Karnataka High Court
Sri R Shankaran vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
®
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 32186 OF 2010 (LA-BDA)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION Nos.32187/2010 & 34096-34098 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.37886 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.40958 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.43714 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION Nos.14140-147 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.34413-34423 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION Nos.35445-48 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION No.33858 & 34282 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION No.34191 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION No.22087-102 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.17461 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.40115 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.40110-112 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.22375 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION No.3107 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.19767 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.1753 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION Nos.17369 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.35629 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.35628 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.35625-627 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.37316-317 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.42138 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION Nos.10650-653 OF 2011
2
WRIT PETITION Nos.9830-37 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.32869 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION No.50027 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION Nos.32653-656 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.20526 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.25616 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.16908 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.41277 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION Nos.13342-343 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.20398 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.251-255 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION No.11688 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.30102 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION Nos.38252-253 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.22777 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.33243-246 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION No.13000 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.10531-32 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.9167 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION Nos.9165 AND 9405 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.2211 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION Nos.14913 AND 14914 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION No.31120 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.15705/2013
WRIT PETITION Nos.9101-9102 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.37190-191 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION Nos.40644-645 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION Nos.44048 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION No.51015 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION Nos.30740-743 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.8901 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.13416 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.11306-307 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.23247 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.42536 OF 2011
3
WRIT PETITION No.44554 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.29668 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.28722 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.9839-41 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.11966-967 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION NO.19807 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.12927-935 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.26373 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.12781 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION No.16259-266 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.13726 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION Nos.33131 OF 2011 & 35309 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION Nos.33132 OF 2011 & 35176 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION Nos.22103-104 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.43470 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.3134 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.26369 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.26368/2010 AND 37509-511/2010
WRIT PETITION No.26365 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.26364 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.26363 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.26374/2010 & 34638-639/2010
WRIT PETITION No.26372 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.16364 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.38442/2011 & 38449-451/2011 &
38454/2011
WRIT PETITION No.11025 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.29520 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION Nos.35001-03 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION Nos.12969-12972 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.20417 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.19475 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.12225 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.31121 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.9842-9844 OF 2010
4
WRIT PETITION No.28892 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.36986 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION No.33899 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION Nos.32882-883 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.7297 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.11837-838/2010 & 11925-26/2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.33657/2010 & 40928/2010
WRIT PETITION No.45934/2011
WRIT PETITION Nos.39390/2012 & 40994/2012
WRIT PETITION Nos.46127-129 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION Nos.16418-419 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.28146 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION No.46941 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION Nos.26370/2010 & 34640-642/2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.26362/2010 & 34634-637/2010
WRIT PETITION No.26367/2010
WRIT PETITION No.19118 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION Nos.6313-6318 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION Nos.1746/2011 & 1748-54/2011
AND
WRIT PETITION Nos.33267/2011 & 33695-699/2011 &
33779/2011 (LA-BDA)
5
IN W.P.No.32186 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
Sri. R. Shankaran,
Son of Sri. Rangaswamy,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.54,
7th Main, Nandini Layout,
Saraswathipuram,
Bangalore - 560 098.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Udaykumar H.B., Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. The Senior Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
6
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A. Lokanath,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act for the Layout called Nadaprabhu
Kempegowda Layout, issued by second and third respondent in
respect of schedule property vide Annexure-A and etc;
IN W.P. Nos.32187 AND
34096-34098 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
Shri Dharma Narayana,
S/o. Sri. Venkatarajaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
Agriculturist, Residing at
No.114, 4th Main,
HVR Layout,
Bangalore-79. ... PETITIONER.
(By Shri. Udaya Kumar H.B., Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary.
