Karnataka High Court
Mr Marthand Singh Mahindra vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2025
Bench: Krishna S Dixit, M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.10090 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
MR. MARTHAND SINGH MAHINDRA
S/O LATE SURESH MAHINDRA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT AVALAHALLI ESTATE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU - 560 064.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
2
3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
4. THE SECRETARY
TO HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKAR
COMMITTEE, DR.SHIVARAMA KARANTHA LAYOUT
OFFICE OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMAR PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ADITYA VIKRAM, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SHIVAPRASAD M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2
TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE
ORDER/COMMUNICATION DATED 04.03.2023 PASSED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT COMMITTEE (SMS RECEIVED THROUGH VK-NVGJCC
I.E., NAVIGEM DATA) AS PER APPLICATION No. JCC-14-03867
WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY BEARING Sy. No. 70 MEASURING 13
ACRE 22.86 GUNTAS OF AVALAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT (SCHEDULE A PROPERTY) (ANNEXURE A
AND R2).
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
3
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following
prayers:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the
order/communication dated 4-03-2023 passed by the
4th respondent Committee (SMS received through VK-
NVGJCC i.e., Navigem Data) as per Application
No.JCC-14-03867 with respect to property bearing
Sy.No.70 measuring 13 acres 22.86 guntas of
Avalayhalli Village, Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore
District. (Schedule-A Property) (Annexure-A & R2).
(b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the
order/communication dated 12-04-2023 passed by the
4th respondent Committee (SMS received through VK-
NVGJCC i.e., Navigem Data) as per Application No.JCC
14-3862 with respect to property bearing Sy.No.66
(Part) measuring 3 acres 19 gutnas of Avalahalli
Village, Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore District (Schedule-
A property) (Annexure-A1 & R3).
(c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th
respondent Committee to regularize the petition
Schedule-A and B properties as they squarely come
within the parameters of the orders of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in MA 1614-1616/2019 in Civil
Appeal No.7661-7663/2018. (Annexure-C & C1).
4
(d) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the
rejection of application bearing No.JCC 14-03867 and
Application No.JCC 14-03865 filed by the petitioner
herein by the 4th respondent Committee is highly
arbitrary and contrary to the order dated 3-10-2020
and 5-05-2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in M.A. 1614-1616 of 2029 in Civil Appeal No.7661-
7663 of 2018 (Annexures C & C1).
(e) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the
Preliminary Notification dated 30-12-2008 bearing
No.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)SLAO/A5/PR/283/2008-2009
issued by respondent No.2, Bengaluru with respect to
property being Sy.No.70 mesuring 13 acres 22.86
guntas, Sy.No.69/2 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas,
Sy.No.73 measuring 2 aces 33 guntas, Sy.No.72/1
measuring 28 guntas Sy.No.72/4A measuring 1 acre
19 gutnas and Sy.No.72/4B measuring 1 acre 16
guntas of AvalahalliVillage,Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore
District (Annexure-B).
(f) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Final
Notification dated 30-10-2018 bearing No.UDD/553/
MNX/2018, Bengaluru issued by respondent No.2 with
respect to property bearing Sy.No.70 measuring 13
acres 22.86 guntas, Sy.No.69/2 measuring 2 acres 20
gutnas, Sy.No.73 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas,
Sy.No.72/1 measuring 28 guntas, Sy.No.72/4A
measuring 1 acre 19 guntas and Sy.No.72/4B
measuring 1 acre 16 guntas of Avalahalli Village,
Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore District (Annexure-B1).
(g) Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in
facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice and equity."
5
The prayers are in effect seeking quashment of rejection of the
claim of the petitioner for dropping his lands from acquisition.
2. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri Aditya Vikram, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and
Sri Shivaprasad M.Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 2 to 4.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner is said to be the owner of several properties as
are found in the prayers afore-quoted. The acquisition of properties
of the petitioner would go this way. On 16-07-1974, the father of
the petitioner through registered sale deeds purchases several
packets of lands totally measuring 91 acres 34 guntas including
lands in Sy.No.70 measuring 13 acres 22.86 guntas; Sy.No.66
(Part) measuring 3 acres 19 guntas; Sy.No.69/2 measuring
20 guntas and Sy.No.73 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas of
Avalahalli Village. After the said purchase, the father of the
petitioner obtains a registration certificate of the Broadacres Stud
Farm from the Government of India in the Ministry of Fisheries,
6
Animal Husbandary and Dairying in the year 1982. It is being
renewed from time to time and periodic returns are also filed before
the Ministry as per the relevant guidelines. In the year 2001, the
petitioner obtains a certificate certifying that Broadacres Stud Farm
is a registered stud farm under the Stud Book Authority of India.
On 19-03-2004, the petitioner under a registered sale deed
purchases lands in Sy.No.72/4B measuring 1 acre 16 guntas in
Avalahalli Village. The petitioner again purchases certain
lands in Sy.No.72/1 of the same village measuring 1 acre 19
guntas and another packet of 28 guntas. In all, in the lands
mentioned herein, the petitioner is said to be running a stud farm
with several building in the land.
4. When things stood thus, the Bangalore Development
Authority ('BDA' for short) issues a preliminary notification under
Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976
seeking to acquire several packets of lands for the formation of
Dr. K.Shivaram Karanth Layout. The preliminary notification comes
to be issued on 30-12-2008. Objections were called from all the
stake holders. The petitioner is said to have filed his objections.
7
Pending consideration of objections, several developments took
place. The Department of Urban Development of the Government
of Karnataka communicates to the BDA that 57 acres and 15 guntas
of lands in several survey numbers of Avalahalli Village have been
deleted from acquisition and necessary steps be taken for
conversion of lands. The BDA issues a commencement certificate in
respect of subject properties after the change of land use from Park
and Open spaces to residential. The property has been used both
for residential purposes and breeding and training of horses and the
Schedule-B properties are utilized for the purpose of horse grazing,
training, riding exercises inter alia. The petitioner is said to have
been providing employment, accommodation and livelihood to
about 40 families. The petitioner then applies for sanction of plan
for setting up suitable sheds in the property including residential
quarters. All these happen during the period when the acquisition
by the BDA for formation of layout was under challenge. The
challenge leads to the Apex Court. The Apex Court directs issuance
of final notification in terms of its order dated 30th October, 2018.
8
5. Pursuant to the order of the Apex Court, several
applications come to be filed before the Apex Court seeking that
their properties may be dropped from acquisition. It is then, a
three Member Committee headed by Justice A.V. Chandrashekar
comes to be formed to consider cases of those persons, whose
lands were sought to be dropped from acquisition after thorough
procedure of inspection.
6. After constitution of the Committee, the petitioner submits
a representation seeking dropping of his lands from acquisition.
What comes about is a message, that the application of the
petitioner has not been considered by the Apex Court. The
communication formed fulcrum of the lis.
7. The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing for
the petitioner would take this Court through the documents
appended to the petition as also the orders passed by the Apex
Court from time to time, all of which would unequivocally depict
that structures in the lands that have now become subject matter
of acquisition should be protected and the lands surrounding the
structures as far as possible, if they are not necessary also should
9
be dropped from acquisition. The learned senior counsel would
submit that detailed objections by way of representations were
preferred before the Committee. The Committee does not look into
any aspect of structures being in place, but opines that there
cannot be residential activity in a stud farm. Therefore, the
Committee declines to regularize the lands surrounding the stud
farm. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that several
approvals are granted place between 2008 and 2018 and are
completely ignored by the Committee. The learned senior counsel
would, therefore, submit that it is necessary to consider dropping of
lands of the petitioner from acquisition as is done in the case of
others. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment
rendered by this Bench in the case of N.C. BASAVARAJU V.
STATE OF KARNATAKA1.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Shivaprasad M.
Shantanagoudar representing respondents 2 to 4 / BDA would
vehemently refute the contentions to contend that the stud farm is
no doubt present but the construction is at intermittent distances
1
Writ Appeal No.1412 of 2021 decided on 13th December, 2024
10
and not a contiguous construction for the entire thing to be
dropped. It is his submission that the Committee has looked into
everything, conducted inspection and has submitted its report
before the Apex Court. Therefore, the petitioner has no merit in the
contention that his lands should be dropped.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the material on record.
10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Father of the
petitioner purchases huge packets of lands in several survey
numbers of Avalahalli Village, is a matter of record. The father of
the petitioner then takes a registration certificate to run Broadacres
Stud Farm. The registration certificate is issued on 23rd August
1982 from the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and
irrigation, which is as follows:
11
and the latest renewal is issued on 03.06.2022, it reads as follows:
"F.No.484-1/2016-Equine (Reg.)
Registration Serial Number: 274 Dated: 03/06/2022
REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that M/s Broadacres Stud Farm,
located at Off Doddaballapur Road, Behind CRPF Camp,
Avalahalli Estate, Yelahanka post, Bangalore- 560064,
Karnataka has been registered with the Government of India,
Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying,
Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi for a period of 05 years (five years) w.e.f.
03/06/2022 to 02/06/2027 unless revoked earlier.
2. Earlier Registration Certificate No. 484-1/2016/Equine
(Reg.) dated 03-04-2017, Serial Number: 238 issued by this
Department hereby stands cancelled with immediate effect.
12
3. M/s Broadacres Stud Farm shall submit periodic returns to
this Department regularly and comply with the instructions
issued by this Department from time to time.
4. It is hereby informed that non-compliance of the above-
mentioned conditions/directions or non-submission of
periodic returns would entail Cancellation of Registration and
withdrawal of Registration Certificate without any prior
notice.
