Karnataka High Court
A Chandrashekar S/O Late P Anjanappa vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To Dept on 30 May, 2011
op Mae wu moaned % mows cy penne Nawart? ewe vi eww a ~ 4 3 eet poigeny i BEPORE J RARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 307!) DAY OF MAY 2018s. THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA nO AND: © Ber yartme sri A.Chandrashekar, S/o.Late PLA » anappa, Aged 40 vears R/o No.34, 2nd i Main Road, Ganganagar E £ xtension, Bangalore -- 560 } (O82. fae . omt. Kempa name a, . Wife of Late P.Anje ane App se Aged about 68 | Seo R/o No.3: Ganganagar 3. angalore nahale, yer a as cr oe a a an Phe Ste ALe. ef Karnataka, Dy its S secretary Lo of Housing & Urban Veedhana Veedhi, 4a i Pr, Ambe dkar Veedhi Ele SEP] Qi ue re - S60 ecne Petitioners sr.Coumsel for lige, Advs.,] "Pepe, Q, i OQ, Na No.2324, HAL ff Stage, Bangalore ~ 560 O17. PLN. Shivananda, \. Naravanappa, sc 43 Years, dian Institute of Horicultural .--- Re search, Hesarghatta Lake Post. Bangalore ~ 560 089, V.Dorai Raj, 5/o.Late K.Venkatachal: am, Aged 46 vears, No.23/1, Meanee, Avenue Road, Sivarichetty Garden. Bangalore ~ 560 O42. Smt.P.Rajant, W /o.P. Hari Rao, Repres : Shri,Rajendra B agalodio. S/oO.B. Shivaji, me Aged 46 years, . Quart er Noid 169, Sector PM ST Officers' Col ony, nied by her nephew, & G PA Holder PZ. 13. 14. "16: oe SIO. Late.B. Ramegowda,_ oe Mee WP No! Sudarshana Murthy, 5/0.K.N.Ramanjam, Aged about SO years, No. 12, 3°¢ Crass, 5 Street, East Link Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore - 560 0602, a V.S.Sriram, 5/0.S.R.Shambukumar, Aged 37 years, No.746, 10 Main, Basavesw ara Nagar, oO Stape, 3f Block, Bangalore ~ 560 079, N.G Naika, S/o. Ganapathi Nails, Aged 33 vears, a No.6, Doctors.¢ Quarters, JLB Roady MYBOre. Or.N. Krishn. appa, S/o o:Nasappa, Aged OO vears;. Ne. 1/04,:Old Veterinary yspital. Road, Pore \. Basavanag gudi, : Bangalore ~ . 560 004 Re. Raw indranath, eae about 5 Oo ears, ore Cross, pe B rigiappa Garden, Shanthinagar, Bangala re ~ 560 0027, v 2223/2003 7) Cross, Gayanthrinagar, Bangalore ~ 560 02] St rVS.Govindarajan, fo.Late VS Ivengar, At ged 35 vears, Or rNO.OMG - 61/4, HQ Eastern Air C omlmand , Indian Air Force, ° Upper Shilone -~ % i FOG OVS. 19. Sri.B.Boraiah, ; S/O. Boregow de a Aged 71 years, No.674, 1S Cross, Indiranagar IP Sr; we Bangalore.~ 5S60- O38... 20. RP. Agarwedl, COR ey t . AS oul Welk, 1 Matin. -
lagaral, NE ~ Age cd apout 4] years, L Main Road, Chamraipet.
bangalore ~ 560 O18.
ing at No.68, 51% Cross, OEP TATA ho Bo Sint. Hi omnamma, ~ Sie dalng ¥ sch Tek Fabout F 7O years, Main Road. St Crass.
Ban nealor e~ 960 040,
23. Smt. Viuavalakshmi.V W/o.K. Rangaswamy, Aged about 43 vears, No. 135, 12" B Maino 6' Block, Rajajinagar, © Bangalore ~ 560 010.
"4. ShrM. ° Srinath S/OMLS Aged abe Parima la "No. e .
(Ole d No. 69), Oe Main Road, Ss Javanaear, Bangalore.
AS i | Dp akash, 1.8.98 Guru isicdappa, Lit. AQ years, via Ma in. Road, fa, ma Vvalicaval, Bangalore ~ S60 0038. a os R/ ine > Gowda, oot 26 vears, Rfat.No.20, Hanumaiah La yout, Ls Cross, Bangalore ~ 560 094, © ~ oo ' C Suresh Kumar, S/o.Channakrishnaiah.
Aged 42 years, .
Réat.No.l41/11, 1 Floor, NV. Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore ~ 560 004...
t f oe a Javesh Kothari, Me o.Prakash Chand Kothn., No. 5 Rae Madhavane Bangalore NOY P Swamy, orn. Seetnapathy, Major, 3/0. hale Ss. Rama Subramanaiah, S2. Sr.N.Kkantharaja, Aged S1 vears, S/o.Nat avanappa, ain A © : :
Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore ~ 560 079.
33 ame Lakshmi, /o.R.Thimmaiah, sue d about S4 vears, Residing at No. 24 iS Floor, Nagappa Street.
Palace Nagashettihall:, . Bangalore ~S60 0036. 0. Respondents Nats, HCGP for Rel).
¥, Sr Cc OunsE L for (By Sri.Ramachandra :
id Ro (By SriBn Nanjunda PEC Kk. Krishna for R: 2: 3}. ee . (By Sri. Bayye Reddy, Ady: for R420) (By Sri, Vasuc teva. Red 'dy ~ Ady, for R-21-235 (By Sri.Rz AV Vi ALWIL Kur Maar, Srcou mise] for Gururaj & Krishna < sachindra: Karanth, Adv., for R-26 & 27) UBy SriM uy. Vedachala, AGW, fer R-28 & 29) (By SriN LY. Guru P prasad, Ady. for R-30} (bv M/s. KESV Co. for R 31) (By Sri.D-Pra phaker, ry Adv. for R-32) $y gigs Gogi, Advs., for imple ading applicants} This W Po as filed under Articles 206 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare the scheme of "further extension of Rajamahal Vilas [I Stage (Gokul Il Stage) Lavout a rem rom oad labsed by operation of Section 27 of the BDA Act 1976, f "ni-so far as it relates to schedule lands Sy.Ne.17, 25 and 28 of Se "aE Wie. Alo. j Poe fe: 204 Shoopasandra Bangalore North, Taluk, Bangalore District, and the provisions of Section 30 beear inoperate in se far as the schedule lands of the petitioners, anid etc., This WOOP, coming on for dictating. judgement this ¢ the Court made the following:
In this writ petition, 'under, Articlés 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India, the pettions have sought for the following reliefa:5
ror cHrection im the nature of TRANGOATRUS OF cL other appropriate, writ order or i direction, declaring the Scheme of further extension POPP Ogg pees meyers » (Gokul Hf Stage) Layout of Rajamahail Vilas i § Miapsed by operation. af Section 27 of the BDA Act 1g 76; if So far as it relates te schedule lanes ad OU. Not V7, 49 and 28 of Bhoopasandra Village Hs dtd Og K 'asaba Mobb, Bangalore North Taluk. bangalore District and the provisions of Section 36 became operat in se jar as the schedule lands of the petitioners, and, 'ed . "Sh ne mw issue wrt order or direction in the nature of NIP EEANTLES declari nL thet thie notiication in AG PRES} PSLAQ/ BY, vide Annexure 'A' issuect by the 2 final notification in No. HUD 3] 28.12.1982 published-int-Karnataka ¢ jazett te dat OF.01,1983 ide Annexure "B° issued by ps votd espondent have Japseci and and unenforceable Lin - Teas inv soe far as lands ed. in Bhoopasandra idlore North. Taluk and nature of mandamus or any Yor direction, directing the |s bf a . ety ar a a get Beles yee pees Phe Case Of ihe petitioners for deret iJreation of the schedule lands Sy &o and 2S of MB hoopasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore District in exercise of power conferred 4&8 of Lane Acquisition Act, 1894, ia}. Issue writ in the nature of certiorart ta quash the rrpugned allotment proceedings and allotment oF ry sites issued by the 2°¢ respondent BDA in . favour of ce ria ene boy gs od yan hot ey ET me PE . ey pe Payee an on cay ed respondents 4 ta 25 as illegal, « onmlrary to law and Wi wighation of the interim order, granted tf e fu.
