Karnataka High Court
B R Krishnamurthy vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 27 September, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION NOs.25286-25287/2012(LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. B.R.Krishnamurthy,
S/o late Ramaiah @ Kadle Ramaiah,
aged about 53 years,
Agriculturist,
2.B.R.Lokesh,
S/o late Ramaiah @ Kadle Ramaiah,
aged about 50 years,
Agriculturist,
Both are residing at no.49/7,
Chikkabagur Gate,
Hosur road, Madivala Post,
Bangalore-560068. ... PETITIONERS
(By Shri.K.G.Sadashivaiah, Advocate)
AND:
1.The Bangalore Development Authority,
represented by its Chairman,
T.Chowdaiah road,
Kumarakrupa West,
Bangalore-560 020.
2.The Deputy Commissioner,
2
Bangalore district,
Bangalore-560001. .... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri.G.Lakshmeesh Rao, Advocate for R1,
Shri K.S.Mallikarjunaiah, Advocate for R2)
*****
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India with a prayer to call for records and
quash the endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore (2nd respondent) in Case No.ALN(SB) (BH) SR2/11-
12 dated 18.5.2012 vide Annexure-L to the Writ Petition by
issuing writ of certiorari.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing
'B' group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitions coming on for preliminary hearing 'B' group is heard for final disposal.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are brothers and owners of the property bearing survey no.52/1 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas at Hongasandra village, Begur hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The petitioners claim that the property was ancestral property and after the death of their father, they have inherited the same and the katha in respect of the property stands in their name and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The first respondent is said to have issued a 3 preliminary notification dated 20.6.1991 proposing to acquire the said land along with other parcels of land for the formation of a residential layout but till the date of the petition, no steps have been taken pursuant to the preliminary notification and therefore, the petitioners are before this Court to contend that the very scheme under which the layout was to be formed would lapse, if after five years the BDA does not take steps pursuant to the acquisition proceedings in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act. It is further claimed that the petitioners would intend to develop the land themselves into a layout and had sought for conversion of land use and that application has been kept in abeyance, having regard to the acquisition proceedings hanging fire and it is in this background that the petitioners are before this Court.
3. The respondent - BDA has entered appearance and has filed statement of objections to submit that the BDA has found the Scheme is not feasible any longer and has decided to give up acquisition proceedings though it was originally proposed to acquire 576 acres 25 guntas of land including the land of the petitioners for the formation of BTM Layout V Stage, since the 4 BDA was faced with several difficulties in proceeding with the acquisition. It has now proposed to the State Government as early as in the year 2007 that the Scheme was not feasible but the Government has failed to take any further action to approve its proposal. In that background, the BDA pleads helplessness in acceding to the prayer of the petitioners.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that notwithstanding the stalemate that is created similarly placed petitioners having approached this Court in W.P.No.10120/2010, the same was disposed of by an order dated 4.8.2010. A copy of the same is produced at Annexure-K to the Writ Petition wherein, notwithstanding the fact that the land in question therein was also the subject matter of the very same acquisition proceedings and notwithstanding the stalemate created by petitioners therein also having sought for conversion of their lands, this Court had directed that their applications should be processed and they should be permitted to go ahead with the intended development of their land notwithstanding that the land in question was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings, as in the present case on 5 hand. Therefore, drawing sustenance from the same, the Counsel would seek similar relief being granted to the petitioners herein. In view of the declared statement of the BDA that it is no longer feasible to form a layout in the lands that were proposed to be acquired and notwithstanding, that such proposal is pending with the State Government since the year 2007, it would be unjust to prevent the petitioners from utilizing the land which is their own. Therefore, since they have also approached the authorities seeking conversion of the land, it would be at their risk to proceed with such conversion and develop the lands. Though, it may be a mere formality for the State Government to approve the proposal now forwarded by the BDA to drop the proceedings, it is a necessary formality. Therefore at the petitioners risk, their application to seek conversion of the land be considered and the petitioners shall also be permitted to seek further development of their land after such conversion. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. The endorsement issued at Annexure-L stands quashed. The second respondent is directed to consider the applications filed by the petitioners which has 6 been filed as at Annexure-D and to process the same and accord permission if the petitioners are otherwise entitled to the same in respect of the land in question and the second respondent shall thus expedite the consideration of the same, in any event, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
SD/-
JUDGE Sh