Sd/-
(Dr.H.R.Khanna)
Joint Commissioner (NLM) & Registrar, Equine Stud Farm
Registration
#011-21401458
To,
M/s Broadacres Stud Farm,
Off Doddaballapur Road, Behind CRPF Camp,
Avalahalli Estate, Yelahanka post,
Bangalore-560064, Karnataka
Ph: 080-285622544
E-mail address: [email protected]"
The petitioner acquires certain other packets of lands after him
coming into picture on 19-03-2004 and 30-09-2004. On
30-12-2008, a preliminary notification comes to be issued by the
BDA seeking to acquire certain lands for the purpose of formation of
Dr. K.Shivaram Karanth Layout. After the BDA issues the
preliminary notification, a communication comes about from the
13
BDA dropping certain lands from acquisition in Avalahalli Village.
The communication is as follows:
"ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರ
¸ÀASÉå: £ÀE/332/¨ÉAC¸ÉÃ/2008 ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರದ ಸ ಾಲಯ,
ಾಸ ೌಧ,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು, ಾಂಕ: 13/02/2009.
ಇವ ಂದ:
ಸ ಾ ರದ ಪ !ಾನ ಾಯ ಧ# ,
ನಗ$ಾ%ವೃ ' ಇ(ಾ)ೆ,
ಾಸ ೌಧ,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
ಇವ *ೆ:
ಆಯುಕ,ರು,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅ%ವೃ ' .ಾ / ಾರ,
0ಾನ1$ೆ,
ಷಯ: ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತ,ರ 5ಾಲೂ7ಕು,
ು ಯಲಹಂಕ 9ೋಬ<,
9ೋಬ< ಆವಲಹ<=,
ಆವಲಹ<=
UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA:66 gÀ°è£À 19 JPÀgÉ 06, 69/1gÀ°è£À 2 JPÀgÉ 09,
UÀÄAmÉ, 69/2 gÀ°è£À 2 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ 70 gÀ°è£À 18 JPÀgÉ 10
UÀÄAmÉ, 71 gÀ°è£À 6 JPÀgÉ 21 UÀÄAmÉ, 73 gÀ°è£À 2 JPÀgÉ 15 UÀÄAmÉ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁªÀÄUÉÆAqÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.18(¦) gÀ°è£À 6 JPÀgÉ 05
UÀÄAmÉ MlÄÖ 57 JPÀgÉ 16 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ
ಅ/ಸೂಚ ೆ?ಂದ ೈAಡುವ ಬ*ೆC.
***
DೕEನ ಷಯ ೆF ಸಂಬಂ/Gದಂ5ೆ, # ೕ 0ಾxÁðAಡ GಂH ಮJೕಂKೆ ಇವರು -
0ಾನ1 ಮುಖ1 ಮಂM ಯವ *ೆ ಸE7Gರುವ ಮನ ಯ ಪ MಗಳನುN ಇದ$ೊಂ *ೆ ಲಗM,GKೆ.
Kೆ
ಷಯ 'ಸOಯಂ
ಸOಯಂ ೇದ1 ಾPKೆ.
ಾPKೆ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತ,ರ 5ಾಲೂ7ಕು,
ು ಯಲಹಂಕ 9ೋಬ<,
9ೋಬ< ಅವಲಹ<=
*ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೆ ನಂ.66
ನಂ ರE7ನ 19. ಎಕ$ೆ 06 ಗುಂಟ,
ಗುಂಟ 69/1gÀ°è£À 2 JPÀgÉ 09 UÀÄAmÉ 69/2
gÀ°è£À 2 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ, 70 gÀ°è£À 18 JPÀgÉ 10£À UÀÄAmÉ, 71 gÀ°è£À 6 JPÀgÉ 21 UÀÄAmÉ, 73
gÀ°è£À 2 ಎಕ$ೆ 15 ಗುಂRೆ ಮತು, $ಾಮ*ೊಂಡನಹ<= *ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೆ ನಂ.18(S
ನಂ S) ರE7ನ 6 ಎಕರ
14
05 ಗುಂಟ ಒಟುU 57 ಎಕ$ೆ 16 ಗುಂRೆ ಜWೕನುಗಳನುN .ಾ ಥWಕ ಅ/ಸೂಚ ೆ?ಂದ ೈAಡಲು
ಸ ಾ ರದ ಅನುYೕದ ೆ Zೕಡ(ಾPKೆ ಎಂದು M<ಸಲು ಾನು ZKೇ #ತ ಾPKೆ[ೕನ.
ನ
ಮುಂದುವ$ೆದು, ಪ #Nತ ಜWೕನಗಳ ಭೂ ಬದ(ಾವ]ೆ ಬ*ೆC Zಯ0ಾನು ಾರ
ಪ 5ೆ1ೕಕ ಾP ಪ ಾ,ವ ೆ ಮಂ^ಸಲು ೋರ(ಾPKೆ.
Zಮ_ ನಂಬು*ೆಯ,
¸À»/-
13.02.2009
(ಎಂ.ಎ`. .ೆ ೕಮಚಂದ )
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢Ã£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð
ನಗ$ಾ%ವೃ ' ಇ(ಾ)ೆ."
(Emphasis added)
Most of the lands of the petitioner were included in the said
communication. After dropping of lands from acquisition, the BDA
issues a commencement certificate in favour of the petitioner. The
commencement certificate is issued on 09-04-2010, by the BDA for
construction of building. It reads as follows:
"¸ÀASÉå: ¢£ÁAPÀ:
¨ÉAC¥Áæ:£ÀAiÉÆøÀ:¹J¯ïAiÀÄÄ:276/09-10/112/10-11 9/4/10
No.: Date:
.ಾ ರಂ%ಕ ದೃbೕಕರಣ ಪತ
ಷಯಃ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತ,ರ 5ಾಲೂ7ಕು, ಯಲಹಂಕ 9ೋಬ<, ಆವಲಹ<= *ಾ ಮದ
ಸ ೆ ನಂ. 66(p), 69/1, 69/2, 70, 71, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 73 gÀ°è£À 51 JPÀgÉ
11 UÀÄAmÉ (207500.84 ಚ.Wೕ) G,ೕಣ ದ ಪ KೇಶವನುN
15
ಉKಾ1ನವನ ವಲಯ ಂದ ವಸM ಉಪfೕಗ ೆF ಭೂ ಉಪfೕಗ
ಬದ(ಾವ]ೆಯನುN # ೕ 0ಾ5ಾಂ gGಂH ಮJೕಂದ ರವರ ಪರ ಾP
0ಾಡುವ ಬ*ೆC.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24.03.2009 gÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ.
2. ೆಂಅ.ಾ ದ" ಸWM ಸhೆಯ ಠ$ಾವj ಸಂ)ೆ1 159/2009, ಾಂಕ
09.09.2009 gÀ ¤tðAiÀÄ.
3. ಈ ಕlೇ ಯ ಪತ ಸಂ)ೆ1 ೆಂಅ.ಾ ನfೕಸGಎmಯು: 276/08-
09/2122/09-10, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 6.10.2009.
4. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಆKೇಶ ಸಂ)ೆ1 ನಅಇ 254 ೆಂC ೇ 2009, ೆಂಗಳ ರು,
ಾಂಕ 08.02.2010.
5. ಈ ಕlೇ ಯ ಪತ ದ ಸಂ)ೆ1 ೆಂE.ಾ ನfೕಸ: Gಎm
ಯು:276/08-09/4152/2009-10 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 26.2.2010 gÀ
ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 12.3.2010 ರE7, ೆನ$ಾ
ಾ1ಂn ಚಲo ನಂ.18209 ರ ಮೂಲಕ ಸಂKಾ?Gರುವ
ಉತ,ಮ5ೆ ಶುmಕ ರೂ. 41,50,017/-, ಪ #ೕಲ ಾ ಶುಲF .
gÀÆ.1,03,750/-, ¥ÀÆuÁðAPÀPÉÌ gÀÆ. 33/- MlÄÖ gÀÆ.
42,53,800/-ಅನುN ಸಂKಾ?GರುವjದನುN (ೆ ಾF/ ಾ ಗಳp
ಾಂಕ 24.3.2010 ರಂದು ಪ #ೕEGರು5ಾ,$ೆ.
ಅr Kಾರರ ಪ ಾsವ ೆಯನುN ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು, *ಾ ಮ fೕಜ ಾ ಾt[ 1961
ರ ೆuo 14(ಎ) ರ^ ಪ #ೕEG, ಷಯವನುN ಾಂಕ 09.09.2009 ರಂದು ಜರುPದ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅ%ವೃ ' .ಾ / ಾರದ ಸWM ಸhೆಯ ಮುಂKೆ ಮಂ^ಸ(ಾPತು,. ಸWM ಸhೆಯು
ಷಯ ಸಂ)ೆ1 159/2009 ರ^ ಷಯವನುN ಚ G, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತ,ರ 5ಾಲೂ7ಕು, ಯಲಹಂಕ
9ೋಬ<, ಅವಲಹ<= *ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೆ ನಂ.