Division Bench of this Hon'bles Corert wn W.P.No.22472/1998, dated 10.8.1998& and wt in the naiure-ef certiorari to" quersh the impugned resolution in 'Sule. No. PE, 2OOU dated. 28.2.2009 passed bi the respordent No.2 vide Annexure "W" as illegal, contrary to-tard and null gah ated CLG MOLL.
ature of mandamus forth. Taluk, measuring an extent ; if guntas,.siood lapsed by operation of LA (Of Lewried ACGUISHION Act [O84 as "any other appropriate writ order or direction ee ee "ot og ed ee rr re GS UGEAMed JUS' and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, inchidin g the award of 'costs, In the interest of justice and eCQuihyy of The petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the] WOPLNo. 1222 / 2008 Bhoopasandra village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. im question. The land in Sy.No.17 of Bhoopasandri: wil:
measuring 4+ acres and 17 different owners. An extent to be purchased by SriAnjanappa, the father ofthe first. petitioner through sale deeds dated. 28.6.1969. 28.6.1979, * O.8.197%4. 78.1978 and §5.4.;980. Phe. first petitioner acquired 17' guntasin Sy.No:17.-. Thus the first petitioner and his father acquirec-right, title and interest in 3 acres and é guntas of land in G.17 of Baoopasandra village. The No.l Y iS ome acre and 10 remaining extert ol:
guritas, oul of which 25 gumtas of land has been denotified in excise; HBCS and the remaining extent of land be.. 25 guatas has been fully built up and no layout has sebeen formed by the BDA. The first petitioner's father Sri oP. Anjanappa «cled on 23.5.2002. The petitioners have sea HEARSE extent of
3. if as stated, the Bhoopasandra village measuring 2 acres and 30 guritas 'and 3 acres and 9 guntias was purchased by the sec ord petitions r and jiate Sri.Anjanappa half extent cach through registered .
sale deeds dated 22.9.1969 ane 2.853 1968 respeciy ely The 3 petitioners and late Anjanappa have acquired right, 0] interest in Sy.Nos.25 and 28 ae miring 5S atres and 39 guntas.
4. It is.
alter pur chase; the petitioners have made several Geve lopmie q is 7 and construction of sheds. The second respondent issued notiication bearing No.A3/PR(S)3/SALO/BDA/77-78 proposing to acquire the 'ands of the petitionéfs and the other land owners of ce opasan dra vitage for formation of further extension of Lh o ~"Rajamanal ll-Stage (Gokul If St: 1pe) as per AnnexureA'. An iSloacres and 33 suntas of land was proposed to be cacguured under Annexure 'A'. + 3, Phe frst respondent issued final notification bearing No.HUD.SIG.MNX.82 dated 28 1] 2. 1982- as "per Annexure-. The final notification was issued atter t] e lapse.
of four vears to an extent of 108 acres. and J & vurtas). Tae concerned officers of the second respandent did not place. the true facts regarding situation of ciferent lands and various developments and formation of private layout. Different lands were notified for acquisition and. the, first respondent was persuaded to issue.the final not 1 forimplementation of the scheme,
6. Several rand owners including the first petitioner's father and husbe und of the second petitioner questioned the acq quisiti¢ n and it was held that the acquisition was valid. in the meanwhile, some of the land owners and interested P the Central Excise HBCS prevailed upon the ~respondent authorities and got denotified
-extent.of land. The petitioners, on spot verification, noticed L-
AI ac SRO URERRISNS Swett that large extent of land notified being already built wp and developed with private lavouts, the second respondent-did riot take any steps for formation of layout. It is stated: the votal- extent noted was 131 acres and 33. guntas- and. final notilication was issued for 108 acres and JS guntas and BDA. = nas formed layout only in 4 acres aad 30 guritas, Phe second respondent has substantially failed to: imiplement the scheme. Therefore, the scheme stood la pserh. fin O acres.and 6 gtirifas of land involved in this writ petition substantial avea has been built up consisting of building structures: sheds, cornjound walls, coconut, sapota, Mango trees, garGen, poultry farm and n ursery and no layout hasbeen formied in the lands of the petitioners. The u petivoners™. and i: njanappa continued to be in been sold to private parties, formed any layout. [t is Tommy dure 2000, the second respondent tried to dispossess the petitioners and late PAnjanappa, it is stated, vide a < Anmexures ~D) CE' SFY 'GH and wp de-notifications have been issued withdrawn ge the jiand from acquisition. The second respondent has issued letter dated no objection to the President, Central fxci se, HE of lands in Sy.Nos.9, 12. 4,18, 19, 10,513, Shoopasandra village and d eletec).the lands from: acquisition. foes ae Shee 7 &. It is stated, during: 1° ihe second respondent passed resolution. s.datéd 1.12.1982 resolvin g to reconvey the land in Sy. Nos,25 and 28 and letter was sent to the first' respariden* to arop the acquisition proceedings, The land owners were comraunicated by issuing endorsement Searing No. BDA/CHS/MISD (24/1982-83, However, the Le L petition "schédule iands came to be included in the final Phe-resolution dated 1.12.1982 came to be ¥ the land owners.
"rescinded on-24.10.1997 without notifying pondent issued direction as per order dated 6,2,1998 PecOryvey Tne gane in Sy No 2S measuring 2 acres and 30 AERA RSE "sec "clistmissed on 30.) 1 if W.PLNo 2003 guntas. Thereafter, the State Government issued notification dated 9.2,2001 de-notifving the land in SY.No.25 subject to the condition that the land owners have to give up the latid ine Sy.No.28 free of cost. The notificatisn dated 92.200 Lowas withdrawn by the Governmen f vide _notificat ion "dated 21.35.2001.
