Karnataka High Court
Smt P V Manjula Srinivas vs State Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2017
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION Nos.48423-48427/2017 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.P.V.MANJULA SRINIVAS
W/O Dr. SAKEY SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.1, TYPE-IV QUARTERS,
IVRI, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.
2. Dr. P.V.SHIVAKUMAR
S/O P.V.RAGHU,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.32, HMT LAYOUT,
80 FEET ROAD EXTENSION,
BANGALORE-560 032.
3. SMT.G.RAJINI DEVI
W/O P.V.MOHAN BABU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.E-11 STREET,
BROADWAY ROAD CROSS,
SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 051.
4. SMT.P.C.NANDA
W/O P.R.CHANDAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.4, 'D' 2ND STREET,
BROADWAY ROAD CROSS,
SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 051.
5. SRI V.NAGARAJ
S/O LATE P.VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
2
R/AT NO.7, 2ND FLOOR,
G.NO.11TH STREET,
JOGUPALYAM, HALASURU,
BANGALORE-560 008. ... PETITIONERS
[By SRI S.R.SREENIVASAMURTHY, ADV.]
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020.
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
[By SRI VIJAYA KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R-1.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEX-Y DATED
03.02.2003 IN NOTIFICATION, FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED
18.06.2014 VIDE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R-1 AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE SAME IS UNENFORCEABLE IN
THE EYE OF LAW AND PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE
PETITIONERS BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION AT
ANNEX-Y & Y1.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
Petitioners claim to be owners of several sites in Sy.No.17/10A of Thanisandra Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bengaluru. It is stated that, the sites have been purchased through a registered sale deeds dated 30.05.1997; that Sy.No.17/10A has been converted for non agricultural residential purpose to an extent of 3 acres as per Conversion Order dated 05.07.1993 at Annexure-B; that Petitioners after seeking an endorsement from Respondent No.2/Bangalore Development Authority [hereinafter referred to as 'BDA', for the sake of brevity], to the effect that land in Sy.No.17/10A has not been notified for acquisition purpose, purchased their respective sites; that Respondent/BDA intended to acquire lands in Sy.No.17/10A by issuance of Preliminary and Final Notifications under Sections 17 and 19 respectively of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act', for 4 the sake of brevity]. The said Notifications were issued for the purpose of implementation of a scheme called 'Arkavathy Layout'.
2. At this stage itself, it may be mentioned that Petitioners herein did not assail those Notifications. However, there were several land owners who had assailed the said Notifications. Learned single Judge of this Court quashed the acquisition, but the Division Bench of this Court, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and issued certain directions subject to which formation of Arkavathy Layout was upheld. Thereafter, the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'BONDU RAMASWAMY AND OTHERS v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS [ (2010) 7 SCC 129] and other cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the Judgment of the Division Bench in all respects except with regard to a few modifications in the directions 5 issued with regard to acquisition of certain villages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the State Government as well as BDA to issue a fresh final Notification after seeking modification of the scheme. Pursuant to directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, BDA has issued final Notification dated 18.6.2014. The said Notification along with Preliminary Notification dated 03.02.2003 are assailed in these writ petitions.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for Petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate who has appeared on advance notice and perused the material on record.
4. At the outset, it is noticed that Petitioners herein had not assailed Preliminary Notification or previous Final Notification dated 23.2.2004 before this Court nor have they taken steps pursuant to directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court which has modified 6 the directions issued by Division Bench of this Court. Only because final Notification dated 18.6.2014 has been issued pursuant to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above that Petitioners have sought to assail Preliminary as well as final Notification by filing these Writ Petitions on 26.10.2017.
5. Learned Counsel for Petitioners submits that if the sites belonging to Petitioners are acquired for the purpose of formation of layout, these Petitioners would be left site less and therefore the impugned acquisition is not in accordance with law. He would further submit that several writ petitions have been filed before this Court assailing final Notification dated 18.06.2014 and this has emboldened Petitioners herein to also challenge final Notification along with Preliminary Notification dated 03.02.2003. In the circumstances, he submits that these Writ Petitions may also be tagged along with 7 other Writ Petitions pending adjudication before this Court.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit that when Petitioners herein did not assail Preliminary Notification and previous final Notification before this Court when they were issued and have remained silent all these years, it must be inferred that they have accepted the acquisition of their sites. He, however, would submit that limited relief that has been granted by the Division Bench of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to site owners may be considered by BDA and that there is no reason for Petitioners to assail Preliminary Notification and second final Notification issued by BDA at this stage.
7. Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the Judgment of the 8 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY [supra], it is noted at Paragraph-10 of the said Judgment that the Hon'ble Court has culled out directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in Paragraphs C & D concerning site owners and land owners respectively. As far as site owners are concerned, what has been directed by Division Bench of this Court is as under:
"10. The Division Bench therefore set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. It also allowed a writ appeal filed by a former Chief Minister and expunged certain unwarranted remarks against the former Chief Minister in para 30 of the learned Single Judge's order and further held as follows :
(C). The acquisition of the lands for the formation of Akravathi Layout is upheld subject to the following conditions :
(a) In so far as the site owners are concerned they are entitled to the following reliefs :9
(i) These site owners/writ petitioners shall register themselves as applicants for allotment under the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Site) Rules 1984 within a period of two months from today (extendable by another one month by BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners will have to pay the registration fee.