ನಂ 66/(p), 69/1, 69/2, 70, 71 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 73 gÀ°è£À 51
JPÀgÉ 11. UÀÄAmÉ (207500.84 ZÀ.«ÄÃ) G,ೕಣ ದ ಪ KೇಶವನುN ಉKಾ1ನವನ ವಲಯ ಂದ
ವಸM ಉಪfೕಗ ೆF ಭೂ ಉಪfೕಗ ಬದ(ಾವ]ೆ 0ಾಡಲು ಒSv ಪ ಾsವ ೆಯನುN ಸ ಾ ರದ
ಅನುYೕದ ೆ*ೆ ಸE7ಸುವಂ5ೆ Mೕ0ಾ ZGರುತ,Kೆ.ೆ ಅದರಂ5ೆ ಪ ಾ,ವ ೆಯನುN ಉ(ೆ7ೕಖ (3) ರಂ5ೆ
ಸ ಾ ರ ೆF ಸE7ಸ(ಾP ಸ ಾ ರವj ಆKೇಶ ಸಂ)ೆ1 ನಅಇ 254 ೆಂC ೇ 2009, ಾಂಕ
08.02.2010 ರಂದು DೕಲFಂಡ ಪ KೇಶವನುN ಉKಾ1ನವನ ವಲಯ ಂದ ವಸM
ಉಪfೕಗ ಾFP ಭೂ-ಬದ(ಾವ]ೆ*ೆ
ಭೂ ಬದ(ಾವ]ೆ*ೆ ಅನುಮM Zೕ^ರುತ,Kೆ.ೆ
DzÀÝjAzÀ F §UÉÎ G¯ÉèÃR (5) gÀ°è w½¹gÀĪÀ ±ÀÄ®ÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£Á PÁAiÉÄÝ 1961 gÀ ¸ÉPÀë£ï 15(1) gÀAvÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
16
GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ºÉÆç½ CªÀ®ºÀ½î ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 66/(p), 69/1, 69/2, 70, 71,
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 73 gÀ°è£À 51 JPÀgÉ 11 UÀAmÉ (207500.84. ZÀ.«ÄÃ) «¹ÛÃtðzÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß
GzÁå£ÀªÀ£À ªÀ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ªÀ¸Àw ಉಪfೕಗ ೆF ಭೂ ಉಪfೕಗ ಬದ(ಾವ]ೆ 0ಾಡಲು ಈ
ೆಳಕಂಡ Zಭಂದ ೆಗ<*ೊಳಪಟುU,
ೆಗ<*ೊಳಪಟುU ಅನುಮತ Zೕಡ(ಾPKೆ.
Zೕಡ(ಾPKೆ
1. ಪ ಾ,Sತ ಪ Kೇಶದ ವಸM ಉಪfೕಗದ ಕಟUಡ ನwೆಯನುN ಬೃಹx
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಮ9ಾ£Àಗರ .ಾE ೆ?ಂದ Zಯ0ಾವ< ಅನು ಾರ ಮಂಜೂರು
0ಾ^G ೊಳp=ವjದು.
2. ಪ ಾ,Sತ ಪ Kೇಶದ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಾP ತಪjv 0ಾJM Kಾಖ(ಾMಗಳನುN Zೕ^ದE7
ಅr Kಾರ$ೇ 9ೊ]ೆ*ಾರ$ಾಗುವjದಲ7Kೇ ಭೂ ಉಪfೕಗದ ಆKೇಶ
ರKಾ[ಗುತ,Kೆಂದು M<ಯುವjದು.
3. ಅಗತ1ಕFನುಗುಣ ಾP ಅರಣ1 ಮತು, ಪ ಸರ ಇ(ಾ)ೆ, hಾರತ ಸ ಾ ರ ರವರ
ಅ/ಸೂಚ ೆ ಸಂ)ೆ1 S.O. No. 801(E), ಾಂಕ 07.07.2004 ರಂ5ೆ
ಪ ಾ,ವ ೆಯ ಬ*ೆC Z$ಾwೇಪ]ಾ ಪತ ಪyೆಯತಕFದು[,
4. ಕ ಾ ಟಕ $ಾಜ1 0ಾEನ1 Zಯಂತ ಣ ಮಂಡ<ಯ ಪತ ಾಂಕ
09/17.08.2004 ರE7ನ ಷರತು,ಗಳನುN .ಾEಸತಕFದು[ 9ಾಗೂ ಮzೆ Zೕ ನ
ಸಂಗ ಹ]ೆ*ೆ ವ1ವ ೆs ಕEvಸತಕFದು[.
5. ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅ%ವೃ ' .ಾ / ಾರ: ಸuಮ .ಾ / ಾರ /ಸುವ ಇZNತರ
Zಭಂದ ೆಗಳನುN .ಾEಸತಕFದು[.
(ಕರಡು ಪತ ಆಯುಕ,ರವ ಂದ
ಅನುYೕ ಸಲv{UKೆ)
¸À»/-
09/04/10
ಆಯುಕ,ರ ಪರ ಾP,
ೆಂಅ.ಾ , ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
ಇವ *ೆ
# ೕ 0ಾ5ಾಂ gGಂH ಮJೕಂದ ರವರು,
ಆವಲಹ<= ಎ ೆUೕ|,
17
ಆವಲಹ<= *ಾ ಮ, ಯಲಹಂಕ 9ೋಬ<,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು."
(Emphasis added)
After this, the Deputy Commissioner issues an order converting
lands from agriculture to residential purposes. The order of
conversion reads as follows:
"ಕ
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರ
ನಂ: ಎಎmಎo (ಎo.ªÉÊ) ಎ`ಆ} 57/2010-11 r(ಾ7/ ಾ ಗಳ ಾ~ಾ ಲಯ,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು r(ೆ7
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.10.2010.
ಅ / ಕೃ ತ •ಾ ಪ ನ
«µÀAiÀÄ: ೆಂಗಳ ರು r(ೆ7, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತ,ರ [ಅಪರ} 5ಾಲೂ7ಕು, ಯಲಹಂಕ 9ೋಬ<,
ಆವಲಹ<= *ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೆ ನಂ : 66ರE7 16-28 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ, ಸ ೆ ನಂ : 69/1gÀ°è 2-09
JPÀgÉ/UÀÄAmÉ & -06 UÀÄAmÉ J RgÁ§Ä ¸ÉÃj 2-15 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ, ಸ ೆ ನಂ : 69/2ರE7 2-
24 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ & 0-06 ಗುಂRೆ J RgÁ§Ä ¸ÉÃj : 2-32 JPÀgÉ / UÀÄAmÉ: ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA:70 gÀ°è
18-10 JPÀgÉ / ಗುಂRೆ, ಸ ೆ ನಂ : 71ರE7 6-21 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ, ಸ ೆ ನಂ : 73ರE7 2-15
ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ ಒಟುU 48-39 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ,. G,ೕಣ ದ ವ1ವ ಾಯದ ಜWೕನನುN
ವ1ವ ಾtೕತರ, ಾಸದ ಉKೆ[ೕಶ ೆF ಭೂ ಪ ವತ ೆ, ೋ # ೕ 0ಾ5ಾಂ g GಂH ಮ9ೇಂದ
ಆವಲಹ<= ಎ ೆUೕ|, ಆವಲಹ<= *ಾ ಮ, ಯಲಹಂಕ 9ೋಬ<, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ರವರು ಸE7Gರುವ
ಅr ಾಂಕ : 13.7.2010.
ಉ(ೆ7ೕಖ : 1. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಸು5ೊ,ೕ(ೆ ಸಂ)ೆ1 : Dgï^ 7 ಎmrS 1995, ಾಂಕ :
7.6.1999.
2. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಸು5ೊ,ೕ(ೆ ಸಂ)ೆ1 : ಆ}^ 56 ಎmrS 2008, ಾಂಕ : -
10.9.2008 & 24.9.2008. :
3. ತಹ#ೕ(ಾ[}, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತ,ರ [ಅಪರ] 5ಾಲೂ7ಕು, ೆಂಗಳ ರುರವರ
ವರ ನಂ : ಎಎmಎo ಎ`ಆ}-21/2010-11, ಾಂಕ- :
23.7.2010..
18
4. ಭೂ ಪ ವತ ಾ ಶು®Ì ರೂ. 26,66,689-00 ಎ ಖ$ಾಬು €ಮ_ತು, ರೂ.
18,00,000-00 9ಾಗೂ •ೕ^' ಶುಲF ರೂ. 330-00 ೇ ಒಟುU ರೂ.
44,67,019-00 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÀ®£ï ¸ÀA¼Éå : 7124; ¢£ÁAPÀ :
25.9.2010 gÀAvÉ ಖ‚ಾ ೆ*ೆ ಅr Kಾರರು ಜ0ಾ 0ಾ^ರು5ಾ,$ೆ.
5. ಆಯುಕ,ರು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅ©üವೃ ' .ಾ / ಾರ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಇವರ ಪತ
ಸಂ)ೆ1 : ೆಂಅ.ಾ ನfೕ£À Gಎ¯ïಯು 276/2009-10/12/2010-
11, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 9.4.2010.:
6. ಆಯುಕ,ರು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅ%ವೃ ' .ಾ / ಾರ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಇವರ ಪತ .
ಸಂ)ೆ1 : ' ೆಂಅ.ಾ ನfೕಸ 2052/1864/2008-09, ಾಂಕ. :
20.10.2008.