9. The petitioners. filed W.PONo, 18806) and W.P. g No. 143875/2001 chal lenging the notification dated 21.3.9001. W.LPLNo. L176 1- Some persons el niming to be, allot 63/200) lean dé-noti ficat ion of the land. The wri petitions came to be ; decic ded OY a common order dated
4.F ZOO]. The, notification, weithd rawing the de-notification came te. be qu ash eg, The matter was remitted to the Coy e} rimen fF with "a direction to reconsider the matter afte agerieved persons. It ais stated, JWOPNG 224 72/1998 was fled as pubhe interest Htigation and if came to be
--
Ko _ Kaw os Ne somal W.P.No. 1222/2003 iO. The land owners i.e., Sri P.Ananappa and the second petitioner filed W.P.No.16729-30/85 challenging the acquisition in respect of Sy.Nos.25 and 28. The writ petitions - of the second respondent tried a interfere = with the. possession. The land owners filed 'suit in O8 S. No. 1003/1 1988, for injunction, Temporary' injunction wa'. granted" The land owners moved the second respondent cnc the 'otate. The first respondent had. wsstied . centaiiy dires ctions, On such assurance, the suit was hot "parsted and it came to he dismissed as not sressed am-6.1.1998. ll. In spite of Govern inent's direction in favour of the landowners, the second respondent tried to interfere with the possession. The le and owners filed suit in O.S.No.5061/2000 ". to protect theitpodsession in Sy.Nos.25 and 28. Similarly, in wrespect of Sy.No.17 O.S.N0.6354/2000 was filed. In ay oS ad a OS S.No 50 61/2000, temporary injunction was granted. The . seconc respondent filed MFA.No.5069/2000 and it came to be % ead 10 dismissed an 24,1.2061. Thereafter, review peLition + by the secend respondent in R.P.No.251/2002,"-. > Seme persons claiming to be allottees fled review petition. in- R.P.NG.7S1/2001. RPLN consequently, MPA.No.5069/2G00 came to be alowed, b2. It is stated. the secorid "esponde nt vide resolution pot Senet a ™ ph at o~ oo ne ' No.214 dated 30.9.1988" allots ed the Stands M/s.Khoday Engineering. : A ae e thar: st . ge, ihe cavners Rled suit mn OS.No.4A778/ hie qhenistin We iene The suit was decreed on 309-1991" Dui Neg uly 2000, as there was egal inte rfe renee, the owners filed suit in O.S.No.4022 /2000 and il came to be withdrawn, loo. The petitioners noticed that one CG .Rajan had filed W: PNG. 29933.34 72000 claiming to be the power of attorney flioriers which came te be dismissed on 22.11.2000. . The petitioners hied ©.P NG. 493 / 2002 conten di that they had not executed a nv power of attorney "and the writ pebtion was mot filed on their behalf By order bo Fae Ne WLPNo. 1222/2008 dated 9.4.2002, the civil petition came to be dismissed. as not maintainable.
second respondent BDA has not formed layout "even in 5 acres of land during the last 20 Years. There. were no proceedings preventing the second. respondent from forming the layout and implementing the schéime except the lands of the petitioners. The second respondent has failed to execute the scheme without any justification. There is dereliction of duty on part of tye. second respondent in executing the scheme within S year's from the date of final notification, The act of the second respondent in denotifying substantial extent of land for collateral, consideration for the benefit of land owners a Well as. Central Excise HBCS, the scheme has : 7 completely failed and lapsed. The petitioners were not aware : of tne facts and figures tul recently. Therefore, the petitioners "have approached this Court for declaration that the scheme "has lapsed.
ARG Io IS. lt is stated that the Bhoopasandra Village was notified for tne land of the petitioners measuring 2 acres. ancé 26 guritas. The State Government issued noth cation und er.section ASLTY of the Land Acquisition Act de-nolifving an exterit_of and 20 guntas as per Annexure 'G*. in. the Same notification, an extent of 4 guntas of land in Ss <0:27.0f Bhoopasandra village was de-notified,
16. During last Sod days, the. petitioners noticed that ving. the lands vide Annexure ~ G has the notification de-not been withdrawn by issti ng. nretincation dated 27.06.2000 as per Annexure-M, The " petitioners noticed that the constructions. Have come up. Three buildings are coming up é a ey oe Nos.26 and 27 where de-notifica Hon issued in the land.in.S "under Section 48 (1) has been withdrawn. The petitioners Pave produced photographs vide Amnexures- N / WI, N2. NS. "4 Py. Gt is stated, the brother of Sri.Muce tahanume e through G.P.A holder in Sy.No.26 of Bhoopasaridra Village huge builcing in the plot of land, Tworethe re also putting up construction re Sy No. 2 of Bhoepasandra Village. This indicates the 25¢ respondent BDA has no intention to implement the scheme, The petitioners case is reimthe de-notiication of land came to similarly Situated she be withdrawn scand "the \ order of withdrawing de-notification 18-cmuasned with liberty to the Government to examine the matter. tated, there is clear discrimination between the persons similarly situated and the action of the orima, facie aritrary.
18. The 29"respondent BDA filed objections to [A No.7? .contending, that the notification dated 77.10.1999 for de- » Rettication of the lands by the Government has been "with drawn by the Government in its order dated 27.46.2000 and WF was fled challenging the cancellation of de-notification without making BDA a and this Court has allowed the writ petition, reservin g hberty
---- Sees pees eyy pa , Doe anmeeceetete Yerlave fhe in ff ele :
to the Government to Pass appropriate orders astet atforcdi g spportunily to the petitioners therein'a nd the said rater. is. pending before the Government. The petitioner case is simular. The Governme nh had '7 oul cation dated 9.2.2001 for de-notification "of the petitioners' lands and thereafter, without "netice. to the: owhers, the Government issued an other 'oti fleation : c ated : 2 1.03.2001. The notifications were challenged by the land owners and the persons claiming to be "thé allottees in W.P.No.11761-
69/2001 and W 2001. This Court by Rs order dated 4.7.2001 quashed both the notifications and remitted the mattérto the Government WIL @ chirection to reconsider the matter after hearing all the persons ageneved 'The action of the respondents in implementing the scheme only i respect of the petitioners land is unjust, arbitrary, coscriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Mabe W.P.No. 1222/2603
19. The respondents No.4 to 25 claim to be allottees. The allotment proceedings have been done by respondent BDA during September 2000. The + alle ttées: clainr- to have deposited the amount. The preeeecdings have-taken
- Pa .. Wirerenyt place during the pendency of. BP. No: 2472/16 interim order was granted directing" £0 maint: ATH statt iS quo if respect of lands in Sy.Nos. 17, 253 and. 28 of Bhoopasandra Village vide order Gated PU(@.)99R and it was in force till 30.01.2001. The. entire akotmen i. procee dings are ilegal, contrary to law and inet iolation of. the hk nierum order 20, It ois" stated. "the pendency of this writ eriiaiion of the petitioners, the second petition, om the re respondent had passed resolution in subject No.2 19/2004 to 'afancding dispute amicably and the saic resorve. the:
