Karnataka High Court
Sri.R.Venkata Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8286
WP No.4934 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.4934 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. R.VENKATA RAJU,
S/O LATE RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
2. SRI. R. RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
3. SRI. R. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
4. SMT. INDRANI,
W/O SRINIVAS REDDY,
Digitally D/O LATE RAMA REDDY,
signed by
KIRAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
KUMAR R
Location:
HIGH 5. SMT. RADHAMMA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA W/O RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
D/O LATE RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
6. SMT RENUKAMMA
W/O SUBBA REDDY,
D/O LATE RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
PETITIONER NO.1 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8286
WP No.4934 of 2021
THALAGHATTAPURA VILLAGE,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560062
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.S.MALLIKARJUNAIAH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BENGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
BENGALURU-560020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RANGAPPA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. BASAVARAJA H.T., ADV. FOR R2 & R3.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 16.07.2018
ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY UDD DEPARTMENT VIDE
ANNX-K ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8286
WP No.4934 of 2021
ORDER
1. The petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Government on 16th July, 2019, by which the Government has refused to delete the land bearing survey No.16/1 from the purview of acquisition on the ground that an award had been passed in respect of the said land and possession was also taken.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they were the owners of land in Survey No.16/1 of Thalaghattapura village and being aggrieved of the declaration issued by the Bangalore Development Authority (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the BDA") proposing to acquire the said land for formation of further extension of Banashankari VI Stage, had approached this Court by way of writ petition No.924 of 2004. The said writ petition was clubbed with other writ petitions and was ultimately disposed of.
3. In the said order, in respect of persons who are seeking dropping of acquisition proceedings, the Court passed a direction in the following terms: -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:8286 WP No.4934 of 2021 "B-(i) All the petitioners who are the land owners/converted site owners (duly converted for non-agricultural use of land, in accordance with law), who are seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in so far as their respective lands/sites are concerned, on the ground that: (a) their lands are situated within green belt area; (b) they are totally built up; (c) converted for non-agricultural use; (d) garden and recognized nursery lands; (e) who have built hospitals, educational institutions and factories;
(f) who have not been served with the notice of acquisition; and (g) who are in doubt about the inclusion of their land in the notification are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their contentions within three months from the date of this order."
4. It is their contention that since their land was totally builtup, that was required to be deleted from the purview of acquisition. Pursuant to said order, the authority proceeded to consider the question of deleting the lands from acquisition and accordingly, in Subject No.118/2007 dated 25th June, 2007, resolved as follows in respect of Survey No.16/1 and 16/3:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:8286 WP No.4934 of 2021 12 vÀ®WÀlÖ¥ÀÄgÀ 16/1 1-14 0-34 ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ¸ÀÄvÀÛ®Æ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ, §qÁªÀuÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
13 vÀ®WÀlÖ¥ÀÄgÀ 16/3 1-13 1-13 F d«ÄãÀÄ UÁæªÀÄoÁtPÉÌ
ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ EzÀÄÝ
PÀlÖqÀUÀ½AzÀ PÀÆrgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ
»£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¢AzÀ
PÉÊ©qÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ.
5. As could be seen from the above, the BDA was of the view that lands in Survey No.16/1 and 16/3 were abutting the Gramatana and these lands comprised of buildings and therefore, in light of the order passed by this Court, they were required to be given up from the purview of acquisition.
6. However, the Government has refused to accept this recommendation of the BDA and has proceeded to pass the impugned order stating that an award had been passed in respect of this land on 20th December, 2003, which was also approved and possession of the lands were taken on 17th January, 2004 and as a consequence, it was impermissible to issue a notification under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:8286 WP No.4934 of 2021
7. The petitioners are aggrieved by this order and they put forth the contention that these 34 guntas of land in survey No.16/1 cannot be utilised for formation of any layout given the fact that it is an isolated pocket of land and is far away from the area in which the layout has been formed and as a consequence it would be impossible to form a layout in the said small extent of 34 guntas.
8. It is also contended that to the North of in Survey No.16/1 lay the Gramatana; to the South lay land bearing Survey No.16/3 which had been notified but the notification was quashed in writ petition No.6876/2021; to the East lay land in survey No.16/2 which had been given up from acquisition by not including in the final Notification dated 09.09.2003 and to the West there was park formed by BDA which is at the distance of 85 meters. It is therefore contended that it would be impossible for BDA to form the layout in this pocket of land since it would not have any access and the question of utilizing the same would be impossible.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:8286 WP No.4934 of 2021
9. Having regard to these contentions, this Court passed an order on 29th January, 2024 in the following terms:
"The case of the petitioners is that they own 34 guntas of land in Survey No.16/1 of Thalaghattapura village, Bangaluru South Taluk and that it is not abutting any layout formed by Bangalore Development Authority. It is also submitted that the BDA cannot form an independent layout in 34 guntas of land.