*****
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂKಾಯ ಅ/Zಯಮ 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 95[2], 95[4] ಮತು, 95[7] ರ
ಷರತು,ಗಳp, 9ಾಗೂ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಷರತು,ಗ<*ೊಳಪ^G ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂKಾಯ (Mದು[ಪ^)
Zಯಮಗಳp 1994ರ Zಯಮ 107[1]. ರಂ5ೆ ಎಕ$ೆ ಒಂದ ೆF ರೂ 54,450-00 [ಐವತು, ಾಲುF
ಾ ರದ, ಾಲುF ನೂರ ಐವತು, ರೂ. ಗಳp 0ಾತ ] ಗಳಂ5ೆ ಅr Kಾರರು ಉ(ೆ7ೕಖ [4] ರE7
ನಮೂ Gರುವಂ5ೆ ಹಣವನುN ಜ0ಾ 0ಾ^ ಚಲoನುN 9ಾಜರು ಪ^Gರುವ Dೕ$ೆ*ೆ
ಅr Kಾರ$ಾದ # ೕ 0ಾ5ಾಂ g GಂH ಮ9ೇಂದ ಆವಲಹ<= ಎ ೆUೕ|,
ೆUೕ| ಆವಲಹ<= *ಾ ಮ,
ಮ
ಯಲಹಂಕ 9ೋಬ<,
9ೋಬ< ೆಂಗಳ ರು ರವರ ಅr ಯನುN ಪ ಗ...G ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತ,ರ [ಅಪರ
ಅಪರ]
ಅಪರ
5ಾಲೂ7ಕು,
ು ಯಲಹಂಕ 9ೋಬ<,
9ೋಬ< ಆವಲಹ<= *ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೆ ನಂ : 66 ರE7 16-28 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ,
ಗುಂRೆ
ಸ ೆ ನಂ : 69/1ರE7
ರE7 2-09 ಎಕ$ೆ /ಗುಂRೆ
ಗುಂRೆ & 0-06 ಗುಂRೆ ಎ ಖ$ಾಬು ೇ 2-15 ಎಕ$ೆ /
ಗುಂRೆ,
ಗುಂRೆ ಸ ೆ ನಂ : 69/2ರE7
ರE7 2-24 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ & 0-06 ಗುಂRೆ ಎ ಖ$ಾಬು ೇ 2-32 2 /
ರE7 6-21 ಎಕ$ೆ,
UÀÄAmÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA : 70gÀ°è JPÀgÉ/UÀÄAmÉ, ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA: 71ರE7 ಎಕ$ೆ ಗುಂRೆ,
ಗುಂRೆ ಸ ೆ ನಂ :
ರE7 2-15 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ ಒಟುU 48-39 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ,
73ರE7 ಗುಂRೆ G,ೕಣ ದ ವ1ವ ಾಯದ ಜWೕನನುN
ವ1ವ ಾtೕತರ ಾಸದ ಉKೆ[ೕಶ ೆF ಬಳಸಲು'
ಬಳಸಲು ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಷರತು,ಗ<*ೆ ಬಳಪಟುU
ಬಳಪಟುU ಭೂ
ಪ ವತ ಾ ಆKೇಶವನುN 9ೊರ^ಸ(ಾPKೆ.
9ೊರ^ಸ(ಾPKೆ
1. ಈ ಭೂWಯು ~ಾವ ಉKೆ[ೕಶ ಾFP ಪ ವತ ೆ~ಾPKೆfೕ ಆ ಉKೆ[ೕಶ ೆF
ಉಪfೕPG ೊಳ=ಲು ಸuಮ .ಾ / ಾ ?ಂದ ಅಂದ$ೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅ%ವೃ ' .ಾ / ಾರ :
A.ಎಂ.ಆ}.^.ಎ. [ಸs<ೕಯ fೕಜ ಾ .ಾ / ಾರ] : A.ಎಂ.ಐ.G.ಎ.S.ಎ : 0ಾEನ1
Zಯಂತ ]ಾ ಮಂಡ< ಮಂಜೂ$ಾMಯನುN ಪyೆಯದ 9ೊರತು ಈ ಆKೇಶವj
ಅನುಭವKಾರZ*ೆ, ~ಾವjKೇ ಹಕFನುN Zೕಡುವj ಲ7.
19
2. ಈ ಪ ವM ತ ಜWೕನನುN ಾಸದ ಉKೆ[ೕಶ ೆF 0ಾತ ಉಪfೕPG ೊಳ=ತಕFದು[. ಈ
ಜWೕನನುN ಪ‡ ಾ ನುಮM ಇಲ7Kೆ ೇ$ೆ ಉKೆ[ೕಶ ಾFP ಉಪfೕPG ೊಳ= ಾರದು.
3. ಈ ಜWೕZನE7 ಉKೆ[ೕ#Gರುವ ಬyಾವ]ೆ ನwೆ 9ಾಗೂ ವರ ಾನP ಇ5ಾ1 ಗಳನುN ಆಯುಕ,ರು,
: ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅ%ವೃ ' .ಾ / ಾರ : A.ಎಂ.ಆ}.^.ಎ. [ಸs<ೕಯ fೕಜ ಾ .ಾ / ಾರ] :
A.ಎಂ.ಐ.G.ಎ.S.ಎ : .ಾ / ಾರ ಂದ ಅನುYೕ G ೊಂಡು ಆ ನಂತರ
ಅನುYೕದ ೆ*ೊಂಡ ನwೆ*ೆ ಅನುಗುಣ ಾP ಕಟUಡವನುN ಕಟುUವjದು. ಸದ ಜWೕZನE7
(ೇಔ| ಕಟUಡ ನwೆ*ೆ ಅನುYೕದ ೆ ಪyೆಯKೆ ಪರhಾ$ೆ 0ಾಡಕೂಡದು.
4. ಇತ$ೆ ಅವಶ1 ಾದ ರ ೆ, ‚ಾಗ, ರ ೆ, 0ಾr o, )ಾE ‚ಾಗ ಇ5ಾ1 ಗಳನುN ೆಂಗಳ ರು
ಅ%ವೃ ' .ಾ / ಾರ : A.ಎಂ.ಆ}.^.ಎ. [ಸs<ೕಯ fೕಜ ಾ .ಾ / ಾರ] :
A.ಎಂ.ಐ.G.ಎ.S.ಎ : 0ಾEನ1 Zಯಂತ ]ಾ ಮಂಡ< .ಾ / ಾರ ಂದ ಅನುYೕ Gದ
ಬyಾವ]ೆ ನwೆ ಪ ಾರ 9ಾಗೂ Z ಷUಪ^Gದ ' Zಯಮಗಳ ೕತ1 ಸದ ಉKೆ[ೕಶ ೆF'
ಾ?[ ಸತಕFದು[. -
5. ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟU .ಾ / ಾರ ಂದ ಅನುYೕ ತ ನwೆ ಪyೆಯKೇ Z ೇಶನಗಳನುN / ಕಟUಡಗಳನುN
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟU ೋಂದ]ಾ/ ಾ ಗ<ಂದ / ಉಪ ೋಂದ]ಾ/ ಾ ಗ<ಂದ ೋಂKಾವ]ೆ
0ಾಡತಕFದ[ಲ7. )ಾ5ೆKಾರರು ಒಂದು ೇzೆ ಭೂ ಪ ವತ ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು 0ಾ^ರುವ
ಜWೕZನ ಪ‡ಣ G,ೕಣ ವನುN 0ಾ$ಾಟ 0ಾಡಲು ಉKೆ[ೕMGದE7 ಈ ಆKೇಶ ಅ^‰
ಬರುವj ಲ7.
6. ಾವ ಜZಕ JತದೃŠU?ಂದ ಸದ ಜWೕZನE7 Z ೇಶನKಾರ *ೆ ಾಗ ೕಕ ೌಲಭ1ಗzಾದ
ದು1ಚ‹€, Zೕರು ಸರಬ$ಾಜು, ಒಳಚರಂ^ ವ1ವ ೆs ಇ5ಾ1 ಗಳನುN ಆ$ೋಗ1 ೈಮ Eೕಕರಣ
9ಾಗೂ ಭದ 5ೆಗಳ ಉKೆ[ೕಶ ಂದ ಎ(ಾ7 ೌಲಭ1ಗಳನುN ಾನೂನು ೕMಯ ಒದPG
ೊಡುವjದು ಅr Kಾರರ ಜ ಾ ಾ[ ~ಾPರುತ,Kೆ.
7. ಈ ಜWೕZ*ೆ 5ಾಕು WÀÆಟು ಖ$ಾŒ ಜWೕZದ[E7 ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂKಾಯ ಾt[ 1964 ರ
ಕಲಂ 67 ರಂvÉ ಇದು[ ಇದನುN ಾವ ಜZಕ ಉKೆ[ೕಶ ಾFP WೕಸE ಸ(ಾPKೆ. ಈ G,ೕಣ ದ
Dೕ(ೆ ಅr Kಾರ *ೆ ~ಾವjKೇ ಹಕುF ಇರುವj ಲ7. ಈ A ಖ$ಾAನ G,ೕಣ ದ ಹಕುF
~ಾ ಾಗಲೂ ಸ ಾ ರ ೆF ೇ ರುತ,Kೆ. ತಹGೕ(ಾ[}ರವರು ಈ ಾಬು ಆ}.{.G.ಯE7
ಸvಷU ಾP ನಮು ಸತಕFದು[.
20
8. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಆKೇಶ ಸಂ)ೆ1 : Sಡಬೂ7•^ 7556-665 ಆ} ಮತು, A-6-54-5 ಮತು, ೇಂದ
ಸ ಾ ರದ ಾ *ೆ ಇ(ಾ)ೆಯ ಪತ ದ ಸಂ)ೆ1 : S1/7[11]67, ಾಂಕ : 1.1.1966 ರಂತ
ಈ ಜWೕZನE7 ಕಟUಲು ಉKೆ[ೕ#Gರುವ ಕಟUಡವj $ಾŠŽೕಯ 9ಾ*ೊ $ಾಜ1 9ೆKಾ[ ಗ<*ೆ
ಸಂಬಂ/Gದಂತ, ರ ೆ,ಯ ಮಧ1 hಾಗ ಂದ 40 Wೕಟ}ಗಳ ಅಂತರವನುN ಮತು, r(ಾ7
9ೆKಾ[ *ೆ ಸಂಬಂ/Gದಂ5ೆ, ರ ೆ,ಯ ಮಧ1 hಾಗ ಂದ 25 Wೕಟ}ಗಳ ಅಂತರವನುN
ಾ ಸ ೇಕು 9ಾಗೂ ಈ )ಾE ಪ KೇಶದE7 ~ಾವjKೇ ಕಟUಡವನುN ಕಟU ಾರದು.