7
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
3. The Senior Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. I.G. Gachchinamath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and
3)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification, Bangalore dated 21.5.2008 under Section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act for the Layout called Nadaprabhu
Kempegowda Layout, issued by 2nd and third respondent in
respect of schedule property vide Annexure-A and etc;
IN W.P.No.37886/2012
BETWEEN:
Sri. Lakshmana,
Aged about 48 years,
Son of Late Chikka Channigappa,
Residing at No.112,
Chikka Kodige Halli,
8
Kodigehalli Post,
Yashwanthpura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 091. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. D.L. Jagadeesh, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A. Lokanath,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
9
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3)
of the BDA Act 1976, vide Annexure-C to the writ petition and
also the final notification dated 18.2.2010 vide Annexure-D to
the writ petition, issued by the first respondent and etc;
IN W.P.No.40958 / 2012
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Umadevi,
Wife of Gurumallappa,
Aged about 56 years,
2. G. Siddalingaswamy,
Son of Gurumallappa,
Aged about 39 years,
3. K.G. Gurushantha,
Wife of Gurumallappa,
Aged about 35 years,
All are residing at Kannalli,
Kodigehalli Post,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District - 560 058. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. A. Nagarajappa, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Urban Development Authority,
10
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumarapark West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer of
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A. Lokanath,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification at Annexure-E dated 21.5.2008 published in the
Karnataka Gazette dated 21.5.2008, issued under Section 17(1)
and (3) and final notification issued under Section 19(1) at
Annexure-F dated 18.2.2010 published in the Karnataka
Gazette dated 25.2.2010 by the respondent in so far as relates to
the petition scheduled land.
IN W.P.No.43714/2012
BETWEEN:
Krishnappa,
Son of Byrappa,
65 years,
11
Residing at Kannalli,
Kodigehalli Post,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District - 560 058.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. A. Nagarajappa, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Urban Development Authority,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumarapark West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer of
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A. Lokanath,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification at Annexure-E dated 21.5.2008 published in the
12
Karnataka Gazette dated 22.5.2008, issued under Section 17(1)
and (3) and final notification issued under Section 19(1) at
Annexure-F dated 18.2.2010 published in the Karnataka
Gazette dated 25.2.2010, by the respondent in so far as relates
to the petitioner scheduled land.
IN W.P.Nos.14140-14147 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Nagarathna .G,
Wife of Shri. B.V. Narasimhaiah,
Aged 42 years,
No.8, 7th Main,
Shivanagar, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
2. Shri Syed Ashraf,
Son of Shri. Syed Umar Saheb,
Aged about 55 years,
Flat No.410, Vijaya Mansions,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040,
By his GPA Holder.
3. Shri. V. Thimmaiah,
Son of Shri. Dodda Venkatappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Magadi Main Road,
Sunkadakatte,
Yeswanthpur Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 010.
4. Smt. Deepa Salunki,
13
Wife of Shri. R.S. Salunki,
Aged about 55 years,
No.8, D. Rajgopal Road,
Amarjyothi Layout,
RMV II Stage,
Bangalore - 560 094.
5. Smt. Sumathi Sadashiva,
Wife of Shri. Sadashiva Salunki,
Aged about 78 years,
No.8, D. Rajgopal Road,
Amarjyothi Layout,
RMV II Stage,
Bangalore - 560 094.
Petitioners no. 4 and 5
Represented by their
Power of Attorney Holder,
Shri. B.V. Narasimhaiah,
Aged 47 years,
No.8, 7th Main, Shivanagar,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. G. Krishna Murthy, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Multistoreyed Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
14
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. P.S. Dinesh
Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-J the
preliminary notification No.BDA/ COMMR/ DC(LA) /LAO
/158/ 2008-2009, dated 21.5.2008, published in the Karnataka
Special Gazette on 22.5.2008 in respect of Sl.No.196, 272, 273
and 274 so far as the petition schedule properties are concerned
and also Annexure-K the final notification No.UDD 51 MNX
2010, dated 18.2.2010, published in Special Gazette on
18.2.2010, so far as it relates to the properties of the petitioners,
in Sl.No.195, 263, 264 and 265 of the Gazette.
IN W.P.Nos.34413-34423 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. V. Krishnamurthy,
Son of Late Venkatappa,
Aged about 42 years,
15
Resident of No.53/5,
Skandanagar,
Kodigehalli Post,
Bangalore - 560 091.