resolution has-been communicated to the petitioners as per "Armezure-'V" Based on the said resolution, the petitioners _ and "the respondents 2 and 3 filed joint memo dated 24.30.2005 before this Court. The sum and substances of the "ee petitioners' memo dated 1.8.2005. It «ame to be challenged "by the, respondents 26 to 30. W.PLNG 1223 / 2003
settlement was that in an area of 9 acres and 6 euntas in three items of land, the petitioners gave up an extent of 4 oo acres and 13! guntas and retained an extent of 4 acres and:
32's guntas. oe While considering the joint. memo: the allottees > No Boned Lé., the respondents 4 to 201 -aised objection, To safe guard the interest of the allottees, the petitioners f led a memo dated 1.8.2005 as suggested by the learned, counsel for the BDA that the petitioners shall reia un the and. in Sy.No.] area of 3 acre Sand. 7 | guntas and : give up their claim in 98.295 and 28 of Bhoopasandra respect of a Motted area ". Syk Village and t B DA shi a provide l acre and 25'4 guntas of iand anallovted and undisposed m Sv.Nos.25 and 28 of Bhoopasandrs Phe petitioners retained total extent of q as. This Court passed an order dated 4 acres Arc 2.9.2005 disposing of the writ petition in terms of the ap "Sub -No. FL /2009 dated 28.29.2009 is order of the learned
22. it is stated, the matter was heard for-some. time on 28.10.2009 and having regard to the revised proposal made in terms of the memo dated 1-8 OOS, en the surbmission of the learned counsel for the resporiients 2 and 3 on 4.11,.2009 ypeltioners is being cam a _ my ey py bogey Hgts gy oeeas Llyes that the applicatian'. given... by -
processed for consideration. the. Court was pleased to erant } . = B time and the case was adiourned to 18.11.2009. The petition was listed oon. 6.1.20100. "The learned counse) for the respondents 2 and. submitted a memo prod ucing the resGrition dated. 28.2.2009 in Sub.No.71/20G09 wherein the 30.10.2004 has been resouuition in Se "withdrawn -as -per Annexure-"W', The resolution in arbitrary and > _ vs passed without apphcation of mind and wit wd e ont an Su opens Nat torent Seu banat pau 4 ct ste dad pot pe eo \ p 'a aa E to the petitioners. The nnpugned resolution at Annexure-"W' egal and cannot be sustained in law. No.9102-63/2003 was pleased to pass order dated. 15.4,.2805 wherein liberty has been reserved.to revive the matter in case > serene 'I be the compromise falls throu ugh for one.or other reason. he petitianers are taking st eps to revive the SLP. 24, it a8 stated, in respec a 'oft e jand in Sv.No.17 of Bhoopasandra viliage meastiring 3 and 7 guntas no award has beer passed within two vears from the date of publication of final notiticat: ion: uncer section 19 of the BDA Act. The respondents 2:and 3 claim that award has been passed 6n 22.2.1998 and approved on 7.3.1998. Therefore, it be is evident award 18 mot passed according to law within 2S petitioners have prayed for the reliefs claimed in the wil petition.
zo. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed statement. o! objections contending that the writ. petitiof 4S. wot maintainable. There is inordinate delay in filing. the Wit = petition and therefore, the writ "petition is liable to be aoe dismissed. The petitioners have fled several writ petitions, writ appeals and orginal suits against the respondents and the petitioners have not disclosed.the cerrect particulars and therefore, the writ, petition Js liable. to be dismissed. me 20, [bois stated, the. fends in Sy.Nos.25 and 28 of Bhoopasandra Bangalore North Taluk measurnng | oy acre 30 puntas and 3 acres and 9 guntas respectively have acquisition for a public purpose namely fer the forrmation of further extension of Rajimahal [i Slage bly Preliminary Notification No.A3 PR(S)3/SLAO/BDA- een issued and published in the Gazette on POOP LISTS. The notified khatedars are Kermpamma, ne re L Or | W/o.P.Anianappa, PLA janappa, S/fo.Chikkaputtappa. Final Ye notification was issued on 28.12.82. Smt.kempammea, and raat P.Anjanappa challenged the acquisition proceedings iy Wee No.16729-30/85. The said writ petition was dismissed on 19.12.1988, The claim for reconveyance was also rejected, ©
27. Suppressing the dismis al of t he wri f 'peti tion, the khatedars went on filling cases all ' rease's. against the BDA, In WoPLN 08.29933-34 / 2000, . - ' Si, Anjanappa and Smt.Kempamma_ have' raised a conten t fort that the scheme framed by the BDA Jas lapsed. This Court by its order dated 22 71.2000. has rejected the Sajid. contention. O.P.No 4093/2002 against the order passed in W.P.Nos.299535- ~ q bo Z se consequently, MP.
W.P.No. 1229/2008
29. It is stated, the petitioners have filed writ petitions 13806 & 143 8s 9/200) for quashing the notification iss: red by the Government and by order dated 4+.7.2001 the writ petition that. the lehds have vested with the BDA. The petitioners have fled writ appeals, in WLA.Nos.4866-67 /2001 which. Game 26.08.2002.
30. The penioners. ha O.5.No, 5061/2000. Inpunction, was. gras The BDA filed MFPAN6.S06G/2¢ dismissed an 24.01-2001.
R.P.No.251 /2002 allowed .N9.5069/2000 07.01.2003."
recarding substantial executio casmissed, to be dismissed on filed suit in ited on 23.10.2000.
appeal came to he "THe BDA filed Review Petition in on OF OF. 2003 and Was allowed orn Gis In view of the categorical finding in W.P.No.29933.- of the scheme and _ $Uppression of material facts, the writ petition is Hable to be she
32. itis stated that BDA has notified total extent of iG) acres and 33 guntas of land for formation of tne lavout, pam ?
Moe on peo ue ral fe rs ¥ fat Final notification he to an extenteof and 18 guntas. ut of 108 acres and 12. guntas of land a extent of 16 acres and 11 guntas has been ce ratified for, uuinsation of the land by the Cer tral Excise House Building Co-operative Society and they have already formed the layout + and the allottees have con structed the Rouse S. An extent of 7 acres and 1% guiitas has: beer: "de-notified in favour of K Javaiaksh Hamma and Venkataramana Charitable Trust for tne forme ation of favor ut an d the said Trust has already formed f en built by the allottees in the the layout ard houses have. be 14 acres Said layout end 39° gurtas. have not been included in the final notification. PDA has permitted Sri.Vinavaka House Building the layout and sites have been allotted to its members and houses have been built DAY has taken possession of lands measuring 61 acres and spa ' .
.
fated also formed roads to an extent of 8,000 runni ng fe roads are 40 feet width, An extent < of iand has been lef ING AWAICH Was existing then. IDA has s substantial arnount for the formation, oye fie POT uit on A and development of the lavout. "THe mayout has been formed ever and above 100 acres.a & BOA has not committed any dereliction of 4 uty 4:
33.
