Karnataka High Court
Sri.Venkatarama vs State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.17925 OF 2016(LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI.VENKATARAMA
S/O. LATE M. G .VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC:SERVICE
R/AT NO.31 (24/136)
6TH 'A' CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
INDUSTRIAL WORKERS LAYOUT
SHANKARNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 096. ... PETITIONER
(BY SR.Y. T. ABHINAY, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
& URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M. S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
T .CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
-2-
T .CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020.
4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T .CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI.C. R. GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE
THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN RESPECT
OF THE REVENUE SITE/ LAND NO.31 FORMED OUT OF SY.NO.
91 OF J.B. KAVAL, MEASURING EAST TO WEST 40 FEET AND
NORTH TO SOUTH 30 FEET VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION
DATED 31.05.1963 AT ANNEX-B AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION
DATED 28.10.1971 AT ANNEX-C ISSUED BY THE THEN CITB
(PRESENTLY BDA- 2ND RESPONDENT) AS LAPSED,
ABANDONED AND NONEST AND NULL AND VOID AS PER
SECTION 27 OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ACT, 1976 AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 24(2) OF THE RIGHT TO
FAIR COMPENSATION & TRANSPARENCY IN LAND
ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION & RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013;
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority.
-3-
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the uncle of the petitioner had purchased a house site formed in the land bearing Survey No.91 of Jaraka Bande Kaval from its erstwhile owner V. Thimmaiah, son of late Venkatappa under a registered sale deed dated 07.03.1973 and after constructing a dwelling house he is residing there for the past 43 years prior to the filing of the petition. The petitioner's uncle is said to have died issueless and the petitioner claims to be the legatee under a registered Will whereby the property has been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner. The erstwhile City Improvement Board presently known as Bangalore Development Authority is said to have initiated acquisition proceedings vide preliminary notification dated 31.05.1963 and final notification dated 28.10.1971 under the City Improvement Board Act, 1945 and however, the land in question has not been taken physical possession in view of the same having been built up and though the scheme has been -4- implemented long ago, the petitioner has continued to remain in possession of the dwelling house that was constructed on the property in question and hence, seeks a declaration that the scheme has lapsed in view of Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, which would be applicable to the land in question and that the acquisition having been abandoned insofar as the petitioner's land, he seeks a declaration that it be so declared.
In view of the admitted circumstance that the scheme has been implemented substantially, the declaration that the scheme has lapsed insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned which is a small pocket of land which was originally acquired under the City Improvement Board Act would not be relevant. However, if the petitioner has continued in occupation of the built up area his case would have to be considered under Section 20 of the BDA Act and it would be appropriate that the petitioner's possession of -5- the property is regularized by collection of betterment tax. It is not denied by the BDA that there are constructions over the land in question. There are laconic denial of the assertion of the petitioner while indicating that merely because the mahazar and sketch drawn by the BDA shows some built up area existing at the time of acquisition would not entitle the petitioner to seek regularization as the acquisition is still in force. This assertion is not relevant. If the BDA has implemented the scheme long ago excluding the petitioner's land, it would therefore be in accordance with law if betterment tax is collected and the petitioner's occupation is regularized as the land is apparently given up from acquisition proceedings.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The Bangalore Development Authority to consider levy of betterment tax in respect of the petitioner's property to -6- the area occupied by the petitioner and on such collection of betterment tax, the petitioner's occupation of the land be regularized.
SD/-
JUDGE *alb/-