Karnataka High Court
Sri.U.G. Anantharamachar vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 20 June, 2012
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION No.26681/2011 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN :
Sri. U.G. Anantharamachar
Aged 81 years
S/o. Gopalakrishnachar
R/o. Nagadevanahalli Village
Kengeri Hobli
Bangalore South Taluk ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. Shantha Kumar, Adv.)
AND :
1. The Bangalore Development Authority
K.P. West, T. Chowdaiah Road
Bangalore 560 020
Rep. by its Commissioner
2. The Deputy Commissioner (LA)
Bangalore Development Authority
K.P. West, T. Chowdaiah Road
Bangalore 560 020
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer
Bangalore Development Authority
K.P. West, T. Chowdaiah Road
Bangalore 560 020
2
4. The State of Karnataka
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Urban Development Department
Government of Karnataka
Vikasa Soudha
Bangalore 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. M.N. Ramanjaneya Gowda, Adv. for R-1 to R-3
Sri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, HCGP for R-4)
---
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
endorsement dated 7.12.2010 as per Annexure-Q and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing
'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner contends that he had purchased 5 guntas of land in Sy. No.50/1 and 25 guntas in Sy. No.50/3 of Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, under two sale deeds dated 16.8.2005. He made an application as per Annexure-E, dated 6.9.2010 requesting the 3rd respondent to issue 'no objection certificate' for conversion of the said land to non- agricultural land. The 3rd respondent has issued an 3 endorsement as per Annexure-Q dated 7.12.2010 informing him that since the said land has already been notified for acquisition, no objection certificate cannot be issued. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the said endorsement in this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the properties in question having purchased the same under two sale deeds referred to above. The 3rd respondent had issued an endorsement as per Annexure-H dated 17.8.2004 informing him that the possession of the land measuring 2 acres 26 guntas in the aforesaid survey numbers has not been taken by the BDA and that possession of only 4 guntas of land has been taken for the formation of the layout. The 3rd respondent has again issued an endorsement as per Annexure-J dated 17.7.2008 stating that the final notification has been issued in respect of 2 acres and 30 guntas of land on 7.10.1999. Award has been passed in respect of 4 guntas of land on 24.6.2004 and 4 possession of the said 4 guntas has been taken by the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent has not passed any award in respect of balance of the land in the aforesaid survey number. That is why the petitioner has purchased the said properties. It is further contended that the petitioner had filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15423-15424/2009 before this Court challenging the preliminary notification dated 19.1.1989 and the final notification dated 19.1.1994. In the said writ petitions, a submission was made on his behalf that he had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid notifications and that the said writ petiton has been allowed and the notifications impugned therein were quashed insofar as his lands are concerned. Recording the said submission, the writ petitions were dismissed on 6.1.2010 reserving liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his other grievances. Therefore, the 3rd respondent ought to have issued no objection certificate to enable him to seek conversion of the land to non-agricultural purpose. 5
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the land bearing Sy.No.50 of Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, totally measures 5 acres 35 guntas inclusive of 8 guntas of karab land. The State Government had issued the preliminary notification dated 19.1.1989 under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1999, proposing to acquire the said land for formation of the Jnanabharathi Layout, followed by a final notification dated 19.1.1994. The validity of the said notification was challenged by the notified kathedars by filing writ petition in W.P.No.16837/1994. The said writ petition was allowed and the final notification was quashed on the ground that there was no prior sanction of the scheme. Thereafter, the scheme was sanctioned on 3.10.1997. The final notification was issued for acquiring the said land in the aforesaid survey number on 6.10.1997 leaving 2 acres 30 guntas. Again, a final notification was issued on 7.9.1999 for acquisition of the said 2 acre 30 guntas of land and the award was passed in respect of 4 6 guntas of land. In respect of balance of the land, award is yet to be passed. It is contended that the purchase of land by Natavarlal, M.M.Patel and Jayanthilal, the vendors of the petitioner after issuance of the preliminary notification was illegal. The purchase of land by the petitioner under the registered sale deeds dated 16.8.2005 does not confer any title on him. Since, the sale deeds under which the petitioner has purchased the properties itself are void, question of issuing no objection certificate for seeking conversion of land does not arise. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.
5. It is not in dispute that petitioner has purchased the properties in question under two sale deeds bearing No. BNG/(U)/KNGR.18287/2005-2006 and BNG(U)/KNGR.16220/ 2005-2006 both dated 16.8.2005. The petitioner has 7 produced copies of the said sale deeds for the perusal of the Court today. The recitals in the first sale deed show that petitioner's vendor, namely, Jayanti M.Patel had purchased the property from Chikkanna and two others represented by their general power of attorney holder P.Chandra under a sale deed dated 16.6.2004. The recitals in the second sale deed make it clear that the vendor's of the petitioner, namely, M.Natavarlal, M.M.Patel, M.Janyantilal had purchased the said property from Chikkanna represented by his power of attorney holder P.Chandra under a sale deed dated 24.5.2004.