2. Smt. Thulasamma,
Wife of Late Venkatappa,
Aged about 70 years,
Resident of No.53/5,
Skandanagar,
Kodigehalli Post,
Bangalore - 560 091.
3. Smt. Shivamma,
Wife of Late Bettaswamy,
Aged about 50 years,
Resident No.3, 8th Cross,
Kottigepalya,
Magadi Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 091.
4. Smt. Rathnamma,
Wife of Late Chikkahanumanthaiah,
Aged about 46 years,
Resident of Kodigehalli Post,
Bangalore - 560 091.
5. Sri. N. Krishnappa,
Son of Late Narasaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
Resident of No.35/5,
Kenchanapura Road,
Resident of Kodigehalli Post,
Bangalore - 560 091. ...PETITIONERS
16
(By M/s. Agnihotri Associates)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Housing and
Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. B.V.
Shankaranarayan Rao, for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records on
the file of the R1 to R3 with regard to the Acquisition of the
disputed lands in Sy.No.48/2, 48/3, 48/5, 49/1, 53/3P, 53/4P,
53/16P, 53/2P, 48/1, 52/1 and 53/11P of the petitioner and
quash both preliminary and final notifications dated 21.5.2008
and dated 18.2.2010 issued by the first respondent Annexure-M
17
and P respectively in so far as the lands of the petitioners viz.,
in Sy.Nos48/2, 48/3, 48/5, 49/1, 53/3P, 53/4P, 53/16P, 53/2P,
48/1, 52/1 and 53/11P of Kodigehalli Village, Magadi Main
Road, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore.
IN W.P.Nos.35445-35448/2011
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. G. Galappa,
S/o. late Galappa,
Aged about 58 years,
Resident of No.53/5, Skandanagar,
Kodigehalli Post,
Bangalore-91.
2. Smt. Anjinamma,
W/o. late Lakkappa,
Aged about 45 years,
Resident of No.53/5, Skandanagar,
Kodigehalli Post,
Bangalore-91.
3. Sri. Venkataswamaiah,
W/o. late Ramadasappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Resident of No.53/3, Skandanagar,
Kodigehalli Post,
Bangalore-91.
4. Sri. Venkatachalaiah,
S/o. late Venkatappa,
Aged about 56 years,
Resident of No.53/2, Skandanagar,
18
Kodigehalli Post,
Bangalore-91. ...PETITIONERS
(By M/s. Agnihotri Associates, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary.
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri V.B. Shivakumar, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records
on the file of Respondents 1 to 4 with regard to the acquisition
of the disputed lands in Sy.Nos.53/5P, 53/3P and 53/6P of the
petitioners, and etc.
19
IN W.P.Nos.33858 AND 34282 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
K.K. Educational Trust (Regd.)
No.52/8, Kodigehalli,
Magadi Main Raod,
Bangalore - 560 091,
Represented by its President,
Sri. V.Krishnamurthy,
Son of Late Venkatappa. ...PETITIONER
(By M/s. Agnihotri Associates)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Housing and
Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
20
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. C.R.
Gopalaswamy and Associates, for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records on
the file of the R1 to R3 with regard to the Acquisition of the
disputed lands in Sy.No.52/7 and 52/8 of the petitioner/trust and
quash both preliminary notification dated 21.5.2008 issued by
R1 and final notification 18.2.2010 issued by the first
respondent Annexure-R and Y in so far as the lands of the
petitioner in Sy.No.52/7 and 52/8 of Kodigehalli Village,
Magadi Main Road, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk, Bangalore and thus allow the above writ petition.
IN W.P.NO.34191/2011
BETWEEN:
Sri. V. Krishnamurthy,
S/o. late Venkatappa,
Aged about 42 years,
Resident of No.53/5, Skandanagar,
Kodigehalli Post,
Bangalore-560 091. ...PETITIONER.
