Karnataka High Court
Sri. A Ramamurthy vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2023
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
WP No. 5582 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.5582 OF 2017 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI A. RAMAMURTHY,
S/O. LATE AVALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT NO.35, TEMPLE STREET,
COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
2. SRI A. ASHWATHMURTHY,
S/O. LATE AVALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.35, TEMPLE STREET,
COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
3. SRI K. UMASHANKAR,
S/O. LATE A. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
Digitally signed R/AT NO.35, TEMPLE STREET,
by SHARADA COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI,
VANI B BANGALORE - 560 005. ... PETITIONERS
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
KARNATAKA
SRI H.S. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
-2-
WP No. 5582 of 2017
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
NO.2, NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
R.T. NAGAR, BDA COMPLEX, BANGALORE.
4. A. BALAKRISHNA
S/O. LATE ACHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O NO.187, PARK ROAD,
COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
5. THE KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD,
NO.55, RISALDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
6. SMT. DEVAPRIYA W/O. KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
#01, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
7. SRI V. SRINIVASULU
S/O. VENKATESHWARULU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
#01, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
8. SRI M. VENKATESHWARULU,
S/O. SUBBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
#03, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
9. SRI TIRUPAL
S/O. YANADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
#04, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
-3-
WP No. 5582 of 2017
10. SMT. ADIYAMMA
W/O. OBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
#05, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
11. SRI BALAKRISHNA
S/O. BALAIAH P (L)
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
#06, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
12. SMT. PENCHALAMMA
W/O. RAMANIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
#07, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
13. SRI T. SRINIVASUSLU,
S/O. THIRUPAL,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
#08, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
14. SMT. SAVITHRI .K
W/O. KRISHNAMURTHY S.K.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
#09, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
15. SMT. PUSHPA RANI
W/O. VENKATALAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
#10, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
-4-
WP No. 5582 of 2017
BANGALORE - 560 005.
16. SMT. NAGAMANI W/O. KONDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
#11, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
17. SRI BABU .C
S/O. CHINNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
#12, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
18. SMT. SUGUNAMMA
W/O. VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
#13, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
19. YANGAMMA
W/O. KONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
#14, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
20. SRI CHANDRA KUMAR
S/O. KONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
#15, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
21. SRI ADARATHAIAH S/O. MASTHAN (L)
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
#16, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
-5-
WP No. 5582 of 2017
22. SRI KASAIAH S/O. PENCHALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
#17, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
23. SMT. T. LAKSHMI
W/O. SHEKHAR (L)
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
#18, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
24. SRI SURENDRA S/O. SHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
#19, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
25. SMT SHESHAMMA
W/O. NAGESHWAR ROAW
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
#20, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
26. SRI DANIYEL S/O. PRABHUDASS
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
#21, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
27. SRI ARUN BABU
S/O. PRABHU DASS
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
#22, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
28. SMT. MASTHANAMMA
W/O. SHUDHARSHAN KUMAR,
-6-
WP No. 5582 of 2017
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
#23, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
29. SMT. MARTHAMMA W/O. SAMUEL
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
#24, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
30. SMT. PRABHAVATHI
W/O. VIVEKANMANDAM
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
#25, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
31. SMT MARTHAMMA
W/O. PRABHUDASS
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
#26, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
32. SRI JOVIL S/O. SOLOMANNARAJ
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
#27, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
33. SRI JOHANN V.K.
S/O. KARUNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
#28, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
34. SRI RAJENDRANN
S/O. THANGAVELU
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
-7-
WP No. 5582 of 2017
#29, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
35. SRI ARUN KUMAR
S/O. RAJENDRAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
#30, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
36. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
#31, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
37. SRI P. JAKOB S/O. SAMUEL
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
#32, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
38. SMT. SUGUNAMMA
W/O. VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
#33, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
39. SMT. RAJESHWARI
W/O. MESHAK
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
#34, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
40. SRI M. ANTHONY
S/O. MANIKYAM
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
-8-
WP No. 5582 of 2017
#35, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
41. SMT. PREMAVATHI W/O. MANI
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
#36, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
42. SMT. NAGOMI
W/O. VENKATESH (L)
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
#37, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
43. SMT. RANI W/O. SUNDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
#38, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
44. SRI BENJAMEN S/O. JAKOB
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
#39, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
45. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. MAHESH (L)
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
#40, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
46. SMT. PANEM BHAGYALAKSHMI
W/O. CHANDRAMOULI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
#41, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
-9-
WP No. 5582 of 2017
BANGALORE - 560 005.