They need not pay initial deposit as their sites have been acquired and they have agree not to receive compensation in regard to the sites under this arrangement.
(ii) The petitioners shall file applications for allotment of sites to BDA within three months from today in the prescribed form stating that they are applicants who were the petitioners in these writ petitions. Petitioners shall file their documents with BDA within a period of two months to enable BDA to verify the same.
(iii) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to priority in allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30 x 40 in Arkavathi layout or in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at 10 the prevailing allotment prices subject to petitioners satisfying the twin requirements for allotment under the BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984, that they must be the residents of Bangalore (ten year domicile) and should not be owning any residential property in Bangalore.
(iv) If there are no rival claimants for compensation in regard to the plots claimed by petitioners, and if the ownership of the petitioners in regard to their respective sites which have been acquired is not disputed, BDA shall calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and give credit to the same by adjusting the same towards the allotment price for the site to be allotted and call upon the petitioners to pay the balance.
Petitioners shall be given six months time for making payment. [To enable petitioners to know the amount of compensation which they will be entitled and to ascertain how much balance they should pay].
(v) If there are rival claimants in regard to the survey numbers or the sites or if 11 any petitioners title in regard to the sites are challenged, BDA shall make a reference in regard to the compensation in regard to such site/land in question, to the civil court under section 30of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the petitioners will have to sort out the matter before the reference court. In that event, such petitioners will have to pay the full allotment price within the time stipulated, without seeking adjustment of compensation for the acquired site.
(vi) If any of the petitioners does not fulfil the requirements for allotment, under the allotment rules, their cases may be considered for allotment of 20 x 30 sites as per the Rules containing incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of lands. For the purpose of the said scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered the sites.
(vii) The above scheme will be available to only those who are owners, as a consequence of execution of registered sale deeds in their favour prior to the 12 date of preliminary notification (and not to GPA/Agreement holders)."
8. Petitioners state that they are owners of their respective sites. In the circumstances, their entitlement is as per the directions issued by Division Bench of this Court vis-à-vis site owners. In the absence of there being any case made out for challenging the final Notification dated 18.06.2014, Paragraph-160 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY [supra], where further directions and clarifications have been issued with regard to the lands in Kempapura, Sriramapura and lands in Venkateshapura, Nagavara, Hennur and Challakere and certain other directions would have to be considered in order to ascertain as to whether they apply to these petitioners. Those directions have been issued after affirming the directions of the Division Bench. They read as under:
13
"160. In view of the foregoing, we affirm the directions of the Division Bench subject to the following further directions and clarifications:
(i) In regard to the acquisition of lands in Kempapura and Srirampura, BDA is directed to re-consider the objections to the acquisitions having regard to the fact that large areas were not initially notified for acquisition, and more than 50% of whatever that was proposed for acquisition was also subsequently deleted from acquisition. BDA has to consider whether in view of deletions to a large extent, whether development with respect to the balance of the acquired lands has become illogical and impractical, and if so, whether the balance area also should be deleted from acquisition. If BDA proposes to continue the acquisition, it shall file a report within four months before the High Court so that consequential orders could be passed.
(ii) In regard to villages of Venkateshapura, Nagavara, Hennur and Challakere where there are several very small pockets of acquired lands surrounded by lands which were not acquired or which were deleted from the proposed acquisition, BDA may consider whether such small pockets should also be deleted if they are not suitable for 14 forming self contained layouts. The acquisition thereof cannot be justified on the ground that these small islands of acquired land, could be used as a stand alone park or playground in regard to a layout formed in different unconnected lands in other villages.
Similar isolated pockets in other villages should also be dealt with in a similar manner.
(iii) BDA shall give an option to each writ petitioner whose land has been acquired for Arkavathy layout:
(a) to accept allotment of 15% (fifteen percent) of the land acquired from him, by way of developed plots, in lieu of compensation (any fractions in excess of 15% may be charged prevailing rates of allotment).
OR
(b) in cases where the extent of land acquired exceeds half an acre, to claim in addition to compensation (without prejudice to seek reference if he is not satisfied with the quantum), allotment of a plot measuring 30' x 40' for every half acre of land acquired at the prevailing allotment price. 15
(iv) Any allotment made by BDA, either by forming layouts or by way of bulk allotments, will be subject to the above."
9. Therefore, if Petitioners are entitled to relief in terms of the directions issued by Division Bench of this Court and/or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court extracted above, they could seek relief accordingly. In the absence of any case being made out for assailing the final Notification dated 18.06.2014, Petitioners at this point of time cannot be permitted to challenge the Preliminary Notification dated 03.02.2003. If at all, they have their rights set out by the Division Bench of this Court and/or the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, they could pursue the same. In that view of the matter, challenge made to the acquisition notifications in these Writ Petitions is not entertained. However, liberty is reserved to Petitioners to seek relief before 16 BDA in terms of the aforesaid directions in the event they are entitled to do so.
With the aforesaid liberty, Writ Petitions are disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-