(By Shri Keshav R. Agnihotri, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
21
Vidhana Soudha,
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri I.G. Gachchinamath, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records on
the file of R1 to R3 with regard to the acquisition of the
disputed land site No.1 in Sy.No.53/5P of the petitioner, and
etc.
IN W.P.Nos.22087-22102/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. K.H. Lakshmana Gowda,
S/o. Huchegowda,
Aged 29 years,
Residing at No.67,
Muneswara Layout, Kodigehalli,
Yeshwanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore-560 091.
22
2. Sri. N. Srinivas,
S/o. P. Narayana,
Aged 33 years,
Residing at No.17, Poornima Nilaya,
5th Cross, Defence Colony,
H.G. Road, Bangalore-73.
3. Sri. Chakrapani,
S/o. late Venkatachalapathy,
Aged 47 years,
Resident of No.304/B, 3rd Main,
Manjunath Nagar,
Bangalore-560 010.
4. Sri. Shashikala,
D/o. Venkategowda,
Aged 28 years,
Residing at No.42/3, 1st Cross,
Raghavanagar,
Bangalore-560 026.
5. Sri. Nanjegowda,
S/o. Gendegowda,
Aged 62 years,
Residing at Byladakere Village,
Hebburu Post, Thaguru Hobli,
Madduru Taluk,
Mandya District.
6. Sri. Omeshaiah,
S/o. Chikkakari Gowda,
Aged 47 years,
Resident of No.137/B,
BTS Layout, Ullala Main Road,
Byadarahally,
23
Bangalore-560 091.
7. Smt. Prema,
W/o. A.M. Mahadevaiah,
Aged 32 years,
Resident of No.787,
Near Ganesha Temple,
Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore-560 079.
8. Smt. Hema,
W/o. late C. Krishnappa,
Aged 41 years,
Resident of Kalenahally Village / Post,
Kothathi Hobli,
Mandya District.
9. Sri. Mahadevaiah,
S/o. late Chikkakari Gowda,
Aged 51 years,
Resident of Gowdagere Village / Post,
Malur Hobli, Channapatna Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
10. Sri. Aswathanarayana,
S/o. Venkatappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at No.10/1, 1st Main,
New Guddadahalli, Mysore Road,
Bangalore-560 026.
11. Smt. Thejaswini R.Gowda,
W/o. Rudre Gowda,
Aged about 28 years,
Resident of No.212, 6th Main,
24
G.K.W. Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-560 040.
12. Sri. P.H. Lakshminarashimha,
S/o. P.S. Hanumantharao,
Aged about 44 years,
Resident of No.195, R.M.V. 2nd Stage,
Nagashettyhalli,
Bangalore-560 094.
13. Sri. K.K. Sadhananda,
S/o. late Pallante Karigowda,
Aged about 36 years,
14. Smt. Savithri,
W/o. K.K. Sadhananda,
Aged about 29 years,
The 13th and 14th petitioners are
Residing at No.133, 5th Main,
7th Cross, Nagarabhavi,
Maruthi Nagar,
Bangalore-560 072.
15. Smt. Jayamma,
W/o. Govindaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
Resident of Magadi Main Road,
Vinayakanagar,
Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore-560 070.
16. Sri. C. Muniraj,
W/o. Chikkarangappa,
Aged about 32 years,
25
Residing at Site No.1,
Assessment No.107,
Kodigehalli Village,
Yeshwanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. ... PETITIONERS.
(By Shri. K.H. Jagadish, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary.
Department of Housing & Urban Development Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark West,
Bangalore-560 020.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark West,
Bangalore. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1)
These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.05.2008 under Section 17(1) and (3) of the
BDA Act, 1976 vide Annexure-Q issued by Respondent No.2
and the final notification dated 18.2.2010 vide Annexure-R
26
issued by R1 under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act insofar as the
petitioner is concerned.
IN W.P.No.17461 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Lakshmamma,
Aged about 60 years,
Daughter of Gudiyappa,
Residing at No.53,
Kodigenahalli, Magadi Road,
Yashavanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore.
