Karnataka High Court
R Chandru vs Bangalore Development Authority on 18 September, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION NO. 13340 OF 2012 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
R.Chandru,
Aged about 49 years,
Ahuja Chambers,
Flat No.204, II Floor,
No.1, Kumarakrupa Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ....PETITIONER
(By Shri. Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate)
AND:
1. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
2. Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENTS
2
(By Shri. A. Lokanath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the notices all dated nil
issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore
Development Authority, Bangalore the second respondent, vide
Annexures - K, L and M.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior Advocate, Shri Udaya Holla, appearing for the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. It is brought to the attention of this court that the petition is liable to be disposed of on a short point in the following background:-
The land in Survey No.165, 166 and 167 of Herohalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring approximately about 13 acres was the property of one 3 Sri Krishnappa. After his death his sons Gangahanumaiah, Mahadeva and Dasappa inherited the said land. A portion of land measuring about 4 acres 14 guntas was notified for acquisition for the formation of Sir.M.Visveshwaraiah Layout, which was proposed to be formed by the Bangalore Development Authority (Hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA', for brevity) . Gangahanumaiah and his brothers had challenged the said proposal in writ petitions in WP 43638-640/2003. During the pendency of the writ petitions, a representation was made by the petitioners therein to drop the proceedings insofar the lands were concerned. Hundreds of others had also made similar representations. Therefore, the BDA by a resolution dated 28.6.2003 bearing no.177/2003 acceded to the request of the land owners, subject to the collection of betterment taxes in respect of 782 acres and 17 guntas and to go ahead with acquisition in respect of 750 acres of land. In terms of the said resolution, the BDA had agreed to give up acquisition of the land of the petitioners, provided they gave up a portion of the 4 notified land free of cost for formation of a road. A letter to this effect was issued by the BDA dated 12.3.2004.
Gangahanumaiah and his brothers accordingly gave up a portion of the land for the BDA for formation of a road. The BDA, in turn, by a letter dated 18.6.2004, levied betterment charges of Rs.30/- per square foot, which aggregated to Rs.1,32,52,950/- and the BDA withdrew all the above lands from acquisition. Consequently, Gangahanumaiah and his brothers withdrew the writ petitions.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued an endorsement dated 14.7.2004 indicating that though Final Notification had been made in respect of the lands belonging to Gangahanumaiah and his brothers, awards had not been passed in view of a later development, whereby Gangahanumaiah and others had agreed to pay betterment charges and to give up a portion of land free of cost for formation of a road. Pursuant to the demand, the betterment charges were paid in a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- on 17.12.2004. Later however, the BDA had 5 issued an endorsement indicating that it had no power to levy betterment charges and the betterment charges already collected would be refunded and also indicated that the acquisition proceedings will go on without let. That changed stand of the BDA was sought to be challenged by a further writ petition in WP 5494/2006 and the writ petition was allowed and the decision of the BDA to give up the lands from acquisition was sustained and its further decision to collect the betterment charges was declared as one without authority and it was directed to initiate appropriate proceedings to levy betterment tax in respect of the lands, which were notified under Section 17(1) of the Act. That judgment in the case of Gangaiah Naidu vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore, is reported in 2010(4) KLJ
272. Gangahanumaiah and others had sold 8 acres 21 guntas in favour of one T.N.Javarayagowda under a registered sale deed dated 25.2.2005. Prior to the sale, Gangahanumaiah and others had converted 4 acres 15 guntas for non-agricultural purposes. 6 Subsequent to the purchase, Javarayagowda had also sought for conversion and had obtained sanction of the same in respect of the remaining lands to non-agricultural use. Ultimately, the petitioner purchased the entire extent of land under five registered sale deeds, copies of which are marked as H, H.1, H.2, H.3 and H.4 and the petitioner had addressed the first respondent to determine the betterment levy payable in respect of the property after taking into account the amount of Rs.30 lakh already paid and to change the khata of the property in his name. The BDA however, has issued three notices calling upon him to appear before the second respondent and further indicating that the land is required for the formation of the Layout and that the request of the petitioner cannot be addressed. It is in this background that the present petitions are filed.
3. The learned Senior Advocate would straight away point out that in view of a decision of this court, which has attained finality, namely, in Gangaiah Naidu, supra, the question of the BDA seeking to revert back to its earlier position of claiming 7 that the land is required for the formation of a layout notwithstanding the categorical direction issued by this court insofar as the land in question is concerned, would not enable the BDA to draw sustenance from the earlier notifications seeking to acquire the lands in question for the formation of Sir.M.Visveshwaraiah Layout. Therefore, the learned Senior Advocate would submit that the present notices seeking to rely on earlier notifications cannot be sustained in view of the decision of this Court and will have to be quashed. While he would not deny the power of the BDA to acquire the lands through the medium of the State, prospectively.
4. The learned counsel for the BDA would not seriously dispute the legal position that would apply.
5. In the light of an earlier decision of this court, holding that the decision of the BDA to give up from acquisition the lands, which were notified for acquisition and to collect the betterment charges having been upheld, the BDA would have to 8 abide by the same and the BDA now seeking to contend that it would rather acquire the land for the purpose of formation of Sir M.Visveshwaraiah Layout, is not available to the authority.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexures - K, L and M are quashed, with liberty to the BDA to take appropriate steps in accordance with law even if the land is still required for a public purpose. Consequently, the BDA shall take appropriate steps insofar as determining the charges and making a demand on the petitioner or to take such other steps as may be available to the BDA, within a period of two months.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv