Karnataka High Court
Smt Chikkamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION Nos.3679-3687 OF 2012 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt.Chikkamma,
D/o Late Erachikkaiah,
Age: 52 years.
2. Smt.Susheelamma,
D/o Late Erachikkaiah,
Age: 48 years.
3. Smt.Rangamma,
D/o Late Erachikkaiah,
Age: 46 years.
4. Sri Madesh,
S/o Late Erachikkaiah,
Age: 42 years.
5. Sri Venkatesh,
S/o Late Erachikkaiah,
Age: 41 years.
6. Sri Nagaraj,
S/o Late Erachikkaiah,
Age: 33 years.
Petitioners 1 to 6 are R/at
No.49, Muddayyana Palya,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
2
Bangalore - 560 091.
7. Smt.Mangamma,
W/o Late Erachikkaiah,
Age: 60 years.
8. Smt.Lakshmi,
D/o Late Erachikkaiah,
Age: 35 years.
9. Sri Manjunath,
S/o Late Erachikkaiah,
Age: 28 years.
Petitioner Nos. 7 to 9 are R/at
Staff Quarters, ESI Hospital,
II Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 10. ... Petitioners
(By Sri M V Vedachala, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. The Bangalore Development
Authority (BDA),
Kumar Park East,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore. ... Respondents
(By Sri K S Mallikarjunaiah, HCGP for R1;
Sri Ashwin S Halady, Advocate for R2 & R3)
3
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the
R2/BDA to consider the deletion of land bearing
Sy.No.168/1 measuring 1 acre and land bearing
Sy.No.168/3 measuring 12 acre 32 guntas of Herohally
Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk
and etc.,
These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary
hearing in 'B' group, this day, the court made the
following:
ORDER
The petitioners are seeking a mandamus to the respondents to delete the land measuring 1 acre standing at Sy.No.168/1 and 1 acre 32 guntas standing at Sy.No.168/3 of Herohally Village, Yashavanathapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The said lands along with the other lands were acquired for the formation of Sir M.Vishweshwaraiah Nagar Further Extension.
2. Sri M.V.Vedachala, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners along with the others had raised the challenge to the acquisition proceedings complaining of discrimination in the matter of acquiring the lands. This Court passed the order, 4 dated 06.06.2006 upholding the acquisition but reserving the liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation to the respondents and establish how the similarly placed lands are left out of acquisition. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted the representation, dated 06.01.2007, which came to be rejected by the respondents vide endorsement, dated 28.11.2007. The said endorsement was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.No.20176/2007, which was dismissed by this Court by its order, dated 14.06.2010.
3. Sri Vedachala submits that the layout map for Sir M.Vishveshwaraiah Nagar Further Extension is approved only on 02.12.2009. As per the approved layout plan, the lands in question are not provided with any access. They are so isolated that they have no connectivity at all.
4. He emphatically submits that no independent layout can be formed out of the lands in question. He 5 submits that the petitioners have got the fresh cause of action only on the respondents according the approval of the layout plan on 02.12.2009. He would therefore contend that the petitioners are entitled to maintain these petitions, notwithstanding the dismissal of the two earlier writ petitions.
5. Sri K.S.Mallikarjunaiah, the learned Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 submits that the possession of the lands in question is already taken. As it is vested in the respondents, it cannot be divested. He submits that the claims of the petitioners are already negatived in two rounds of litigation.
6. Sri Ashwin S.Halady, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the acquisition proceedings are concluded; the possession is taken on 27.11.2003 after passing the award and depositing the award-amounts. He submits that the layout is also formed and the sites are also allotted to 6 the third parties. He also takes exception to the petitioners resorting to the third round of litigation. He submits that the petitioners' claims are already rejected vide endorsement, dated 28.11.2007. The petitioners' challenge to the said endorsement is also negatived, so submits Sri Halady.
7. The question of giving a direction to the respondents to delete the lands in question from the acquisition proceedings cannot arise, as the possession of the lands is already admittedly taken on 27.11.2003. Under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the lands can be withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings but any time before the possession is taken.
8. It is not in dispute that the layout plan for Sir M.Vishveshwaraiah Nagar Further Extension is already approved. That there is no access to the lands in question and that is why the lands are to be restored to 7 the petitioners does not commend itself to me. As the layout is formed and the allotments are made, the respondents are bound to create access from one or the other land. It is for the city-planner to ensure that the sites are not land-locked. It is also not in dispute that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands in question are upheld by this Court in W.P.No.49269/2004. Further, in W.P.No.20176/2007 the endorsement rejecting the petitioner's representation is also upheld. This is not a public interest litigation. The request for the restoration of the lands to the erstwhile owners on the ground of lack of access to the allotted site is not accedable.
9. Not finding an iota of scope for my interference, I dismiss these petitions.
10. At this juncture Sri Vedachala seeks leave of the Court to submit a representation to the second respondent B.D.A. for allotment of the site in the 8 incentive scheme on account of the compulsory acquisition of the lands in question. The petitioners are permitted to do so. Needless to observe that the anticipated applications for allotment are to be considered in accordance with the B.D.A.'s applicable allotment rules and regulations and appreciating that the petitioners are the land-losers.
11. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-