47. SMT. PADMAVATHI W/O. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
#42, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
48. SRI P. SRINIVAS S/O. PENCHALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
#43, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
49. SMT. P. RAJAMMA W/O. PENCHAL BABU (L)
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
#44, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
50. SMT. LAKSMAMMA W/O. KESHAVALU
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
#45, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
51. SMT. PADMA W/O. RAVINDRA (L)
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
#46, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
52. SRI L. KONDAIAH S/O. CHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
#46, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
53. SRI L. VENKATARAM
S/O. L. KONDAIAH
- 10 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
#48, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
54. SRI SHANTHA MALAKONDAIAH
S/O. D. MALAKONDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
#49, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
55. SRI VENKATARAMU
S/O. D. AMLAKONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
#50, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
56. SMT. SHOBHA
W/O. SRIDHAR MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
#51, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
57. SMT. SUSHEELA W/O. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
#52, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
58. SRI KRISHNAIAH
S/O. SUDARSHANAM
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
#53, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
59. SRI MAHESH KUMAR S/O. KRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
- 11 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
#54, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
60. SRI MAHENDRA L.
S/O. LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
#55, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
61. SMT. SUJATHA
W/O. CHINNA MALAKONDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
#56, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
62. SRI CHINNAKRISHNAMMA
W/O. MALAKONDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
#57, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
63. SMT. VANAJA W/O. MALADRIBABU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
#58, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
64. SMT. PENCHALAMMA S.
W/O. KONDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
#59, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
65. SRI CHANDRAIAH S/O. YANADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
#60, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
- 12 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
66. SRI RAMU S/O. K. LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
#61, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
67. SMT. VENKATARAJAMMA
W/O. LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
#62, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
68. SRI SAMBA S/O. E.P. NARASIMHAM
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
#63, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
69. SRI K. RAVI S/O. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
#64, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
70. SMT. MAMATHA W/O. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
#65, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
71. SMT. PRABHAVATHI
W/O. BALAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
#66, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
- 13 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
72. SRI SRINIVAS P.
S/O. PENCHALAIAH M. (L)
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
#67, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
73. SRI SRINIVASULU
S/O. RAGHAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
#68, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
74. SMT. SUSHILA W/O. JAVAHARLAL
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
#69, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
75. SMT. KANTAMMA W/O. KOTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
#70, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
76. SRI LAKSMAIAH S/O. KONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
#71, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
77. SMT. CHANAMMA
W/O. MALAKONDAIAH (L)
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
#72, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
78. SMT. RADHA W/O. MUDHERA
- 14 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
#73, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
79. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. SURESH .G
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
#74, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
80. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI W/O. BALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
#75, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
81. SRI PRASADA S/O. KONDAIAH (L)
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
#76, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
82. SMT. PENCHALAMMA W/O. KONDAIAH (L)
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
#77, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
83. SMT. MAHALAKSHMI W/O. MALAKONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
#78, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
84. SMT. MALATHI W/O. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
#79, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
- 15 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
85. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. SUBBARAIDU (L)
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
#80, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
86. SMT. D. KOTESHWARAMMA
W/O. D. VENKATESHWARULU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
#81, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
87. SMT. M. LAKSHMI
W/O. PENCHALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
#82, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
88. SRI VISHVANATH S/O. RAJAGOPAL (L)
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
#83, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
89. SMT. PENCHALAMMA W/O. KONADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
#85, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
90. SRI A. MALAKONDAIAH S/O. KONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
#86, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
91. SMT. KONDAMMA W/O. PENCHALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
- 16 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
#87, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
92. SMT. SUBBARATNAMMA
W/O. MARCHALA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
#88, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
93. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. ADISHESHULU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
#89, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
94. SMT. SARASWATHI W/O. PAULRAJ
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
#90, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
95. SMT. KONDAMMA W/O. KONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
#91, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
96. SMT. SELVI W/O. VISHWANATH (L)
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
#92, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
97. SMT. MANGAMMA W/O. MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
#93, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
- 17 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
98. SMT. SAMPOORNA
W/O. VENKATARAMANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
#94, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
99. SMT. PAVANI W/O. RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
#96, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
100. SMT. PARAMESHWARI W/O. KONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
