Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Development Authority vs Smt Rathnamma on 11 March, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, Ravi Malimath
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 3873 OF 2012 (LA-BDA)
AND WRIT APPEAL NOS. 2791 TO 2802 OF 2013
IN W.A.NOS.3873 OF 2012 AND 2791 TO 2797 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDIAIAH ROAD
KUMARAPARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020
BY ITS COMMISSIONER ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT RATHNAMMA
W/O SRI. B.M.ANAND
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.198/A, 7TH A MAIN
JAYANAGAR 3RD BLOCK
BANGALORE - 560 011
2. M/S SREE SAI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.18
-2-
C.T. BED, THYAGARAJ NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 028
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNERS
i) SRI. K.P. RANGANATHA NAIDU
S/O LATE K.PAPAIAH NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
ii) SRI K.VENKATESH NAIDU
S/O LATE KANNAIAH NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. SMT. V. PRABHA
W/O M. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1/116
NEW KEMPE GOWDA LAYOUT
B.S.K III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085
4. SRI. M. SUBRAMANI
S/O LATE MOTHULU NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1/116
NEW KEMPE GOWDA LAYOUT
B.S.K III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085
5. SRI. T. MURALIDHAR
S/O T. RAMACHANDRAIAH NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.2455, 9TH MAIN
BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 070
6. SRI. G. MALLIKARJUNA NAIDU
S/O LATE G. MUNASWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.2455, 9TH MAIN
BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085
-3-
7. SRI. M.P. SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU
S/O LATE PAPINAIDU
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1022
6TH CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR
BANGASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, II BLOCK
BANGALORE - 560 050
8. SRI. K. VENKATESH NAIDU
S/O LATE KANNAIAH NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.26, CAUVERI NAGAR
BANGASHANKARI III STAGE
KATTARIGUPPA MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 085
9. SRI. M. YOGAMURTHY
S/O M. CHUNCHU NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
REISIDING AT NO.8
KATTARIGUPPA MAIN ROAD
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085
10. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
11. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS
JOINT COMMISSIONER ... RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 - SERVED THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION
SRI.H.S.DWARAKANATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.PRAMOD,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2, 4 TO 6, 8 AND 9
-4-
MISS NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.10
APPEAL AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.7 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED
VIDE COURT ORER DATED 22.7.2014
RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 11 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
IN W.A.NOS.2798 TO 2802 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDIAIAH ROAD
KUMARAPARK WEST
BANGALORE -20
BY ITS COMMISSIONER ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. B.M. ANAND
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
NO.198/A, 7TH " A " MAIN
JAYANAGAR 3RD BLOCK
BANGALORE - 560 011
2. SRI. A. PRADEEP KUMAR
S/O B.M.ANAND
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
NO.198/A, 7TH " A " MAIN,
JAYANAGAR 3RD BLOCK
BANGALORE -11
3. SMT. A. ANITHA
D/O B.M. ANAND
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
NO.198/A, 7TH " A" MAIN
JAYANAGAR, 3RD BLOCK
BANGALORE - 560 011
-5-
4. SRI. SANDEEP
S/O B.M. ANAND
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
6. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 098
REPRESENTED BY ITS
JOINT COMMISSIONER ... RESPONDENTS
(SRI.A.SHIVARAMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4
MISS NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.5
RESPONDENT NO.6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
****
THESE WRIT APPEAL ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.42792-42799/2011 AND
42800/2011 C/W 42831-42834/11 DATED 7/12/11.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-6-
JUDGMENT
These are writ appeals by the Bengaluru Development Authority challenging the judgment and order dated December 7, 2011, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions.
2. In the writ petitions, the challenge was against the notification dated November 4, 2011, issued by the government withdrawing the earlier de-notification dated January 12, 2010, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the said Act' in short).
3. Admittedly, the property was acquired for the purpose of formation of Banashankari V stage layout. The final notification dated May 9, 1994, was published in the official gazette on May 18, 1994. The award under Section 11 of the said Act was published on September 4, 1996.
Unfortunately, neither the recorded khatedars were paid the compensation nor, on their alleged refusal, the compensation was deposited with the reference court. -7-
On January 12, 2010, the government issued order for de-notification under sub-section (1) of the Section 48 of the said Act. The de-notification was, also, published in the official gazette.
4. Taking advantage of the de-notification, constructions came up. Several houses have been constructed and settled position is that several persons are residing in several apartments in that locality. In fact, there is nothing to indicate that the Bengaluru Development Authority ever attempted to implement Banashankari V stage layout.
5. The Hon'ble Single Judge was, therefore, right in holding that the whole scheme got lapsed.
6. Mr.Udaya Holla, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the writ appeals, submits that there is still 2.20 acres of vacant land. He submits that when vacant land is available, opportunities of hearing should have been granted to -8- the Bengaluru Development Authority, the beneficiary in the scheme, before the de-notification order was issued.
7. The de-notification order was issued sometime in the year 2010. The de-notification is not under challenge before us and, therefore, it is not possible for us, at this stage, to grant any relief to the Bengaluru Development Authority.
8. We are dismissing the writ appeals as being devoid of merit.
9. In view of dismissal of the writ appeals, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are, also, dismissed.
We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AHB