Karnataka High Court
Sri Joseph C vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 June, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.A. NO.1344 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. JOSEPH C,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI D CHOWRAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO.B-2,
MANAYANTA RESIDENSI,
RACHENAHALLI,
THANISANDRA,
BANGALORE - 560 077.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR.PRASANNA R, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M S BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY,
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2
3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VANI H, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE
THE COMMON FINAL ORDERS PASSED IN
W.P.NO.51929/2014, AS APPLICABLE/CONFINED TO
W.P.NO.38471/2014 (LA-BDA) TO MEET ENDS OF JUSTICE
AND ETC.,
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.Prasanna R., learned counsel for the appellant.
Smt.Vani H., learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr.K.Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3
This intra Court appeal arises from an order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38471/2014.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant claimed to be the owner of land measuring 1 acre 22 guntas. The aforesaid land was sought to be acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for short) for formation of 'Arkavathi layout'. Thereupon, preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was issued on 03.02.2003 and thereafter, a final notification was issued on 23.02.2004. The award in respect of the land in question was passed on 05.10.2004 and possession of the land was taken on 03.12.2004. The appellant filed writ petitions 4 namely W.P.No.51119-32/2004 and connected matters, in which the validity of the proceeding initiated by the Authority was challenged. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 15.04.2005, allowed the writ petition and quashed the preliminary as well as final notification in its entirety. A writ appeal was preferred by the Authority namely W.A.No.2625/2005 and connected matters which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 25.11.2005 and the acquisition of land in question was upheld. However, certain directions were issued to the Authority to consider the representation submitted by the owners of the land. The aforesaid order was upheld by the Supreme Court in 'BONDU RAMASWAMY AND OTHERS Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS' (2010) 7 SCC 129 and the special leave petitions were disposed of with certain directions. 5
3. The Authority thereafter on 18.03.2011, issued notice to the appellant seeking his consent for acquisition of land in view of the scheme for payment of compensation in the form of 40% of the developed land acquired from him instead of cash compensation. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition namely W.P.No.38773/2010 seeking a direction to consider the representation submitted by the appellant in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY's case. The writ petition preferred by the appellant was disposed of by an order dated 10.12.2012 with a direction to the Authority to conduct spot inspection and consider the representation. Thereafter, the Authority carried out spot inspection and found that the Authority has already formed a layout and sites were allotted to public in general. The representation submitted by the appellant was rejected on the ground that the land 6 of the appellant does not fall under any of the directions issued either by the Division Bench of this Court or by the Supreme Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY's case.
4. Thereafter, the Authority considered all the representations submitted by the owners of the land as well as the owners of the sites and issued a comprehensive final notification on 18.06.2014. The appellant filed a writ petition namely W.P.No.38741/2014 challenging the aforesaid notification. The said writ petition along with connected matters was decided by the learned Single Judge and was disposed of with a direction to the Authority to constitute a Committee which was directed to consider the representation submitted by the appellant. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
7
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge, by common order, has disposed of a batch of writ petitions and the case of the appellant has not been dealt with specifically. It is further submitted that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY's case. It is further submitted that the appellant was a party in the proceeding before the Supreme Court. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Authority has pointed out that cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Single Judge for upholding the validity of the final notification dated 18.06.2014 and on account of continuous litigation of the land in question, the scheme framed under Section 27 of the Act has not lapsed.
8
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The learned Single Judge has decided a batch of writ petitions by a common order dated 27.09.2021. At page 753 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in paragraph (xxii), it has been held that all writ petitions which have not been specifically dealt with hereinabove, shall be deemed to have been disposed of in terms of the order. In other words, the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been disposed of with a direction to the Committee to consider the representation submitted by the appellant. Therefore, the contention that the learned Single Judge has not specifically dealt with the writ petition of the appellant, is misconceived. The learned Single Judge has held that the notification dated 18.06.2014 has been issued in pursuance to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court which was 9 affirmed by the Supreme Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY's case. It has further been held that the impugned notification dated 18.06.2014 is only a replacement of earlier notification which was issued on account of the directions issued by the Supreme Court and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 prior to 2013 and the power to amend is always available to the Government inasmuch as the power to issue a notification would include power to amend, operate or decide the notification in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.
8. The appellant has failed to point out as to how the directions issued by the learned Single Judge violate the directions contained by the Supreme Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY's case.
10
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RV