It is stated, several writ petitions and suits were fled in respect of ditt: ent Sy.Nos. and stay Was granted and itis only aiter.the diSposal af the cases, the BDA was able to Javoury, ot sa en oo che eayOul Ma fo Bangalore Mahana:
"Mahana:
oy Bb Poh eo eye fe legeay pray hones eat ay exes a Feuke has taken Lip cevclopment "elrotiees Haye i pul up residential 'Ssunstaniially execute scheme. Therefore, the o fated "he! respondents 2 and 3 have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
35. The respondents 4 to 17 have hled-their statement.
of objections contending that an adverusement..dated 4.7 2000 inviting applications for-allotmeni of sitesof various > dimensions in several layouts, inchiding 80 sites in RMV II Stage was made. The applicants sent thei Fr applications for allotment of sites alone wath. thes required remittance of ¥.44.400/- towards Initiah deposit.. The sites were allotted bY BDA on 11.9.2600- and ne apphcanis were sent individual! ietters of ahotment catec P2.9-2000 intimatin @ that respective sites mentionéd thertin ir RMV Il Stage, further Extension and 26 .0f Bhoopasandra Village) have been alotted-to them. ~ went to the layout and found that fat?
| forrmed layout with the sites allotted to them were in «& we wide roads and good drainage etc. The respondents 4 to 17 have made. fill payments. to BDA In respect of the sites allotied to them and most. of reeds Fhave bech executed in. them have raised loans. Sale .dee favour of Applicants 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 9.4,.12 and.13. Possession certificates and khatha certificaves,have been issued to them. Most of them have paid upte-date property taxes and are keen to build houses, --
aes wo, "Phe responder. No.) issued notification dated (1) of the L.A. Act 1894 9.2.2001 under Section 48. withdrawing from Bhoopasand nb bv igae 7 es, Sag genta other ~>alfotiees Government issued notification UI (gazetted on 22.03.2001) withdrawing its "notification dated 9.2. 2001. The first petitioner's father eAnjanappa and the 2 petitioner filed W.P.N OS.) 3006 / 200) s notification dated 21.03.2001. By a common order dated 4.7.2001, this Court quashed the order dated 21.03.2001 and aiso the nonfieatien avec:
9.2.2001 and it was affirmed by the.Du ision "Ber cl h.
gassing the order, the learned single dud s fem pawl quashing of the notification dated 9.2. 20! ae vill et come | the-meatter after the way of the Government hearing all persons aggrieved, if acompetent civil court grants é declaration that peo SSCSsion Was rah taken from the land owners in 1984. The matter was not-remitted to the State Government with a directiort to reconsider the matter after f hearing all the persons ageriéved, BO. TT is stated, immediately after the award was passed-on TOS 384, possession of the land was taken on 20,0, 0984 pursuant to the final notification vide annexure 'B' Challenging .the final notification, the petitioners filed Of198S and this Court by its order dated 19:2.1988, dismissed the writ petitions holding that the petitioners were not entitled for reconveyance of the land and a finding nas been recorded that award was mS 19.5. 1984 and possession was taken on 25.06.18 writ petitions challenging the sameoaccauisition preceedines and the order.has been confirrnéd in vee have been disposed o the Writ Appeal.
40, The petitioners filed Slut dn. SNo.1003/1988 for imjpunction against the PPA. Termporarv: injunction was eranted on 17 .G.i988 and @towas.in force mili G/1/1998. The suit was withdrawiron 6.1.1988.. | 4h. me. petitroners, fied WW P.Nos.29933-34/2000 challenging the preliminary notification dated 19.1.1978 and "Maer notiication, dated 28.12.1982 in respect of Sy.Nos.25 the wrib. petitions were dismissed. The contention of the title and possession in the year 1984 itself, tom Tere are mo coconut, ma sapota tree i¥ PuUPsery, pou ry farm or houses in the layout im survey No.25 as contended, by the petitioners. The photographs produce are misieading.- The scheme has not lapsed under sectan 27 of the Act. The lavout called RMV If Stage further exten sion has been formed and applications were invited for Alotment of sites and sites"
have been allotted. The alle LLees Hike-respon derite b 2 ve made full payments. There is no lapse, on! he 'part of BDA in executing the scheme. The reliefs claimed: ny the petitioners are barred by 'res udieata- and. the writ petition cannot be entertained ancl. there c petition is hable to be Cismissed.
42. Tine respondents 18 to 2O have taken similar stand like responde ¥ Ine learned counsel for the 4 mat-tne scheme has lapsed under section 27 a ~ Purther ise submitted that no lavo.t has be oy ¥ 4?
W385 considered oi the submitted that from produced by "the petitioners and the report of the Engineer, it is clear : tl BDA has not taken possession and corset uctions have come up. Further he submitted that de- nodification has. beet: dorie as per Annexures "D' to WU' and the lands of the petitioners are similarly situated. He also siiumitted that the' allotment of sites has been made durine the pendency of the writ petition which is-ilegal.. Purther he Submitted that in W.P.Nos. 1 1761-117 Mand other cases, de-notification a St ye fs us asda e a _ oot n tebe and withdrawing. of de "Hotification have been que direction that auashivigeot sotification dated 9.2.2001 will not » TReLEler been oe faa ht a o aan wet =) te an ped ry = ved a bo rs my = i oe Fomact ped rm o a an a = come in the wavo after. ne ariris: all i.the persons aggrieved, if a competent Civil ieclaration that possession was not taken from 'tne Jan' owners in 1984 and therefore, question of res. ot arise. Further he submitted that, the BDA "has allowed the others to go on with the construction in the ecquived land. He alse submitted that the petitioners are in age possession and physical possession has not been taken and nothing has been produced to show that physical possession oa i has been The Commissioner's report shows { hat. petitioners are in possession. Further ne submitted that in O.S.No.1003/1998, there was an order of si Aabas-quio and it was in force till the suit was wit hdrawn mn the year 1998 on the assurance that the BRA will Penn portioty of the land. Eee om Further he submitted that de "TLOTHIS ation" wais ordered and potb was withdrawn and it was i cand notification and the wi aio de-notification came to be quashed. «Further hee 'submit tec | that in O.S.No.506 1/2000 there was an order of rafun Calon in favour of the petitioners. The BDA filed apoe al in MEAN 0.9069 /2000 and it came to be The allottees filed review petition in Bf2001% "The BDA filed review petition in 2002 and it was allowed and consequently, MPA . I ~ Special Leave Petition was compromise, A joint memo dated 24.3.2005 was filed. It was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Courts. > ma a Hon/ble Supreme Court disposed of the S.L.P. s'a Poe 2G0s. with liberty to revive, if compromise fails. The BRA formed sites im Syv.No.17 and allotment intimation was sent to. the respondents + to 20. They. resistea. the «joint ~meme! Therefore, another memo dated. 01.08.2005 was filled by the petitioners. The writ petivon wes cisposed of accepting the memo dated 1.8.2005. The imple:
the order dated 2.8,.2605 in. W.AIN6.3115/2005. It came to be allowed and the writ petition wa@ restored.
44. Placing reliance "on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in ADR 1975 S.C. page 1767, the carned. counsel for the petitioners submitted that when possession of tae acquired land has to be taken, it must be 6 actual possession and not symbolic possession, "fa. Further placing reliance on the decision of this "Court reported in (2005) 2 KCCR page 1134, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that possession was not taken as laid down in Balavant's case and nothings. h gs. heen produced to show that possession was taken.
£ #6. Placing reliance on the decision'.of the: } on, 'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 7.SCC sage 555 and"
BA (2002) 3 SUPREME page 1. the. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that. the s S chemie: has ii has not been implemented within five years.
47, Placing. "reliance or the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.reportéed "ins (2010) ATR. SCW 1762, searned cottnsel for 'the. petitioner subn landowners who are similarly situated are entitled for similar + reatmeat fed the Stat ce Government cannot pick and choose the le are ios WHE rs, therefore, submitted that the writ petition may
49. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the challenge. acquisition dismissal of Further he submitted that the writ pe tition is he judicata and a clear abuse of the process Gf the:
aiso submitted that the. possession has beeir taken and notification under section : h as "been issued and therefore, the power un dor section" 38, cannot be exercised, He also submitte that the-allot meni of sites has been validly made and: the petit Gfers. cannot' question the allotrnent. Further he submitted" th atthe writ petition fled by the subsequent pu ehasers nas been dismissed. The scheme is wilh reverence to the entire land and rot individual land. agaunred, possession has been taken and ~ therefore, the restitution is not permussibie. The land can be ifor some other purpose. Further he submitted that the "resowltiorm in subject No.219/2004 dated 30.10.9004 was of law. Therefore, the mistake legal and withe tet WP No.l 222 / 2003 ified by subsequent resolution im subject No.7 1/2009 dated 28.2.2009 and Annexure-"W' V¥ does. mot call for interference. Further he submitted that thers, is délayein. filing the writ petition and therefore, the writ petition cannot | CER be entertained and the writ petition is liable to be dismis
50. Placing rehance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported int. (2006) 4 SCC page 683, the at learned counse! for the re spondent « Oendk S submitted that the issues raisecd' IW) EAs. Ww amc answered im the previous. proceedings and therefore, the writ petition cannot he entertained as it is barred res-judicata and clear abuse of the process of the Court. ~ Sb. Plactne relarice on the decision of the Hon'ble > Court. reported in 2010 AIR SCW page 3543, the ~jearned.counselfor the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that recuitarity has been committed in favour of an individual or up of cindividuals or a@ wrong order has been passed, the j :
WPING 1222/2003
others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior courts for repeating or multiplying the ill egality or irregularity or for passing wrone order. Placing reliance on the. decision Of "this. Cesurt reported in ILR 1989 Karnataka page 2299, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and-3 submitted that the land acquired by the Government cannot. be released by the BDA. The BDA is not competent te.de-n otty. The land acquired for BDA vested in the BISA and cannot be divested on the request of the owners. °.
93. Placing -relance. on-the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court reperted in AIR 1970 sc page 1576, the jearned courisel for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted after possession. he mand has vested with the "Government ane notification cannot be cancelled under Section 21 ofthe General Clauses Act nor the notification can "be withdrawn in exercise of power under Section 48 of the ™ : cae ryt a ee ae Placing reliance on Court reported ) AIR 2003 SC page 234, 'the iearmed counsel for the Lhe responder ia MLAS land vests with the Government and the land ask for restitution of possess} on sven OWTLGF Carnot.
he cand is not used for the purpose for which itwas acqiired a g rehance on "the deer of the Supreme Court reported. in AIR 2005 SC page 492. th learned counsel for the resporiden ts 2 an kdb ype BL onee the lanc a 3 submitted th d is accutired ay . HW vests with the Government a:
ane] cannot be re-conveved.or.re sed to erstwhile owners, that the hable to-be dismissed.
He learned counsel for O 16 to 38 and 20 submitted learned counsel f "
UALR "the petitioners Waaetly cae dyes as hey pl a or ee Purther he submitted that the res-juldicata and the matter is already was fled seeking to prohibit the Siate | and OIA Trom reconveying Sy.Nos.i7, [5 and 28 an favour. of che jana@ pen oh owners and the Court directed status- quo: The int: erim order was granted in aid of the tiain relieband it did not in any way bar the formation of lavout-or allotment of sites. He also submitted that menage have been ae "ep tired and vested with the BDA and BD, A thas fo rméd sites 'and allotted the sites in favour of the allorices i accordance with law and therefor e, the land ow Hers canjiot™.question the allotment. Tre petitioners .have no right: title they cannot question. the allotment. Further he submitted that the acgui sit Gon has beer upheld and the contentions raised by VT LIS writ petition have been considered and therefore, whit petition cannot be entertained and it is liable to be disniissed with exem Diary costs, WLPLNO. F222 £2008 OS. Tre jearned counsel for the respondents 11 and fo and the learned counsel for the respondents 21 40.7 ned coviasel for
3) adopied the arguments of the respondents 2 and &. oe o9. The learned counsel-for 1 the, res spon aiaee is 26 to SO°.
submitted that Annexure- setly justified and i does not call for interference, O60. | have carefuliv considered. the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. G1. The poms, that. arises for my consideration is, barred by res-judicata and the ge reliefs cleat med by the petitioners can be granted? * 62. it uscrelevant fo note the One petitianer and her ~pusband P...Anjanappa have approached this Court in & 16730/05 chalie the acquisition Prehminary and Final notification in respect ob Sy. Nos. 25 and 28 of Bhoopasansra vilage, Bangalore praver for reconveyance has been rejected. In para°Y ofthe Judgement, it is coserved as follows:
"iE is mot disputed thatethe acquiring authority 16 the State Governmént and not. respondent-2. The acquisition is only forthe benefit of the B.D.A. and it 'has been initiated and campleted - . is v © the 7 State Government. Te is - only. ; the -- State Government which ES ; competent to withdraw the. acquisition and if is mot open to the B. DoA to eXGrUise that power which is not-vestéd imat.under the Jaw. Thou eh the Wo-thie petitioners cannot resolution 13 take advantage. cf sucn a resolution, which has no binding cffect in law. The moment acquisition preceedings are completed,
-a@ward -passecd and possession taken, the G@COTIG yes body for whose benefit the State Government varried out the acquisition proceedings. 'Since there is no withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings by the State Le 49 Government, | am of the opinion that there iS mo force in the contention ¢ the © Nu petitioners that they are entitled ete. reconvevanice of their property on the hasis.. of the resolution stated to have been passed oy the BDA. lt may be added. that in" an number of writ petitions challe nging the :
Same acquisition noth 'aliens, this" Court : has consistently 4aken.@ similor VIEW dismissed the writ péutions>. One instance 16. to be. found. ap writ petition Nos. 4827 ig'48 330° of: 19 Bae 6S. fn WR Nea, 2508 34 £3000 the 2°¢ petitioner and her husband i, incest by power of attorney holder G, Rajan have chaileniged the acquisition proceedings in. Pe spect OF Sy Nos.25, and 28 of Bhoopasandra village. hey. Have sought for writ of mandamus and reconvevance wee nes been. rejected. In paras 11, 12, 13 _ ob serve "d as follows:
cismissed for non-disclosure of material facts. An impression is sot i@ht to be created an 50 WE im the petition that the entire extent of lands belongs to the petitioners. The resolu tion ; cated 1/12/1982 shows that 30 sites were. formed in Sv Ne purchasers from the petitioners, | disputed that the petitioners have sald. the' sites in these lands. Flence ~obviousts' the petitioners either do not-on nmoany D6 rion of : the said lands or awn only a osm all area.The petitioners have not. haw: over lisciosed the extent retained after gale 10.28) persons, The petitioners eanmnot therefore Seek any relief in regard tothe @ryure. extent of o¥.Nos.25 and.28 "Meas iri nego acres 39 Suntas. in Urey cannot seek reconveyance in the. @lienated extent of survey 226, On this ground the first praver 'is Hable to be reiected.
LZ. whe hrst praver is Hable to be " dismis SSE don the ground of fess and laches 178 and final notification dated 24/1982. The present petition is filed 18 ars after the final netification. In fact in pursuance of the said notification, award Bh WoPLNo. 1222 / 200.
Was passed on was taken on 3/ a notiiication dated 16/11/1984 Uraer. section 16(2) of the LA cannot challenge the acquisition, 18. + Tes Wea after Tmal declarationsand 16 taking of possession, The S: ipreme Court ww i Mumnic ipa Li Council, Abmre dt ager Vs. Shah Hyder Baig, (AIR 2000 SC 671) any délay in challenging. the Acqtsition is fatal to the ch allenge and after the award Is passed ane poss session of the dand is taken, resulting. investing ofthe land in the G Ov ernmeniy.a writ petition cannot be file g the aca wisi tion. The Supreme obser. ed as follows L "The equitable doctrine * Delay ; , _ i 1 the matter of erant of article 226 of the The diseretionary can be had provided one has 'not by his act or conduct given a gO~ by to us rights. Equity favours a than an indolent this being pe _ ase ee PP a gas Ee Pstignebarye, af tenet of law, the question of "hat og pa ssed~ in the resolution dated 24/10/1997. 9 Therefore. question of cirecting BDA to reconvey the - lands to petitioners does not arise, Furtt the resolution was for reconveyance to. the. actual purchasers of 30. sites _ anid petitioners. Therefore petitisners above fr '4. The petitioners fe contended that the BDA recbound: to execube a scheme by forming the layout within 5 vears from the date, of taking 'possession, failing which the scheme. will lapse under Sec.27 of BDA Act. 3/3/1984 and 16/5/1984 and "ever trot > vears have long expired no
-layout-awas formed in these lands and therefore Scheme for formation of extensian of Rajrmahak il Stage (Gokul i stage} has sed in respect of these jands under pec.27 of BDA Act. As noticed above, several ee
65. liigations have come in the way of fe imiplementation of the scheme. Petitioners themselves fied O.S.No.1003/1988 BDA on 17/3/1988 and that impunction continued 011 6/1/1988. Severalpurchasers' from petitioners filed). W.P!No:22043.. to 47/1999 were which withdrawn. only én 1/2/2000. The BDA has stated that there were Other htigation also including.a public interest petition in. iW P2024) which come in -the wa ys ob im plemverita tion of the i schem®, -.ifi fact'. the . purchasers have NPQ 204 327:
999 that BDA admittecdl. in engineering stalf were carrying out the work of road formation mithese lands. Hence the contention that'. the scheme has lapsed Sunder Sec. 27 of BDA Act is rejected."
The centention of the petitioners that the adijoinin yay ari _lands in Sy, Nos, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26 and 27 acquired under
----
tit oe a ¥ 'Same notification have been de-notified has been ered im para 2O of the Judement, which reads as "The petitioners eos contended that-the adjoining lands Le., P23). 24 = 26 and 27 acquired un der the very 'same.' notification have been denutified by. the State Government by ung notifications ~ £1904 3/1992. and #f/10/1999 withdrawing the sard lands frem acquisition, umder Section 48. of the Land the Governreent bo. with ay a ¥ acquisition of any land ofawhich: y posse ssioi 1 has net been taken, [ff '8 evident from Anmexure-C dated 16/1l {1984 'trav. the: possession of jand Nas.20, 21, 29 and ; {covered py the n otiications dated 8/5/199] and 27 / Pr Sec.tS) was not taken arid: state Government could » exercise power under Sec.48. In so far as petinoners' lands in survey nos. 25 and 28 are concerned, POSSESSION, Was taker in POSS and therefore there could be no de- it iS mext pointed out that in regard to Sv. No.27, possession of which has taken OV 3/3/1984. a with drawa i notincation under Sec.4S was 7/10/1999, Obviously, if Government mas issued oe withdrawing anv land, possession 'of which has already been taken), it is jie gal Tt is :
open to the petitioner to challenge the-sa me. Buton the ground that an iMegatity has been committed in favour of someone else, the petitioners .cannot claim: repetitidm of the Ulegalityv in 'their case {vide the decision of Supreme Court-in GURUSHARAN SINGH vs. ICIPALITY (ALR. 1996 SC NEW-DELE W.PNos.299233-34 /2000 this Na!
66. Therefare, it is clear i considered the contentions reg acquisition Court has proceeditigs; re-convevance and the scheme has lapsed under ee Sec.27 of the Act and has rejected it. 17 Jflecd review petition in C.P. Ne who Bad Rled W.P.Nos. 29933-2:
j Sea order dated G/4/2002 has rejected the Review Petition. The order passed in W.P.Nos.29933-34/2000 has becor me "fire al.
67. in WLP) Nos. 11761-11765, 11979-1195 Ge 200 i the.
allottees have challenged the noti! fication' dated 9/2/2001 withdrawing Sv.No.25 from acquisition..The land Owners Le, the 2°¢ petitioner herem and her AuSb and Anja ppa have chailenged the order dated 21 fod 2001 "withdrawing the on . " & notification dated 9/2 /2004- fee
68. The following. cuiestinns .Have been raised for consideration:
fa) Whether the. notification dated cor P2/ 200] -issued by the State Government a "under Section 4801) of the Land Acquisition Act,
7) "Whether the order dated 21/3/2001 pa ass sed by the Government withdrawing the notification dated 9/2/2001 is valid?
ara re reyes begs de] fb eae celebs -laseuccce mf rrnatadinntl m itis Court nas held that withdrawal of notification invalid and imoperative. The Bh, notincation dated 9/2/2001 and the order dated 2? 'been quashed. In para 28(c}, it is observed as fol ere! E "The aguashing of notification dated ~. i x lows:
in the wav ofthe State Government again reconsidering the. matter after hearing all persons who..are y Courts grants a declaration that possession s a8 A 7 an ae was mot taken froin the: laecd. cwners in L984",
70. Regarding taking of possession in paras 22, 24, itis observed. as follows:
Court.dismissed by order dated M2 Ths Court, "an-iwe occasions. has held .that 'possession was taken by the Rangalore Develooment Authority in the vear F984 -itself and the lands have therefore "vested ip the Bangaiore Development Autnoniv. The first occasion was when this Tey en pha / ° f Wit -Petition sdoby the landowners. The second 1ém this Court dismissed by order dated 22/11/2000, Writ Petitions Nos. agerieved thereby, Wf oa .competent Crd] | Be, LOOP SO or, 1985 challenging 5a Ra? Us Rie WoORPLNG.
29933-34 of 2000 fled by the land owners represented by one G. Rajan claimed ta, } their General Power of Attorney Holder}.
23. Even assuming that the land. owners claim that Writ Petitions Nes. 39933-34 of, 2000 were not filed with their ¢ onsénivar knowledge is correct, the faci remains that 9 decision has beer rendered by th AS Court 6n 2/11/2000 ened paul bet WP Nos, 29933. tf (2000 holding that the «lan ct hae. vested in the Bangalore be velopment Authority: in ine vear L984 itself and therefore, there can be noe denotifics iontum der Section 4811) of the Act.
taken into account, the position will be no .differeat as the-land owners had personally "ane directly filed Writ Petitions No. 16729- the very same exe quisition and those petitions were also dismissed on 19/2/1988 on the ground that passession of in the year 1954. Consequently, the fact that the "position, t HO lands had vested in the Bangalore Developrnent Author itv as lone back as 1984. ~ iS not open to question.