#97, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
101. SRI K. PENCHALAIH S/O. KONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
#98, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
102. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O. RAMANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
#99, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
103. SRI B. PENCHALAIAH
S/O. PEDDA PENCHALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
#100, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
104. SMT. SHANTH
W/O. CHINNA PENCHALAIAH,
- 18 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
#101, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
105. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. K. NARASIMHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
#102, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
106. SMT. SELVI W/O. KANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
#103, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
107. SMT. AMBUJA W/O. DEVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
#104, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
108. SRI NAVEEN KUMAR S/O. MURUGAN
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
#105, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
109. SRI MURUGAN S/O. CHINNA SWAMUY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
#106, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
110. SMT. ANITHA W/O. JOHAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
#107, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
- 19 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
111. SMT. BHAVANI W/O. NAVEEN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
#108, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
112. SMT. RAMADEVI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
#109, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
113. SMT. PADMA W/O. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
#110, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
114. SMT. MERY W/O. SHEKAR (L)
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
#111, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
115. SRI ARUN S/O. SHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
#112, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
116. SMT. FATIMA W/O. KRISHNA (L)
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
#113, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
117. SRI PANEMM NARASIMHALU
S/O. PENCHALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
#115, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
- 20 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
118. SRI SELVARAJ S/O. MUNIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
#116, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
119. SMT. HAJIRA BEGAM
W/O. MANSUR AHAMAD BAIG,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
#117, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
120. SMT. KANACHAN W/O. KARTIK
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
#118, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
121. SMT. TILAKA W/O. SAGAYANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
#119, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
122. SMT. MANJULA W/O. MUTTU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
#120, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
123. SMT. PREMKUMARI W/O. MUTTU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
#121, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
- 21 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
124. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. BALACHANDAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
#122, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
125. SRI K. ANABALAGANNA S/O. KANTARAJ
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
#123, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
126. SMT. VIJAYA W/O. MANTO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
#124, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
127. SMT. JESSY W/O. RICHERD
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
#125, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
128. SMT. MERY PREMA
W/O. HARRY ANTONI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
#126, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
129. SMT. SAGAYA MERRY W/O. JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
#127, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
130. SMT. VIJALAKSHMI W/O. YESUDASS
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
#128, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
- 22 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
131. SRI VASANTA KUMAR S/O. PERUMAL
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
#129, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
132. SRI SUBBARATNAM
S/O. SUBBAIAH (L)
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
#130, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
133. SMT. JAYANTHI W/O. SHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
#131, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
134. SMT. NAGALAKSHMI W/O. NAGARAJU (L)
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
#132, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
135. SRI VASU K. S/O. KONDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
#133, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
136. SMT. SUVARTHA W/O. SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
#134, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
- 23 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017
137. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O ADINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
#135, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
138. SMT. LOOSY W/O. RAMU
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
#136, CHATTAPPA GARDEN,
COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI,
SARVAGNA NAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE ORDER
DATED 17/10/2022 AND 13/12/2022)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI N.R. GIRISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3;
SRI P.B. AJIT, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-5;
SRI KIRAN J., ADVOCATE A/W SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY,
SENIOR COUNSEL FOR R-6 TO R-138)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 02.06.1978 PUBLISHED IN
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 15.06.1978 AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION
DATED 30.09.1980 PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON
09.10.1980 VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND B ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN
LAPSED BY VIRTUE OF SEC.24(2) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING -
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners claiming to be the owners of subject property, are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for
- 24 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017assailing the acquisition of the same vide Preliminary Notification dated 2.6.1978 issued u/s 17(1) followed by the Final Notification dated 30.9.1980 issued u/s 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, essentially on the ground that the acquisition process has lapsed in view of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They also have sought for voiding of the subject acquisition on the additional ground of lapsing of the scheme in terms of section 27 of the 1976 Act.
2. After service of notice, the respondent-State is represented by the learned AGA and the respondent-BDA & its Executive Engineer are represented by their Senior Panel Counsel. Similarly, the Slum Clearance Board speaks through its Panel Counsel. The allottees of the sites in question got themselves impleaded as respondents later and their Sr. Advocate also opposes the petition.
- 25 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017Statements of Objections have been filed, resisting the Writ Petition.
3. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners vehemently argues that his clients still continue to be in the possession of the subject land and that the scheme that comprised the same having not been substantially executed, the acquisition would statutorily lapse and as a consequence, the land needs to be reverted to his clients consistent with the law declared by the Apex Court in OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (2011) 3 SCC
139. Learned advocates appearing for the respondents controvert the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and oppose the Writ Petition inter alia on the grounds of delay & latches, culpable conduct of the petitioners, the findings recorded in the earlier Writ Petition and the execution of scheme having already been accomplished, the sites have been allotted to the impleaded respondents. All the advocates appearing for
- 26 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017the respondents make submission in justification of the impugned acquisition. They seek dismissal of the Writ Petition with exemplary costs.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter with exemplary costs for the following reasons:
A. AS TO DELAY & LATCHES:
The subject land was acquired pursuant to
Preliminary Notification dated 2.6.1978 followed by the Final Notification dated 30.9.1980 u/ss. 17(1) & 19(1) of the 1976 Act. The award having been passed, the award notice was issued to the predecessor in title Mr.A.Krishnamurthy who is none other than the father of petitioner no.3. The possession of the land was taken on 30.05.1990. With the land in question along with the other, the formation of the layout was accomplished. Adverting to all this, the earlier challenge to the acquisition came to be negatived by a Co-ordinate Bench
- 27 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017of this court in W.P.No.1978/1992 disposed off vide judgment dated 14.07.1992. That being the position, the present petition inter alia duplicating the very same prayers filed on 03.02.2017 ie., with a delay of about four & a half decades cannot be entertained. It hardly needs to be stated that in the absence of a plausible explanation, the delay defeats equity and the writ courts do not come to the aid of sleepy & tardy.
B. AS TO RES JUDICATA:
The vehement contention of the respondents that the case of petitioners is liable to be res judicated has force in view of the findings recorded in the earlier round of litigation as already mentioned above. The learned Co-
ordinate Judge at para 7 of this judgment dated 14.07.1992 has observed as under:
"7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In the light of the undisputed facts of this case, I am of the considered opinion that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. The preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore
- 28 -WP No. 5582 of 2017
Development Authority Act, 1976 dated 2-6- 1978 was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 29-6-1978 and the final notification dated 30-09-1980 under Section 19 was published in the Karnataka Gazette Dated 9- 10-1980. The petitioner was aware of these acquisition proceedings as stated by him in para-2 of the Writ Petition in 1981 itself. He has stated that a notice dated 29-4-1981 was received by him calling upon him to file his statement of claim by 6-5-1981 as per Annexure-C. The petitioner has not given any explanation whatsoever for this inordinate delay of almost 12 years in approaching this court challenging the acquisition proceedings."
C. AS TO LAPSE OF SCHEME UNDER 1976 ACT & 2013 ACT:
(a) The passionate submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is abundant evidentiary material to prima facie establish that the scheme in question having not been executed till the filing of writ petition, the same has lapsed and as a consequence, the acquisition too stands statutorily voided and therefore, the lands should be restored to his clients, is very difficult to agree with.
Whether the scheme has been executed substantially, has already been answered by the Co-ordinate Bench by saying "... I have no hesitation to hold that this writ
- 29 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay & laches particularly so as to asserted by respondent nos. 1 and 2 the formation of layout has been almost completed having acquired the vast area of the lands comprised in several Sy.Nos...". In view of this finding, whatever may be the views of the officials pursuant to joint survey and measurement, this court cannot countenance an argument that runs counter to the said finding.
(b) In order to invoke lapsing of the Scheme under Section 27, there are three factors as sine qua non, namely: (i) there must be failure to execute the Scheme because of dereliction of statutory duties on the part of the officials sans justification; (ii) a mere delay in substantial execution of the Scheme would not do; (iii) the challenge on the ground of lapse of Scheme should be without brooking delay, vide Division Bench decision in KRISHNAMURTHY vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ILR 1996 KAR 1258. Petitioners have not laid any foundation in their pleadings with regard to the same
- 30 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017and much less placed any material to substantiate the said claim of lapsing.
(c) The contention of lapsing of acquisition u/s 24(2) of the 2013 Act would also fail firstly because this Act would not apply to acquisitions done under the statutes other than erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Act, there being sufficient regulatory provisions in the 1976 Act itself vide Division Bench decision in W.A.No.1415/2018 (LA- BDA) between SRI. L. RAMAREDDY v. STATE & OTHERS, disposed off on 01.05.2020, vide paragraph 20. Secondly, the Apex Court in INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. MAHOHAR LAL, 2020 (8) SCC 129 at paragraphs 345 & 346 has observed as under:
"...Section 24(2) is sought to be used as an umbrella so as to question the concluded proceedings in which possession has been taken, development has been made, and compensation has been deposited, but may be due to refusal, it has not been collected. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings cannot be made within the parameters of Section 24(2) once panchnama had been drawn of taking possession, thereafter re-entry or retaining the possession is that of the trespasser. The legality of the proceedings cannot be challenged belatedly, and the right to
- 31 -WP No. 5582 of 2017
challenge cannot be revived by virtue of the provisions of Section 24(2). Section 24(2) only contemplates lethargy/inaction of the authorities to act for five years or more. It is very easy to lay a claim that physical possession was not taken, with respect to open land. Yet, once vesting takes place, possession is presumed to be that of the owner, i.e., the State Government and land has been transferred to the beneficiaries, Corporations, Authorities, etc., for developmental purposes and third-party interests have intervened. Such challenges cannot be entertained at all under the purview of Section 24(2) as it is not what is remotely contemplated in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
In matters of land acquisition, this Court has frowned upon, and cautioned courts about delays and held that delay is fatal in questioning the land acquisition proceedings. In case possession has not been taken in accordance with law and vesting is not in accordance with Section 16, proceedings before courts are to be initiated within reasonable time, not after the lapse of several decades..."