6. It is also clear that the State Government had issued a preliminary notification dated 19.1.1989 proposing to acquire the land in question along with certain other lands for the formation of Jnana Bharathi Layout. Chikkanna was the notified kathedar of the said land. Final notification was issued by the State Government on 19.1.1994. The final notification was admittedly challenged in W.P.No.16837/1994. The said writ petition was allowed 8 and the final notification was quashed on the ground that the scheme was not sanctioned by the State Government. Thereafter, the scheme was sanctioned on 3.10.1997. Final notification was again issued on 6.10.1997 in respect of the land in the aforesaid survey number except 2 acre 30 guntas land. The said final notification was again challenged before this Court and it appears that the said petition has already been allowed. However, that is not material for this case. A final notification for acquisition of balance of 2 acre 30 guntas of land in the aforesaid survey number was once again issued on 7.9.1999. The petitioner has purchased 30 guntas of land under the aforesaid two sale deeds out of the aforesaid 2 acre 30 guntas of land. It is thus clear that petitioner's vendors had purchased the properties after issuance of the preliminary and the final notifications. Needless to say that petitioner's purchase of land is also after the issuance of the aforesaid notifications.
7. It is well established that title to the property purchased after issuance of notification for acquisition of 9 land is a void title. In SMT.SNEH PRABHA VS. STATE OF U.P. (1996) 7 SCC 426, the Apex Court has held that any person who purchases land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril. The object of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose and the acquisition proceedings point out an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder. It authorises the designated officer to enter upon the land to do preliminaries, etc. Therefore, any alienation of the land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition.
8. In AJAY KRISHAN SHINGHAL, ETC VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - AIR 1996 SC 2677, the Apex Court has held that the title of the purchaser of the property after publication of the declaration under Section 6 is a void title. It has been held thus:
10
"13. Another contention raised by Shri Ravinder Sethi is that the claimant in the first appeal had purchased the property after the declaration under Section 6 was published and that therefore he does not get any right to challenge the validity of the notification published under Section 4(1). Since his title to the property is a void title, at best he has only right to claim compensation in respect of the acquired land claiming interest in the land, which his predecessor-in-title had. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Pista Devi (1986) 4 SCC 251: (AIR 1986 SC 2025); Gian Chand Vs. Gopala (1995) 2 SCC 528: (1995 AIR SCW 1487); Mahavir Vs. Rural Institute, Amravati (1995) 5 SCC 335 and Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583: (1995 AIR SCW 2114). We need not deal at length with this issue as is the settled legal position."
(emphasis supplied by me)
9. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in STAR WISE (INDIA) LIMITED VS. STATE OF HARYANA - 11 (1996) 11 SCC 698 and in UNION OF INDIA VS.
SHIVKUMAR BHARGAVA AND OTHERS - AIR 1995 SC
812.
10. In POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. BAILAMMA @ DODDA BAILAMMA & OTHERS - ILR 1998 KAR 1441, a Full Bench of this Court while considering rights of the purchasers of the land subsequent to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) has held that a person, who purchases the land subsequent to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act cannot be said to be the owner. Such a purchaser has no right to challenge the acquisition itself, although he is entitled to claim compensation by virtue of the sale deed made in his favour i.e. of right, title and interest of his predecessor.
11. It is thus clear that the title of the petitioner in respect of the properties in question is a void title as he has purchased the property after issuance of the preliminary 12 notification and the declaration. At best, he can claim compensation for the acquired lands. In fact, in the endorsement at Annexure 'H' dated 17.8.2004, the third respondent has informed the petitioner that notification has been issued for acquisition of the land. However, possession has not yet been taken. The contention of the petitioner is that on the basis of the said endorsement, he has purchased the property. It is thus clear that he was aware of the preliminary and the final notifications issued by the State Government for acquisition of the land. It is true that petitioner had filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.15423-15424/2009 challenging the notification for acquisition of the said land. In the said writ petitions, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that he had earlier filed writ petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid notification in so far as his properties are concerned and the said writ petition had been allowed. His further submission was that despite quashing the notifications, the BDA is interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. Recording the 13 said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the writ petitions were dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for appropriate reliefs. The said order does not assist the petitioner in any manner.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the RTC of the lands stands in the name of the petitioner. The entries in the revenue records do not confer any title. The notifications are issued by the State Government for acquisition of land for a public purpose, namely, for the formation of a layout by the BDA. When the notifications are still in force, BDA cannot issue an endorsement enabling the petitioner to seek conversion of the land. At any rate, he is not entitled for clearance from the BDA when he has purchased the property after issuance of the said notifications and his title is void. Therefore, the third respondent is justified in issuing an endorsement at Annexure 'Q' dated 7.12.2010 stating that 14 petitioner is not entitled for 'no objection certificate' enabling him to seek conversion of the land.
13. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Cs/BMM/-