For that reason, learned counsel for the BDA and learned AGA are directed to state whether any layout formed by the BDA abut the land of the petitioners or not, if no, what is the distance from the nearest BDA layout to the land of the petitioners, minimum area that is normally acquired for formation of a layout by the BDA independently and whether similarly situated lands have been left out from acquisition by the next date of hearing."
10. Pursuant to the said order, a report has been filed by the BDA in which it is admitted by the BDA that no development work has been carried on and no sites have been formed in land in Survey No.16/1. In respect of the land abutting 16/1, it is stated as follows: -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:8286 WP No.4934 of 2021 3 Whether any vÀ®WÀlÖvÀ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.16/1 gÀ°è£À layout is formed 0.34 UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÀæzÉÃ;±À, HvÀÛgÀPÉÌ UÀzÁæªÀÄoÁt abutting to the ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ schedule land?
§qÁªÀuÉ gÀa¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ ¸ÀªÉð What is the distance to the £ÀA.16/2gÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀ«zÀÄÝ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É petition schedule ¸ÀASÉå:£ÀDE:750: ¨ÉA¨sÀƸÁé:2003 ¢£ÁAPÀ land to the BDA's 09.09.2003 gÀAvÉ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è nearest Layout?
ºÁUÀÆ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ §qÁªÀuÉ gÀa¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¢£ÁAPÀ 09.09.2003gÀAvÉ 01 JPÀgÉ 13 UÀÄAmÉ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀªÁVzÀÄÝ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ §qÁªÀuÉ gÀa¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£Àå ºÉÊPÉÆÃlð WP No.6876 of 2021 (LA-BDA) gÀ wæð£ÀAvÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 16/3 gÀ°è£À £ÉÆÃn¦üPÉõÀ£ÀߣÀÄß ¦nµÀ£Àgï µÀqÀÆå¯ï ¥Áæ¥Ànð ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ Quashed JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¥Àæ²ßvÀ d«ÄäUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ §qÁªÀuÉ gÀa¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ gÀa¹gÀĪÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄÄ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ d«Ää£À zÀQët ¢QÌUÉ 74.00 «ÄÃUÀ¼À CAvÀgÀzÀ°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ ¢QÌUÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ gÀa¹gÀĪÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ¥ÁPÀðUÉ 85.00 «ÄÃlgï UÀ¼À CAvÀgÀzÀ°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. H½zÀAvÉ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ UÁæªÀÄoÁuÁ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.16/2 EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
11. As could be seen from said report, to the North of land in Survey No.16/1 is Gramatana, which is not acquired; to the East is land in Survey No.16/2 which also has not been notified; to the West the land is deleted from the purview of acquisition as indicated in the sketch -9- NC: 2024:KHC:8286 WP No.4934 of 2021 accompanying the said report; and to the South, it is stated that acquisition of 1 acre 13 guntas of land has been quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6876 of 2021. It is therefore clear that the land bearing Survey No.16/1 measuring 34 guntas would be an isolated pocket of land and therefore, the question of BDA forming any meaningful layout would not arise. It is obvious that it is for this reason that the BDA, in its Resolution dated 25th June, 2007, had resolved to delete this land from the purview of acquisition. However, since the Government took a technical view that deletion of the land from the purview of acquisition was impermissible as possession was taken, the request of the petitioners has been rejected.
12. If the lands of the petitioners cannot be put to any use and having regard to the fact that it was notified to be a part of comprehensive layout, it is obvious that the acquisition of this particular land would serve no purpose at all. Therefore, I am of the view that the decision of the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8286 WP No.4934 of 2021 Government refusing to delete the lands from the purview of acquisition cannot be sustained and the impugned order, is therefore, quashed.
13. The BDA is directed to restore the possession of the said land in survey No.16/1 measuring 34 guntas to the petitioners. However, the possession of the land shall be restored only if the petitioners have not withdrawn the compensation said to have been deposited by the BDA in the Civil Court. If it is found that the petitioners have withdrawn the amount from the Civil Court, they will be entitled to seek possession only after they refund the entire award amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LNN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16