It hardly needs to be stated that the law declared in OFFSHORE HOLDINGS supra has been considered in the above decision and therefore, petitioners cannot draw much milk from the observations made therein.
(d) Added, petitioners have not filed any objections to the impleading applications filed by the allottees of the
- 32 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017sites who had specifically structured the same on the ground that the layout having been formed, they have been allotted the sites and many of them have put up constructions. In fact, they have produced an undisputed photographs wherein the land owner has been distributing allotment letters to the allottees who happen to be the slum dwellers who are 94 in number. In the affidavit filed this day by the 3rd respondent, the subject photographs are admitted to be genuine. At para 3, he specifically says: "I state that the petitioner no.1 who is having close relationship with the local leaders is seen in the photographs produced by the impleaded respondents ...". At para 4, he states "that the petition no.1 who had no idea of distributing the possession certificates attended the function where it is claimed that the certificates are issued by the petitioners themselves... petitioners were not aware that the possession certificates were distributed from their lands to the allottees from the slum board ..." The photographs produced by the officials on spot inspection undeniably establish the erection of structures in the
- 33 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017subject layout. All this being the position, the version of the petitioners that they still continue to be in the possession of the subject land is nothing but a militant lie made to the temple of justice and therefore, the petitioners cannot go unscathed for perpetrating sin of the kind which is more than suppressio veri.
D. AS TO CULPABLE CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONERS:
(a) As already discussed above, this acquisition process is more than four decades old. The award having been passed, notice having been served, the possession of the land was taken over long long ago and the same was handed over to the respondent Slum Clearance Board; the layout having been formed, allotments of houses/sites have been made to as many as 138 persons who belong to the disadvantaged segment of the society. In fact, in the affidavit filed this day, it is specifically admitted that the first petitioner had distributed the allotment letters to the beneficiaries and strangely he figures in the photographs produced by the allottees and not disputed by the
- 34 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017petitioners. The first petitioner claims to be thickly associated with the local leaders. There is a concrete culpability attributable to the petitioners who had filed the writ petition and secured status quo order suppressing all this and that too without arraying the allottees as parties. However, on coming to know of this unconscionable legal battle, the allottees themselves got impleaded by engaging a Sr. Advocate to argue their side of the case. Absolutely no explanation is offered by the petitioners as to why they had not arrayed the allottees. In fact, they did not controvert the contents of Impleading Applications. This is another sin which the petitioners have perpetrated against the slum dwellers by giving them sleepless nights. This is not only a sufficient ground for non-suiting the petitioners but to make the levy of costs exemplary.
(b) Whilst submissions were made on behalf of the petitioners, this Court drew the attention of their counsel to the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench in the earlier round of litigation, as to the layout having been
- 35 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017formed and allotment of sites/houses having been made by the Slum Clearance Board in favour of the oppressed members of the society. Even then petitioners had stuck to their ground that they have been in the possession of the property all through. Added, the third petitioner has sworn to the affidavit reiterating the very same stand as to they being in the possession of the property when demonstrably they are not. No efforts are spared to mislead the court as to possession of the property and formation of the layout. This virtually amounts to perjury if not contempt. The pleadings of the petitioners militantly lack bona fide which is treated as the life blood of any litigation process, more particularly the one launched in constitutional jurisdiction.
In the above circumstances, the petition being devoid of merits & being vexatious, is liable to be dismissed & accordingly it is, with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- only collectively payable by the petitioners to each of the respondents within six weeks, and the delay if brooked,
- 36 -
WP No. 5582 of 2017will carry an additional sum of Rs.1,000/- per week payable to each of them.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBM