappa and Mr.
Joginder Singh Sahani.

West : Portion of Sy. No.18 of Ramagondanahalli
Village and IVRI Experiment Station

North : Sy. No.66 of Avalahalli Village

South : Portion of Sy. No. 18 & Sy. No.62, 63 and 64
of Ramagondanahlli Village and part of IVRI
Experiment Station."
41

Again, no information is received. The petitioner approaches this

Court in Writ Petition No.9892 of 2023. During the pendency of the

petition, the petitioner gets a message that the application of the

petitioner has not been approved completely. Noticing the fact that

matters were pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court with

particular reference to the 30th report, the coordinate Bench

disposed of the writ petition by the following order:

".... .... ....
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sri.Aditya Sondhi that in
terms of the order of the Apex Court, the Thirtieth Report
having been accepted and orders passed, it is clear that
buildings referred to at Annexure-M are required to be
regularised in terms of the order of 03.12.2020. Attention is
drawn to Page No.0247 of Annexure-M of Justice
A.V.Chandrashekar Committee and the relevant table at
Annexure-M contains details of the application of the petitioner
which is numbered as JCC-15-04918 and the relevant portion of
the table relating to the said application is reproduced below:

Sl. JCC Applicant Address. Survey Type Plan Built-up Sital Area
No No. Name Phone No. & Site Sanctioned Area (in Sq.ft.)
Email No. (In
Sq.ft.)
& No.
of Flrs

24 JCC- ALPANA SY.NO.18, 18 Resi Without 6485.0; 257004.0
83 15- BHARTIA Ramagondana denti Approval Flrs:1
049 hlly, al
18 Yelahanka
Hobli,
Bengaluru-66
Ph-
9845178220
42

Accordingly, it is submitted that insofar as the extent of
built up area of 6485 Sq.ft., as well as sital area of 257004
Sq.ft., is concerned, recommendations of the Committee
requires to be implemented.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil
appearing on behalf of BDA submits that insofar as Sl.No.2483
is concerned, an extent of built up area of 6485 Sq.ft., was
recommended for regularisation and necessary orders regarding
the same would be passed. However, it was submitted that
insofar as application of the petitioner other than JCC-15-04918,
applications of the petitioner namely JCC-15-04923 to JCC-15-
04936 have been rejected.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the order of the Apex Court is clear
insofar as Apex Court has noticed that Justice
A.V.Chandrashekar Committee had recommended regularisation
of 38 buildings and further observations at para 10 of the same
order of 06.12.2022 clarifies the matter. It is further submitted
that there is further direction at Para 11 which directed BDA not
to acquire and take possession of the land/buildings specified in
Annexure-L, M etc., and accordingly, report of the Committee
must be construed appropriately and in effect the buildings in
the entire extent of land of 05 Acres 36 Guntas cannot be
touched.

6. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
BDA submits that, that would not be a correct reading of the
order of the Apex Court passed on the recommendations of the
Committee in its Thirtieth Report.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that there must be protection granted in
light of the summer vacation of the Supreme Court and
necessary steps would be taken to obtain clarification in light of
the contentions of both parties referred to above.

8. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent-BDA
that as on date, the extent of land in Sy.No.18 is yet to be
taken up for development by civil works and that the
apprehension of the petitioner of immediate works by BDA is ill-
43

founded. In light of submission of the learned Senior Counsel for
petitioner that appropriate clarification would be sought from
the Supreme Court, it would be appropriate to dispose off the
matter while noticing that clarification would be obtained at the
earliest by moving the Apex Court immediately after reopening
of the court. This court refrains from passing any order of
restraint before any clarification is sought by moving the Apex
Court in light of submission made by the BDA. If however, the
respondent-BDA intends to start civil works etc., before summer
vacation of the Apex Court they are at liberty to move this
court.

9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off."

The petitioner was reserved liberty to move the matter before the

Apex Court and also reserving liberty, if the BDA would take up

construction in the property to move this Court. The petitioner then

files an application before the Apex Court in the pending matter.

The Apex Court, in terms of its order dated 12-12-2023, remits the

matter back to be heard by this Bench by the following order:

"These proceedings pursuant to the judgment of this
Court dated 03-08-2018 have remained pending. By the order
dated 03-12-2020, a committee headed by Mr. Justice
A.V.Chandrashekar, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court,
with Mr. Jayakar Jerome, former Commissioner, Bangalore
Development Authority (for short, "BDA") and Mr. S.T. Ramesh,
former Director general of Police, as its members, was
appointed (For short, "Committee"). The Committee has been
submitting its reports from time to time. The committee's tenure
ends on 31.12.2023.

Mr. Justice A.V.Chandrashekar has recommended that the
Committee be disbanded, as it has completed the task assigned
by this court. The members of the Committee, namely Mr.
44

Jayakar Jerome and Mr. S.T.Ramesh have stated that the
Committee should continue for another six months.

We are of the opinion that the present proceedings should
be transferred to the High Court of Karnataka, at Bangalore (For
short, "High Court"). Whether or not the term of the Committee
should be extended, as well as, the question of composition of
the Committee, will be examined by the High court.

The entire records of the present proceedings including all
the applications, reports submitted by the Committee till date,
and the orders passed thereon, will be sent to the High Court.
An electronic/shadow file will, however, be maintained in this
court. The High court will examine the latest reports filed by the
Committee, that is, the 31st Report and the 32nd Report and
pass appropriate orders.

The physical records will be transferred to the BDA, after
storing an e-copy/set on cloud. The credentials/details to
assess such e-copy shall be given to the authorized officers of
BDA. The BDA will make a copy of the cloud records and store
this one set on its server/ cloud facility, as available with it. The
original e-set will not be altered, modified or tampered.

Any person/entity, including the BDA, having an objection
or issue arising from any reports of the Committee, may move
an application before the High Court. The High Court will be
entitled to decide all the pending issues and applications
including the application(s) challenging any of the decisions
taken by the committee, or a subject matter of its reports.

However, in case there is any specific order or direction
regarding a particular property, passed by this court,
applications regarding the same will be entertained by this
court.

Any person aggrieved by any order passed by the High
Court will be entitled to approach this court.

All interim orders passed by this court with regard to
transfer or retaining of the officers are hereby recalled.
45

Learned Advocate General for the State of Karnataka has
drawn our attention to paragraph 23 of the order dated 20-01-
2022, and submits that the State would like to pay additional
compensation over and above the compensation payable under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short, "the 1894 Act").
Accordingly, the direction may be modified. We make no
comments in this regard. It will be open to the State to move
an appropriate application before the High Court indicating
grounds and justification. The prayer will be considered in
accordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous applications are also transferred.

We would request the Chief Justice of the High Court to
nominate a Bench to deal with the cases arising out of the
judgment dated 03-8-2018 and the order dated 03-12-2020.

Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous applications
are disposed of."

15. The issue now would be, whether entire land of the

petitioner is required to be regularized. Therefore, it becomes

necessary to notice the findings of the Committee. They read as

follows:

".... .... ....

10. REGULARISATION OF BUILDINGS

This Report may kindly be considered as part and parcel
of the Third Report dated 10-11-2021 and perused in that
background. Your Lordship may specifically peruse the
adjudication criteria in paragraph No.24 of the Third Report
dated 10-11-2021 which is excerpted below:
46

"Adjudication Criteria

24. At the time of adjudication by the JCC certain
parameters were agreed upon. This was to ensure
uniformity in decision making and consequent
recommendation to the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to which
cases may be regularised. Among others, the important
criteria was:

a) A building should be in existence on notified land;

b) The ownership of the building should be established;

c) The applicant and his relationship/ownership of the
building should be established.

d) Once a building has received electricity connection, a
meter is installed. The meter therefore, forms a basis
for identifying individual properties,
residential/commercial. A building may have multiple
units. Each of these units would have a separate
meter. In such cases, the individual units in these
buildings are invariably rented out. At times, the
ownership of such individual units may also be
different. Therefore, the electricity meter has been
taken as the basis to treat the building as a unity to
decide whether it should be regularized or not.

e) Any one of the 17 documents (Annexure-A) to
prove the building has come up before the cut off
date. This document among others would include
sanction plan or/and permission to construct or/and
property tax paid receipt or/and, electricity
connection indicating the date the electricity was
serviced.

11. In the light of what has already been stated and
taking all the factors into consideration, the JCC in this
Report recommends regularization of total 205 (two
hundred and five buildings only) in Annexure-L 125
buildings Sl.No.2248 to 2285, Annexure-M buildings
Sl.2378 to 2502, Annexure-N 15 buildings Sl.No.343 to
357, Annexure-AN 14 buildings Sl.No.1 to 14 and
Annexure-X 13 buildings Sl.No.1 to 13 in all total 205
buildings (two hundred and five buildings only).
47

12. The J.C.C. further recommends that the BDA be
directed:

(a) To issue Regularization Certificates to the
applicants under the supervision of JCC -
Annexure-L 125 buildings Sl.No.2248 to 2285,
Annexure-M 38 buildings Sl.2378 to 2502,
Annexure-N 15 buildings Sl.No.343 to 357,
Annexure-AN 14 buildings Sl.No.1 to 14 and
Annexure-X 13 buildings Sl.No.1 to 13, in all total
205 buildings (two hundred and five buildings
only).

(b) To determine and collect Betterment Levy as per the
provisions of the BDA Act, 1976.

(d) To give wide publicity to this order electronically, digitally
and by other means necessary.

(e) While regularizing Industries/Factories the area of
beneficial enjoyment/setbacks shall be as per Zoning
Regulation of the Revised Master Plan 2015.

(f) While regularizing residential and commercial buildings,
the beneficial enjoyment/setbacks will be as per the BDA
Zoning Regulations."

The Committee had regularized the constructions. The Apex Court,

in terms of its order dated 06-12-2022 supra clearly holds that

constructions should not be touched and those lands surrounding

the constructions should not be acquired. Notwithstanding the said

finding, the Committee regularized only the buildings and not the
48

lands surrounding the buildings. The petitioner is claiming all the

land that is surrounding buildings. It is the schedule property

measuring 5 acres 36 guntas in which she is in possession for over

25 years and has developed the property as a farm house. If the

construction in the farm house is regularized, it is ununderstandable

as to how the surroundings cannot be regularized. In that light, the

petition deserves to succeed and the prayer to be answered in

favour of the petitioner.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

(ii) Mandamus issues to the respondents/BDA to regularize entire schedule property in favour of the petitioner and issue such regularization certificate within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/-

(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Shivangini Bhartia vs State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2025

Bench: Krishna S Dixit, M.Nagaprasanna