24. [f is contended that publication of a"
notification under Section 16/2) of the Lara. Acquisition Act does not irrebuttable Presumpnon. et Possession. had been taken. If that°is so, it 1S aw open to the land owners Wwe establish "and obtain an appropria. te @eclaration before a SSION, was not taken in Civil Court - cat DOSSE 1984 and it ¢ continy eS to be with'them. But, unt the le ke uh downers S are re able to so establish and "obte "En "Ssuch. "a deckar ation from a com petent "Court - the State Government wraw tne lands from Cannot ¢ obviou aly a a fa ~ :
ns oan acenisition. In fact in view of this ¢ r he State Government has rightly "withdrawn the withdrawal notification dated by order, dated 21/3/2001. Ir 'should."however be noted that should be proved by the land owners in a properly framed suit, is not that they are now in POSSsession, Out that possessian was not taken from them 16/5/1984. if possession was validly taken and land has vested in BDA, any su bsequent. unauthorised encroachment by landowners. or others will not enable exercise of power. under Sec.48(1) of LA Act. Farther, nothing Stated above shall k ) 7 Newt oh ~ COMeirued Bs a ATF Ae Landowners. to now fle a suit. Any such-stet willbe subject to challenge on mm etne ground of limitation maintainability, refudicatale%c,. a8 hat possession has' been 'taker. However, it is observed that the landewners can. / .
ustablishits a. properly framed suit that possession "vas not-taken "rem them on 3/3 /1984 and the State Government can reconsicer the matter Alter hearing the parties. cannot be-sdid that possession is not taken. Therefore, th So merit in the contention that possession was : and according Uniess the competent C "Court "deelar possession was not taken from landowners, the petilioners cannot contend that possession Was not taken, f2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in.. NAGABUSHAN, AEE Vs.STATE OF KARNATAKA AND. OTHERS deci 2j/2f2011 Civil Appeal No.1215/%1 has held that Principles of . res-judicata and constructive res-judicata apply to the writ sroceedinges, Any proceedings imitiated "in breach of the Principles of res judicata ig-wbuse ef the process of the Court.
73. In the present.case;.the petitioners have challenged the acquisition preceedinges- more than once. The acquisition proceedings have been. upheld.-The praver for re-conveyance nas been. rejected. The contentions regarding discrimination in de-notification and non-implementation of the scheme have ected, Phorefore, the petitioners cannot re-<
- ard ny + i = AS TEALEe Te been re matter. "The vrehefs claimed by the petitioners cannot be ranted and barred by res judicata.
isa tigation. Fhe"
74. {t is contended that allotment of sites im favour Of respondents-4 to 25 and G1 to 35 1s legal. According me bol he petitioners, the allotment has taken place uring. ire stafus-quo i the Division Bench had directed respect of the land in Sy.Nos.17, (295, cand 28 of Bhoopasandra village. [do mot. find. any "meré in this contention, for the reason, the | sheen acquired and sites have been fosmed and a@llatment has been made iF
-
accordance with "Rules ~The atlottees are put in easion certificates have been issued. The possession' Pos allottees have paid allotment charges. One smt. H. Manjula C had filed W.P..No.22472/98 by way of public interest er in the writ petition was to prohibit the resuondenis | dnd 2 Le. the State an d the BDA from Reo e "reconveving 'survey numbers 17, 25 and 28 in favour of the "landowners: The Interim order was granted in aid of the main ae it relief, There was no order restraining forming of sites or alfotrnents of sites. 'Sites have been allotted im accordance with Rules. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the allotment of sites is legal and accordingly it is rejected.
fS. Tt was contended that the. résolution 'in. Sub. > gpa Nol fOG Gated 28/2/2009 vice Annexure-"Wo is-dlegal and | contrary to law. I do not find anv merit in this contention, It is relevant to note, the resolution *< 1 GO/10/2004 in subject No.219/04 has--peen~ passed "by the second respondent to resolve the dispute and a joint memo dated 24/3/2005 has necrfiled in this writ petition. The allottees PRS have resisted the joint.memio. "Thereafter, the petitioners have fled memo dated 1/8/2005 which reads as follows:
"The petitioners most "Under:
nat an terms of the BDA Authority rT.
foe.
ae a:
~ Resolution dated 30/10/2004, in Resolutian cOMpromise petition is SubsNo.2 fied by the petitioners and BDA, ei poe ke oa pteey on ply ee re agreed terms, the Bo pecan a st
-
rat Ro 4 we a et im % petitioners to give up their claim in Sy.No.28 pean uaneeuasuanon att
-pelioners, without disturbing on an area of 3 acres 09 guntas and in Sv.No.17 an area of | acre 4 '> guntas (Total area 4 r a acres 14 (2 guntas} to BDA and in turn-the- BDA to give up them claim in Sy.No.25 an- area of 2 acres 30 guntas ancein Sv.No ivan = area of 2 acres 2 ': guntas (fotal area 4 acres G4 %s SuNLas).
3. That in view "of. the ~allettees- respondents, noteagreeaiie. far -allotment-of sites, made by BDA, the petitioners: agree to the suggestions made sy learned counsel for BDA to retaisy Sy.No.17 total areeof 3 acres 7 guntas and give up their claims in respect of alletted arte.
o OF sites ip Sy.
Nos.25 and 28 to BDA, and the. BDA- shall provide the z Dalance area fl ache 25 '% guntas) of land, being the ..tin-allotted, un-disposed of femaining areaoin Syv.No.25 and 28 to the "petitioners to make good the deficit area in "cerms..oF. the Authority Resolution, to the 7 ome he allottees --
respondents, so as to comply the Authority resolution. The petitioners undertakes to withdraw O.S. No.5061 /2000. \ ey AUS BG The petutioners humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate -- orders for compromise of the case, im the 7 above terms, in the interest of justice at Ss - equity." oe fo. This Court has passed order dated 2/8/2005. 1m. terms of the memo dated 1/8/200S filed-by-the petitioners The respondents and the writ petition has be ser: dispo 26 to 29 have « challengec | the ordes 'dated 278/2005 passed in W.PLNo. } 222 /03.° IW, A.No.31 15/05 the Disision Bench has allowed the writ ap en and rhe petition has been vs ms ot mi oe restored. In the roeanwiil le, the 24 respondent has passed the resolution in Sub.No 7 4/09 rescinding the resolution in sub. No.z19/04 om the ground that BDA had no authority to compromise the matter as the acquisition proceedings ha be 6 rico ri cl ude d.
. the _s the acquisition cannot be withdrawn. Reference can be madé to AIR 1970 SC page 1576 and AIR 2003 SC . pane 234 Therefore, when once the iand is acquired it vests with the authority and the acquisition cannot be withdrawn. Se ae cd The resolution passed in Sub.No. 219/04 was illegal, The 2rd respondent hag set right the mistake through «resolution dated 28/ No.7 1/09 and it cannat be said to. be legal. Therefore, there is no merit wy the contention. that the resolution dared 28/2 / accordingiy it is rejected,
77. The contentions raised py the petitioners in this writ petition have been consic idered. and: rejected in the previous proceedings. Th "refore: { he petitioners Cannot re-agitate the matter. The v rit Uon is barred by res judicata and the wae reliefs claimed bi athe™ petition TS cannot be granted. Therefore, theavrit pétitionisliable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Ne costs. Sd/-+ Ee Ju Sond Lr! Bss/->.