9. ಈ ಭೂ ಪ ವತ ಾ ಜWೕZನE7 ಾsSಸ(ಾಗುವ ೈ*ಾ ಾ ಘಟಕಗಳp 9ೊರದೂಡುವ 9ೊ*ೆ,
ಅ ಲ, ಇತ$ೆ ಕಲ_ಶಗಳನುN ಪ ]ಾಮ ಾ ~ಾP ತyೆಗ{U ಾವ ಜZಕರ ಆ$ೋಗ1 ೆF
~ಾವjKೇ ೕMಯ 9ಾZ~ಾಗದಂತರ 9ಾಗೂ ಪ ಸರ 0ಾEನ1 ಾಗದಂ5ೆ
ೋ^ ೊಳ=ತಕFದು[. ೈ*ಾ ಾ ಉKೆ[ೕಶ ಾFP ಭೂ ಪ ವM ತ ಜWೕZನE7 ಾsSಸುವ
ೈ*ಾ ಾ ಘಟಕಗಳp ಕ ಾ ಟಕ 0ಾEನ1 Zಯಂತ ಣ ಮಂಡ< / ವ ಸರ ಇ(ಾ)ೆ*ೆ
ಅನುಮM 9ೊಂ ರತಕದು,
10. ಈ ಆKೇಶವj ಸದ ಜWೕZ*ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟUಂ5ೆ ~ಾವjKೇ ಾ1~ಾಲಯದE7ನ Kಾ ೆ / |
ಅr / Dೕಲ_ನ ಯ MೕS *ೆ ಒಳಪ{Uರುತ,Kೆ.
11. ಪ ಾ, ತ ಜWೕZನ ಬ*ೆC ~ಾವjKೇ ಭೂ ಾO/ೕನ ಪ € t*ೆ ಒಳಪ{UದE7 ಈ .ಾ / ಾರವj
ಜ ಾ ಾ[ ~ಾಗುವj ಲ7.
12. ಪ ಷ•ತ 0ಾಸU} .ಾ7o 2015ರE7 ಸೂu' ವಲಯ [Sensitive Zone] ನE7 ಬರುವ
ಪ Kೇಶಗ<*ೆ r(ಾ7/ ಾ ಗಳp, ೆಂಗಳ ರು r(ೆ7, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಇವ *ೆ ಭೂ ಪ ವತ ೆ ಬ*ೆC
0ಾJM Zೕಡು ಾಗ .ಾ / ಾರದ ಪ‡ ಾ ನುಮM ಇಲ7Kೇ ಉKೆ[ೕ#ತ hಾಗದE7 ~ಾವjKೇ
ೕMಯ ಅ%ವೃ 'ಯನುN ೈ*ೊಳ= ಾರದು
13. ಉKೆ[ೕ#ತ ‚ಾಗದE7 ~ಾವjKೇ ೕMಯ ಅ%ವೃ ' ಚಟುವ{ ೆಗಳನುN ೈ*ೊಳ= ೇ ಾದE7
.ಾ / ಾರ ಂದ ರ ತ ಾದ ಉಪಸWMಯ Zಣ ಯದಂ5ೆ ನwೆಗಳನುN
ಅನುY G ೊಳ=ತಕFದು[.
14. ಪ #Nತ ಜWೕನು ಸ ಾ ಜWೕನು ಾ1S,*ೆ ಒಳಪಟUE7 ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂKಾಯ ಾt[
1964ರ ಕಲಂ 136 [3]ರ ಅ^ 'ಾರ]ೆ ನyೆG 9ೊರ^ಸುವ Mೕ0ಾ ನ ೆF ಒಳಪ{Uರುತ,Kೆ.
15. ಸದ ಜWೕನು ಮಂಜೂ$ಾದ ಸ ಾ ಜWೕ ಾPದ[E7 ತuಣ ೇ ¥ÉÆÃ^ 0ಾ^ಸುವ ಷರM,*ೆ
ಒಳಪ{Uರುತ,Kೆ.
21
16. ಅr Kಾರರು ~ಾವjKೇ ಸ5ಾ1ಂಶಗಳನುN ಮ$ೆ 0ಾ , ಅನ/ಕೃತ Kಾಖ(ೆಗಳ Dೕ(ೆ ಈ
ಅ/ಕೃತ :-•ಾಪನ ಪyೆ ರುವjದು ದೃಢಪಟUE7 ನಂತರ ಇ ಾNವjKೇ Mಳpವ< ೆ ಇಲ7Kೆ ಈ
ಅ/ಕೃತ •ಾಪನ ತo5ಾ ೇ ರದು[*ೊಳp=ತ,Kೆ 9ಾಗೂ ಇದ ಂದ ಅr Kಾರ *ಾಗEೕ ಅಥ ಾ
ಅವರ ಉತ,$ಾ/ ಾ ಗ<*ಾಗEೕ ಆಗುವ ~ಾವjKೇ ಲು ಾ"Z*ೆ ಸ ಾ ರ ಾಗEೕ ಅಥ ಾ ಈ
.ಾ / ಾರ ಾಗEೕ '~ಾವjKೇ ೕMಯ ಜ ಾ ಾ[ರ$ಾPರುವj ಲ7. ಇದರ ಪ‡ಣ
9ೊ]ೆ*ಾ ೆ ಅr KಾರರKೆ[ೕ ಆPರುತ,Kೆ.
17. DೕಲFಂಡ ~ಾವjKೇ ಷರತು,ಗಳನುN ಉಲ7ಂ•GದE7 ಈ 'ಭೂ ಪ ವತ ೆ ಆKೇಶ ~ಾವjKೇ
ಸೂಚ ೆ ZೕಡKೆ ರದು[*ೊ<ಸ(ಾಗುವjದು ಮತು, ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂKಾಯ ಾ?Kೆ 1964 ರ
ಕಲಂ 96 ರಂvÉ ದಂಡ ಶುಲFವನುN /ಸಲು ಮುಂ ನ ಕ ಮ 5ೆ*ೆದು ೊಳ=(ಾಗುವjದು ಅಲ7Kೇ
ಈ ಜW¤£À°è ಅನ/ಕೃತ ಾP ಕ{Uದ ಕಟUಡಗಳನುN ~ಾವjKೇ ಪ 9ಾರ ZೕಡKೆ ೆಡವಲು
ಕ ಮ 5ೆ*ೆದು ೊಳ=(ಾಗುವjದು '9ಾಗೂ ಅದ ೆF ತಗಲುವ ೆಚ-ವನುN ಭೂ ಕಂKಾಯ ಾ€
ಎಂದು )ಾ5ೆKಾರ ಂದ ವಸೂE 0ಾಡ(ಾಗುವjದು
--ೆ ಡೂ1 m ವರ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು r(ೆ7, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತ,ರ [ಅ¥Àರ] 5ಾಲೂ7ಕು, ಯಲಹಂಕ 9ೋಬ<,
ಅವಲಹ<= *ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೆ ನಂ : 66 ರE7 16-28 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ, ಸ ೆ ನಂ : 69/1ರE7 2-09
ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ & 0-06 ಗುಂRೆ ಎ. ಖ$ಾಬು ೇ 2-15 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ, ಸ ೆ ನಂ : 69/2ರE7 2-
24 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ & 0-06 ಗುಂRೆ ಎ' ಖ$ಾಬು ೇ 2-32 ಏಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ ಸ ೆ ನಂ : 70ರE7
18-10 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುAmÉ, ನ ೆ ನಂ : 71ರE7 6-21 ಎPÀ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ, ಸ ೆ ನಂ : 73gÀ°è 2-15
JPÀgÉ / ಗುಂRೆ ಒಟುU 48-39 ಎಕ$ೆ / ಗುಂRೆ G,ೕಣ ೆF ಭೂ ಪ ವM ತ ಜWೕZ*ೆ 'ೆಕುFಬಂ :
ಸ ೆ ನಂ : ಪ‡ವ ೆF ಪ#-ಮ ೆF ಉತ,ರ ೆF ದ™ಣ ೆF
66 : ಸ ೆ ನಂ:66 ಸ ೆ ನಂ:71 gÀ ಸ ೆ ನಂ:68, 69 ಸ ೆ ನಂ:66 G½PÉ
G½PÉ d«ÄãÀÄ G½PÉ d«ÄãÀÄ & 70 gÀ d«ÄãÀÄ d«ÄãÀÄ &
gÁªÀÄUÉÆAqÀ£ÀºÀ½î
UÁæªÀÄzÀ UÀr
69/1 : ಸ ೆ ನಂ:68 gÀ ಸ ೆ ಸ ೆ ನಂ:69/1 gÀ ಸ ೆ ನಂ:69/2 gÀ
d«ÄãÀÄ ನಂ:70 gÀ d«ÄãÀÄ d«ÄãÀÄ
dǀ̣ˀ
69/2 : ಸ ೆ ನಂ:68 gÀ ಸ ೆ ಸ ೆ ನಂ:69/1 gÀ ಸ ೆ ನಂ:66 gÀ
d«ÄãÀÄ ನಂ:70 gÀ d«ÄãÀÄ
22
dǀ̣ˀ
70 : ಸ ೆ ನಂ:66, ಸ ೆ ಸ ೆ ನಂ:70 gÀ ಸ ೆ ನಂ:66 gÀ
69/1 & 69/2gÀ ನಂ:71 &72 d«ÄãÀÄ d«ÄãÀÄ
d«ÄãÀÄ gÀ d«ÄãÀÄ
71 : ಸ ೆ ಸ ೆ ನಂ:72 gÀ gÁªÀÄUÉÆAqÀ£ÀºÀ½î
ಸ ೆ ನಂ:71gÀ
d«ÄãÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ UÀr
d«ÄãÀÄ ನಂ:71 gÀ
G½PÉ
dǀ̣ˀ
73 : ಸ ೆ ನಂ:70 gÀ ಸ ೆ ಸ ೆ ನಂ:109/3 ಸ ೆ ನಂ:73 gÀ
d«ÄãÀÄ ನಂ:75 gÀ & 109/4 gÀ G½PÉ d«ÄãÀÄ
dǀ̣ˀ dǀ̣ˀ
ಸJ/-
[9ೆ¤.$ಾ0ಾಂಜ ೇಯ]
S$ೇಷ r(ಾ7/ ಾ ಗಳp [ಕಂKಾಯ],
ೆಂಗಳ ರು r(ೆ7, ೆಂಗಳ ರು."
(Emphasis added)
The petitioner has been since then using the property as a stud
farm.
11. All these happen when the challenge to the acquisition
was pending consideration at the hands of this Court. A learned
single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.55863-55865 of 2014
allows the writ petitions by setting aside the preliminary notification
seeking acquisition. The order passed by the learned single Judge
reads as follows:
23
"4. The respondents have filed the objection
statement. In the objection statement it is contended that
since there were large extents of lands which had been
notified, the respondents require sometime to go through the
process and thereafter complete the acquisition proceedings.
5. In that background, I do not propose to refer to the
contentions in detail for the reason that in respect of the
very same notification, this Court had made a detailed
consideration in W.P.No.9640 of 2014 and connected
petitions on 26-11-2014. During the said consideration, this
Court had taken note of contention put forth on behalf of the
respondents with regard to the delay that has occasioned in
the process as there were certain deletions at the initial
stages and when subsequent deletions were made by the
Land Acquisition Officer, the Government has initiated
enquiries in that regard and therefore there was delay. This
Court having not accepted such contention and further
relying on a decision of this Court had arrived at the
conclusion that the delay as explained by the
respondents is not acceptable and therefore, the
notification insofar as the lands of the petitioners
therein was held as lapsed. Since in the instant case
also the position is not different from the said cases, a
similar consideration requires to be made.
6. Accordingly, the notification dated 30-12-2008
assailed in these petitions is held as having lapsed as
against the lands of the petitioners referred to in these
petitions which were included in the said notification.
In terms of the above, these petitions are allowed to
that extent.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.2/
2014 for dispensation also stands disposed of."
(Emphasis supplied)
24
Writ appeals come to be preferred by the BDA in
W.A.No.5098/2016 and connected matter assailing the orders
passed by the learned single Judge supra. The writ appeals come
to be dismissed on 28.04.2017, by the following order:
"2. As prayed for by Mr. G.S. Kannur, learned
Advocate appearing for the appellants, the appeal is taken
up for preliminary hearing.
3. The writ petitioner assailed a notification dated
December 30, 2008, proposing to acquire the land for
formation of a layout. The preliminary notification was
issue on December 30, 2008. Thereafter, neither the
final notification was issued nor possession was taken.
Consequently, the Hon'ble single Judge held that as
within the reasonable time, no further action was
taken, the proposal for acquisition got lapsed.
4. We do not find any merit in the appeal
5. The application for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is, also
dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)
The BDA challenges both the orders in several cases before the
Apex Court. The Apex Court in BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Civil Appeal No.7661-63
of 2018 and connected cases decided on 03-08-2018) reported in
25
(2018) 9 SCC 122 sets aside both the orders of this Court and
issues several directions holding:
"15. First, we take up the question as to whether the
High Court was legally justified on merits in quashing the
preliminary notification issued under Section 17. The
Constitution Bench of this Court in Offshore Holdings (P)
Ltd. [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139:
(2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] has decided the question
affirmatively. The BDA has issued preliminary notification for
acquisition of the lands. Non-finalisation of the acquisition
proceedings resulted in the filing of the writ petitions before
the High Court of Karnataka by the owners in the year 1987.
Certain lands were denotified and the permission which was
granted earlier was withdrawn. The denotification of the land
was also withdrawn. It was urged that the time-frame which
was prescribed under Sections 6 and 11-A of the LA Act
would form an integral part of the BDA Act. This Court
considered the scheme under the BDA Act and has observed
thus: (SCC pp. 158-59, 162, 164-66 & 192, paras 33, 35,
50, 55, 123, 124 & 125)
"33. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
which provide for time-frame for compliance and the
consequences of default thereof, are not applicable to
acquisition under the BDA Act. They are Sections 6
and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. As per Section
11-A, if the award is not made within a period of two
years from the date of declaration under Section 6,
the acquisition proceedings will lapse. Similarly, where
declaration under Section 6 of this Act is not issued
within three years from the date of publication of
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
[such notification being issued after the
commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment
and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 but before the
commencement of Central Act 68 of 1984] or within
one year where Section 4 notification was published
subsequent to the passing of Central Act 68 of 1984,
26
no such declaration under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act can be issued in any of these cases.
***
35. Be that as it may, it is clear that the BDA
Act is a self-contained code which provides for all the
situations that may arise in planned development of
an area including acquisition of land for that purpose.
The scheme of the Act does not admit any necessity
for reading the provisions of Sections 6 and 11-A of
the Land Acquisition Act, as part and parcel of the BDA
Act for attainment of its object. The primary object of
the State Act is to carry out planned development and
acquisition is a mere incident of such planned
development. The provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, where the land is to be acquired for a specific
public purpose and acquisition is the sum and
substance of that Act, all matters in relation to the
acquisition of land will be regulated by the provisions
of that Act. The State Act has provided its own scheme
and provisions for acquisition of land.
***
50. Applying the above principle to the facts of
the case in hand, it will be clear that the provisions
relating to acquisition like passing of an award,
payment of compensation and the legal remedies
available under the Central Act would have to be
applied to the acquisitions under the State Act but the
bar contained in Sections 6 and 11-A of the Central
Act cannot be made an integral part of the State Act
as the State Act itself has provided specific time-
frames under its various provisions as well as
consequences of default thereto. The scheme, thus,
does not admit such incorporation.
***
55. The principle stated in Munithimmaiah
case [Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4
SCC 326] that the BDA Act is a self-contained code,
was referred with approval by a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Bondu Ramaswamy [Bondu
Ramaswamy v. BDA, (2010) 7 SCC 129 : (2010) 3
SCC (Civ) 1] . The Court, inter alia, specifically
discussed and answered the questions whether the
27
provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act will
apply to the acquisition under the BDA Act and if the
final declaration under Section 19(1) is not issued
within one year of the publication of the notification
under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act, whether such
final declaration will be invalid and held as under:
(Bondu Ramaswamy case [Bondu
Ramaswamy v. BDA, (2010) 7 SCC 129 : (2010) 3
SCC (Civ) 1] , SCC p. 170, paras 79-81)
'79. This question arises from the contention
raised by one of the appellants that the provisions of
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the LA
Act", for short) will apply to the acquisitions under the
BDA Act and consequently if the final declaration
under Section 19(1) is not issued within one year from
the date of publication of the notification under
Sections 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act, such final
declaration will be invalid. The appellants' submissions
are as under: the notification under Sections 17(1)
and (3) of the Act was issued and gazetted on 3-2-
2003 and the declaration under Section 19(1) was
issued and published on 23-2-2004. Section 36 of the
Act provides that the acquisition of land under the BDA
Act within or outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area,
shall be regulated by the provisions of the LA Act, so
far as they are applicable. Section 6 of the LA Act
requires that no declaration shall be made, in respect
of any land covered by a notification under Section 4
of the LA Act, after the expiry of one year from the
date of the publication of such notification under
Section 4 of the LA Act. As the provisions of the LA Act
have been made applicable to acquisitions under the
BDA Act, it is necessary that the declaration under
Section 19(1) of the BDA Act (which is equivalent to
the final declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act)
should also be made before the expiry of one year
from the date of publication of notification under
Sections 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act [which is
equivalent to Section 4(1) of the LA Act].
80. The BDA Act contains provisions relating to
acquisition of properties, up to the stage of publication
28
of final declaration. The BDA Act does not contain the
subsequent provisions relating to completion of the
acquisition, that is, issue of notices, enquiry and
award, vesting of land, payment of compensation,
principles relating to determination of compensation,
etc. Section 36 of the BDA Act does not make the LA
Act applicable in its entirety, but states that the
acquisition under the BDA Act, shall be regulated by
the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the LA
Act. Therefore, it follows that where there are already
provisions in the BDA Act regulating certain aspects or
stages of acquisition or the proceedings relating
thereto, the corresponding provisions of the LA Act will
not apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act. Only
those provisions of the LA Act, relating to the stages of
acquisition, for which there is no provision in the BDA
Act, are applied to the acquisitions under the BDA Act.
81. The BDA Act contains specific
provisions relating to preliminary notification
and final declaration. In fact the procedure up to
final declaration under the BDA Act is different
from the procedure under the LA Act relating to
acquisition proceedings up to the stage of final
notification. Therefore, having regard to the
scheme for acquisition under Sections 15 to 19
of the BDA Act and the limited application of the
LA Act in terms of Section 36 of the BDA Act, the
provisions of Sections 4 to 6 of the LA Act will
not apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act.
If Section 6 of the LA Act is not made applicable, the
question of amendment to Section 6 of the LA Act
providing a time-limit for issue of final declaration, will
also not apply.'
We may notice that, in the above case, the Court declined
to examine whether the provisions of Section 11-A of the
Central Act would apply to the acquisition under the BDA
Act but categorically stated that Sections 4 and 6 of the
Central Act were inapplicable to the acquisition under the
BDA Act.
***
123. Accepting the argument of the appellant
would certainly frustrate the very object of the State
29
law, particularly when both the enactments can
peacefully operate together. To us, there appears to
be no direct conflict between the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act and the BDA Act. The BDA Act
does not admit reading of provisions of Section 11-A
of the Land Acquisition Act into its scheme as it is
bound to debilitate the very object of the State law.
Parliament has not enacted any law with regard to
development the competence of which, in fact,
exclusively falls in the domain of the State Legislature
with reference to Schedule VII List II Entries 5 and 18.
124. Both these laws cover different fields of
legislation and do not relate to the same List, leave
apart the question of relating to the same
entry. Acquisition being merely an incident of
planned development, the Court will have to
ignore it even if there was some encroachment
or overlapping. The BDA Act does not provide any
provision in regard to compensation and manner of
acquisition for which it refers to the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act. There are no provisions in the
BDA Act which lay down detailed mechanism for the
acquisition of property, i.e. they are not covering the
same field and, thus, there is no apparent
irreconcilable conflict. The BDA Act provides a specific
period during which the development under a scheme
has to be implemented and if it is not so done, the
consequences thereof would follow in terms of Section
27 of the BDA Act. None of the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act deals with implementation of schemes.
We have already answered that the acquisition under
the Land Acquisition Act cannot, in law, lapse if
vesting has taken place. Therefore, the question of
applying the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land
Acquisition Act to the BDA Act does not arise. Section
27 of the BDA Act takes care of even the
consequences of default, including the fate of
acquisition, where vesting has not taken place under
Section 27(3). Thus, there are no provisions under the
two Acts which operate in the same field and have a
direct irreconcilable conflict.
30
125. Having said so, now we proceed to record
our answer to the question referred to the larger
Bench as follows:
For the reasons stated in this judgment, we hold
that the BDA Act is a self-contained code. Further, we
hold that provisions introduced in the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 by Central Act 68 of 1984, limited to the
extent of acquisition of land, payment of compensation
and recourse to legal remedies provided under the
said Act, can be read into an acquisition controlled by
the provisions of the BDA Act but with a specific
exception that the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act insofar as they provide different time-frames and
consequences of default thereof, including lapsing of
acquisition proceedings, cannot be read into the BDA
Act. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act being
one of such provisions cannot be applied to the
acquisitions under the provisions of the BDA Act."
(emphasis supplied)
16. This Court has emphasised that the primary object
of the BDA Act is to carry out planned development. The
State Act has provided its own scheme. The time constraints
of the land acquisition are not applicable to the BDA Act.
Making applicable the time-frame of Section 11-A of the LA
Act would debilitate the very object of the BDA Act. It is
apparent that the decision of the Single Judge as well
as the Division Bench is directly juxtaposed to the
decision of the five-Judge Bench of this Court
in Offshore Holdings [Offshore Holdings (P)
Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ)
662] in which precisely the question involved in the
instant cases had been dealt with. By indirect method
by making applicable the time period of two years of
Section 11-A of the LA Act mandate of BDA Act has
been violated. However, it is shocking that various
decisions have been taken into consideration particularly by
the Single Judge, however, whereas the decision that has set
the controversy at rest, has not even been noticed even by
the Single Judge or by the Division Bench. If this is the fate
of the law of the land laid down by this Court that too the
31
decision by the Constitution Bench, so much can be said but
to exercise restraint is the best use of the power. Least said
is better, the way in which the justice has been dealt with
and the planned development of Bangalore City has been left
at the mercy of unscrupulous persons of the Government
and the BDA.
17. It is apparent from the fact that the Single Judge
has relied upon the decision in H.N. Shivanna [H.N.
Shivanna v. State of Karnataka, 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 8956:
(2013) 4 KCCR 2793] in which it was observed by the
Division Bench that scheme was to be completed in 2 years
otherwise it would lapse. It was precisely the question of
time period which was dwelt upon and what was ultimately
decided by this Court in Offshore Holdings [Offshore Holdings
(P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662]
has been blatantly violated by the Single Judge and that too
in flagrant violation of the provisions and intendment of the
Act.
18. It is also apparent from the facts and
circumstances of the case that there were a large number of
irregularities in the course of an inquiry under Section 18(1)
of the BDA Act. The Government had nothing to do with
respect to the release of the land at this stage, as the stage
of final notification had not reached but still the landowners
in connivance with the influential persons, political or
otherwise, managed the directions in respect of 251 acres of
the land and the Special Land Acquisition Collector also
considered exclusion of 498 acres of the land against which
the question was raised in the Assembly and eyebrows were
raised in public domain. Two inquiries were ordered on 24-
11-2012 and 19-1-2013 by the State Government and based
upon that inquiry, it was ordered and a public notice was
issued on 3-5-2014 that the BDA will consider the entire
matter afresh.
19. In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts, the writ
petitions came to be filed, it would not be termed to be the
bona fide litigation, but was initiated having failed in attempt
to get the land illegally excluded at the hands of the Special
Land Acquisition Collector and the State Government and
after the inquiries held in the matter and the notice was
32
issued to start the proceedings afresh. At this stage, the writ
petitions were filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was
not at all open to the High Court to quash the preliminary
notification issued under Section 17, as the landowners, the
State Government and BDA were responsible to create a
mess in the way of planned development of Bangalore City.
20. The scheme which was framed was so much
benevolent scheme that 40% of the 55% of the land
reserved for the residential purpose was to be given to the
landowners at their choice and they were also given the
choice to obtain the compensation, if they so desired, under
the provisions of the LA Act. Thus, it was such a scheme that
there was no scope for any exclusion of the land in the
ultimate final notification.
21. It is apparent from the circumstances that the
matter cannot be left at the mercy of unscrupulous authority
of the BDA, the State Government or in the political hands.
Considering the proper development and planned
development of Bangalore City, let the Government issue a
final notification with respect to the land which has been
notified in the initial notification and there is no question of
leaving out of the land in the instant case as option has been
given to landowners to claim the land or to claim the
compensation under the relevant LA Act which may be
applicable in the case.
22. It was contended on behalf of the
landowners that certain developments have taken
place after the orders were passed regarding exclusion
of the land and when Section 27 provides a limitation
of five years after final notification, in case
development was not undertaken within five years,
even the final scheme would lapse. Thus, the principle
enunciated in Section 27 should be followed by this
Court with respect to the lapse of preliminary
notification as well. We find that there is a vast
difference in the provisions and action to be taken
pursuant to the preliminary notification and the final
notification under Section 19. In the instant case, the
facts indicated that it was in the interest of the public,
landowners, BDA and the State Government. The
33
scheme had prior approval of the State Government
however at the cost of public interest yet another
scheme was sought to be frustrated by powerful
unforeseen hands and the issuance of final notification
had been delayed. Three inquiries were ordered, two
by the State Government and one by the BDA as the
release of the land was being proposed in an illegal
manner. Hue and cry has been raised about their
illegalities in the Assembly as well as in the public.
Thus, for the delay, owners cannot escape the liability,
they cannot take the advantage of their own wrong
having acted in collusion with the authorities. Thus,
we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of
the case the time consumed would not adversely affect
the ultimate development of Bangalore City.
23. The authorities are supposed to carry out the
statutory mandate and cannot be permitted to act against
the public interest and planned development of Bangalore
City which was envisaged as a statutory mandate under the
BDA Act. The State Government, as well as the authorities
under the BDA Act, are supposed to cater to the need of the
planned development which is a mandate enjoined upon
them and also binding on them. They have to necessarily
carry it forward and no dereliction of duty can be an escape
route so as to avoid fulfilment of the obligation enjoined
upon them. The courts are not powerless to frown upon such
an action and proper development cannot be deterred by
continuing inaction. As the proper development of such
metropolitan is of immense importance, the public purpose
for which the primary notification was issued was in order to
provide civic amenities like laying down roads, etc. which
cannot be left at the whim or mercy of the authorities
concerned. They were bound to act in furtherance thereof.
There was a clear embargo placed while issuing the
notification not to create any charge, mortgage, assign, issue
or revise any improvement and after inquiry, it was clear
that the notice had been issued in May 2014, thus, no
development could have been made legally. Notification
dated 3-5-2014 was issued that re-inquiry was necessary in
the matter. The development made, if any, would be at the
peril of the owners and it has to give way to larger welfare
schemes and the individual interest and cannot come in the
34
way of the larger public interest. The acquisition was for the
proper and planned development that was an absolute
necessity for the city of Bangalore.
24. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation
in condoning the delay. Though, it is apparent that the
authorities had come with certain delay, in certain
matters and the writ appeals were also filed belatedly
with the delay in the High Court, however, considering
the provisions of the scheme and the method and
manner, wrong has been committed, it has compelled
us not only to condone the delay but also to act in the
matter so as to preserve the sanctity of the legal
process and decision of this Court in Offshore
Holdings [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3
SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662].
25. We, therefore, direct the State Government as
well as the BDA to proceed further to issue final notification
without any further delay in the light of the observations
made in the order. The impugned orders passed by the
Single Judge and the Division Bench are hereby quashed and
set aside. The scheme and notification under Section 17 of
the BDA Act are hereby upheld with the aforesaid directions.
26. As noticed above, the Land Acquisition Officer
proposed exclusion of 251 acres of land from acquisition on
being asked by the Government after the preliminary
notification was issued. The Land Acquisition Officer, has
considered another 498 acres of land to be excluded from
being acquired. In connection to this, several questions were
raised in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, as a result of
which two inquiries were ordered by the State Government
i.e. on 24-11-2012 and 19-1-2013. However, result of the
inquiry is not forthcoming. Further, it appears that the
exclusion of the lands from acquisition was proposed in
connivance with influential persons; political or otherwise.
We are of the view that the BDA and the State Government
have to proceed with the acquisition of these lands. We are
also of the view that it is just and proper to hold an inquiry
for fixing the responsibility on the officials of the BDA and
the State Government for trying to exclude these lands from
acquisition.
35
27. Therefore, we appoint Hon'ble Mr Justice K.N.
Keshavanarayana, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court
as the inquiry officer for fixing the responsibility on the
officials of the BDA and the State Government who were
responsible for the aforesaid. The Commissioner, BDA is
hereby directed to consult the inquiry officer and pay his
remuneration. Further, we direct BDA to provide appropriate
secretarial assistance and logistical support to the inquiry
officer for holding the inquiry. In addition, we authorise the
inquiry officer to appoint requisite staff on temporary basis to
assist him in the inquiry and to fix their salaries. Further, the
BDA is directed to pay their salaries. The State Government
and the BDA are directed to produce the files/documents in
relation to the aforesaid lands before the inquiry officer
within a period of four weeks from today. We request the
inquiry officer to submit his report to this Court as
expeditiously as possible.
28. The State Government and the BDA are further
directed to proceed with the acquisition of the
aforementioned lands without excluding land from acquisition
and submit a report to this Court the steps taken by them in
this regard within a period of three months from today."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court on the reasons so rendered directs the State
Government and the BDA to proceed with the acquisition for the
formation of layout without excluding any land from acquisition and
submit a report to the Apex Court the steps taken towards the said
acquisition. It directed completion within 3 months.
36
12. Pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court, the BDA
issues final notification. In the final notification, the axe falls on the
lands of the petitioner as the Apex Court had directed that all the
lands that had been given up, be acquired as the lands were given
up illegally. Then comes a few miscellaneous applications in the
disposed of cases before the Apex Court. The Apex Court on the
miscellaneous applications, to consider several nuances of the lands
to be dropped from acquisition, appointed a Committee. The order
directing constitution of the Committee reads as follows:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
affidavit dated 26-11-2020, filed by the Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority.
2. During the course of hearing, it is pointed out that
after quashing of the preliminary notification by the High
Court and before setting aside of the said order by this court,
several constructions have been put up either by the land
owners or purchasers of the sites from the land owners. It is
submitted that these constructions are mainly dwelling
houses. In this factual background, we are of the considered
opinion that some protection against demolition of dwelling
houses may be justified. Further the layout is meant for
residential sites and this object of formation of layout would
not be frustrated by saving lawfully constructed dwelling
houses belonging to poor and middle income groups.
3. Judgment dated 3-08-2018, inter alia, observes
that 45% of the land covered under the scheme was to be
utilized for the civic amenities like play grounds, roads etc.
and residential sites would be formed by utilizing remaining
55% of the land covered under the scheme. It is also clear
37
that out of the said 55% of developed residential area, 40%
of 55% will be offered as compensation to the land owners
as specified in the scheme and remaining 60% of 55% will
be the share of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).
The land-owners would be given option to accept the
developed eligible residential land or opt for compensation as
per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the LA Act').
4. Needless to state that the acquisition of the land
under the BDA Act is regulated by the provisions of the LA
Act so far as they are applicable. (See: Section 38 of the
BDA Act). The borrowed provisions of LA act, become an
integral part of the BDA Act and are totally unaffected by the
repeal of the LA Act. In other words, the provisions of the LA
Act are incorporated into the BDA Act so far as they are
applicable. Of course, the bar contained in Sections 6
and 11-A of the LA Act, are not applicable to the BDA
Act. We have discussed this aspect of the matter in our
main judgment dated 3-08-2018. It is also clear that
the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation &
Resettlement Act, 2013 are not applicable for the
acquisition made under the BDA Act. Final notification
has also been issued after the pronouncement of
judgment by this court in Civil Appeal No(s). 7661-
7663 of 2018 dated 3-08-2018. We direct the BDA to
proceed with the acquisition of the land as proposed in
the notification.
5. if the land-owner who has put up the
construction opts for land by way of a developed plot
in lieu of compensation, the constructed portion would
be adjusted in the land that would be allotted in his
favour. It is also clarified that the persons who have
put up construction/ dwelling house are not entitled
for compensation in respect of the constructed portion
of the land. If the incentive scheme as per Bangalore
Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for
Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989, is applied,
the constructed portion can also be adjusted towards
incentive site for voluntary surrender of land.
However, where a person has constructed a dwelling
house or any other building and where the constructed
38
portion is not adjusted for any reason, betterment
charges could be levied on him under Section 20 of the
BDA Act. BDA is directed to integrate the said
constructions into the layout.
6. As stated above, the buildings constructed in
the layout with valid sanction/permission from the
competent authority/authority(ies) needs to be saved
from demolition. Therefore, it is important to identify
the lawful constructions made in the notified lands.
For this purpose, we appoint a Committee comprising
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.V. Chandrashekhar, former Judge
of the Karnataka High Court, as its Chairman, Mr.
Jayakar Jerome, former Commissioner of the BDA and
Mr. S.T. Ramesh, former Director General of Police as
its Members. The Committee is required to look into
each of the requests of the owners of the dwelling
houses/buildings for its regularization. The Committee
should also find out whether the said dwelling
houses/buildings have been constructed in accordance
with the sanction/permission of the competent
authorities. The constructions which have come up
after the date of pronouncement of the judgment by
this Court i.e.,3.08.2018, shall not be eligible for
regularization. The Committee is permitted to devise
its own mechanism/ procedure for holding the enquiry
including issuing notices in the local newspapers in
this regard. Final orders regarding dwelling
houses/buildings which will be protected, would be
passed after we receive the report of the Committee.
7. To ensure that in the interregnum and from
now onwards no further constructions come up, the
Commissioner, BDA, would undertake exercise for
satellite imaging of the area in question for identifying
and noting the constructions as they exist. The said
exercise would be undertaken within a period of three
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
This exercise would be repeated periodically every
month and in case any new constructions are noticed,
they would be brought to the notice of the Committee
and action, including demolition etc. would be
undertaken.
39
8. The Commissioner of the BDA is hereby
directed to consult the Chairman and its Members of
the Committee and accordingly fix and pay their
remunerations. We direct the BDA to provide
appropriate secretarial assistance, transport and other
logistical support to the Chairman and the members of
the Committee for holding an enquiry within two
weeks from today. We authorize the Chairman of the
Committee to appoint requisite staff, if needed, on a
temporary basis to assist the Committee in conducting
enquiry and fix their salaries which would be paid by
the BDA. The BDA is also directed to provide enough
office space in its headquarters for the smooth
functioning of the Committee within two weeks. The
Committee is also permitted to take assistance of any
of the employees including surveyors from the BDA or
of the State Government for the purpose of spot
inspection, measurement and for its overall
functioning.
9. We make it clear that there is no bar for the
Chairman or the Members of the Committee to accept any
other engagement/arbitration matters during the subsistence
of the Committee.
10. The Committee is requested to submit its
report before this court preferably within a period of
six months from to-day.
11. It appears that certain writ petitions are pending
before the Karnataka High Court challenging the final
notification for acquisition of lands for the formation of
Dr.ShivaramaKaranth Layout. BDA is directed to furnish the
list of pending cases in respect of the said layout to the
Registrar General of the High Court within a week from
today. We request the Registrar General to list them before
the Court within two weeks. We request the high Court to
dispose of the said cases on their merits expeditiously.
12. The State Government is directed to grant
approval to the 60:40 scheme in respect of the layout in
question, if necessary within two weeks from to-day. The
40
State Government is also directed to depute additionally six
Land Acquisition Officers to the BDA within two weeks from
today.
13. BDA to file status report on or before 11.02.2021.
14. List these cases on 19-01-2021."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. After the constitution of the Committee as afore-directed
by the Apex Court, the petitioner submits his representation to the
Committee. The Committee passes certain orders on the
representation of the petitioner, which are all communicated
through text message. Since there is no other communication, the
petitioner has challenged the very message communicated to him,
produced as Annexures 'A' and 'A1' to the writ petition. They read
as follows:
"Your JCC Appln. No.
JCC-14-03867 has not
Been approved by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court
Of India, due to All Docs
Post 03/08/2018.
By Order - Justice
Chandrashekar
Committee
Through Navigem Data"
41
"In respect of JCC-14-03862, the
Findings are: "The land use of
this property has been changed
to "Residential" on 9.4.2010.
Stud farm is not one of the
Permitted uses in "Residential
Zone". Picture indicates stables
Panchayat plan sanction date
3.8.2011. Broadacres stables
BESCOM bill for water shed
3.4.2021."
"REJECTED." Justice
Chandrashekar Committee
Through Navigem Data."
(Emphasis added)
The reason rendered by the Committee is, permitted usage in a
residential zone does not indicate that it could be a stud farm. It
further notices that the picture indicates stables, plan sanction and
all other trites of a stud farm which comes to be rejected.
14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as observed
hereinabove, has taken this Court through the development in the
land as a stud farm and all licences and all approvals granted by the
panchayat are in place.
15. In that light, we deem it appropriate to notice the relief
granted to similarly situated land owner. The case there was of a
42
vacant land but all necessary permissions were taken long
prior to the preliminary notification of such acquisition.
Therefore, we are of the view that the subject lands could be
dropped from acquisition. The petitioner is similarly situated and in
fact, in a better footing. His lands are now being used for residential
purposes or sporting events and as stud farm as there are several
constructions in the area. In that light we are of the opinion that
the lands of the petitioner are fit to be dropped from acquisition.
16. We are of the considered view that Schedules-A and B
properties would squarely come within the orders of the Apex
Court, which dropped several properties from acquisition and the
Committee has erred in not considering the judgment of the Apex
Court in dropping of certain properties from acquisition.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
43(ii) Preliminary Notification dated 30-12-2008 and the final notification dated 30-10-2018 issued by the BDA stand quashed, qua the lands of the petitioner.
(iii) We declare that Schedules-A and B properties would fall within the orders of the Apex Court, which had dropped several properties from acquisition, on the recommendation of the Committee qua identical lands. We therefore declare that the properties/Schedules-A and B stand dropped from acquisition.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:SS