2. Dr. Ambedkar SC/ST
Educational and Social Welfare
Trust (Regd.) No.53,
Kodagehalli, Bangalore - 560 091,
Represented by its President. ... PETITIONERS
(By Shri. N. Manohar, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
(BDA), Bangalore Development
Authority, T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
27
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. B.V.
Shankar Narayana Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and 3
Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification Bangalore dated 21.5.2008 issued under Section
17(1) and (3) of BDA Act 1976 (Annexure-G) and final
notification, Bangalore dated 18.2.2010 (Annexure-L) for the
formation of the Layout called Nadaprabhu Kempegowda
Layout and etc;
IN W.P.No.40115 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
Shamanthakamani,
Wife of A. Sanjanna,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at Yellae Kodigehalli,
Gollarahatti Cross,
Magadi Main Road,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Bangalore - 560 091. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. D. Prabhakar, Advocate)
28
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
Represented by its Commissioner,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. V.Y.Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and 3
Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification issued under Section 17(1) dated 21.5.2008
Gazetted on 22.5.2008 and the final notification issued under
Section 19(1) of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976
dated 18.2.2010 Gazetted on 18.2.2010 issued by the second
respondent as per Annexures D and J in so far as lands
belonging to the petitioners.
29
IN W.P.Nos.40110-40112 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Jayamma,
Daughter of Late Doddaiah,
Wife of Late K. Mylarappa,
Aged about 72 years,
2. Sri. Venkatesh .M,
Son of Late K. Mylarappa,
Aged about 47 years,
Both are residing at Kodigehalli,
Gollarahatti Cross,
Magadi Main Road,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Bangalore - 560 091. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. T.S. Amar Kumar, Advocate for M/s. Lawyers Inc.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
Represented by its Commissioner,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
30
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. V.Y.Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and 3
Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification issued under Section 17(1) and Section (3) of BDA
Act 1976 dated 21.5.2008 Gazetted on 22.5.2008 and the final
notification issued under sub Section (1) of 19 of Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976 dated 18.2.2010 Gazetted on
18.2.2010 issued by the second respondent as per Annexures F
and L in so far as lands belonging to the petitioners.
IN W.P.No.22375/2011 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Y.N. Chennappa,
S/o. late Nagappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Resident of 'Samudaya Residency',
Block-B, Kodigehalli,
Viswaneedam Post,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Magadi Main Road,
Bangalore-560 091. ...PETITIONER.
31
(By M/s. Sumana Baliga M, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
M.S. Buildings,
Bangalore-560 001.
Represented by its Secretary.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West Extension,
Bangalore-560 020.
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore-560 020.
Represented by its General Secretary.
4. Smt. Rukmini Bai,
Aged major,
W/o. V. Rama Rao,
Residing at Sy.No.94/3,
Kodigehalli Village,
Yeshawanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri V.B. Shivakumar, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
32
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.05.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-B by the R2 insofar as the petition
schedule property is concerned, and etc.
IN W.P.No.3107/2012
BETWEEN:
Dr. Vamana Acharya,
S/o. Narasimha Acharya Aayi,
Aged about 60 years,
Occ: Industrialist,
Resident of Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONER.
(By Shri M.B. Nargund, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by the Secretary
to the Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
33
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri B.V. Shankaranarayana Rao, Advocate for Respondent
No.2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-F
preliminary notification dated 22.5.2008 vide and the final
notification vide Annexure-H dated 18.2.2010, and etc.
IN W.P.NO.19767/2010
BETWEEN:
Smt. M. Shanthi,
W/o. G. Kuppan,
Aged 45 years,
No.5, Anushri Ashraya,
Kodigehalli,
Yeshvanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore-91. ... PETITIONER.
(By Shri. R. Shivachandra Naik, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department,
M.S. Building, Bangalore-560 001.
Represented by its Secretary.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore-560 020.
34
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020.
4. Sri. Rudrappa,
S/o. late Veerabhadrappa,
Aged about 78 years,
Residing at Kodigehalli village,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri D.L. Jagadeesh, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification vide order dated 21.05.2008 under Section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act for the layout called Nadaprabhu
Kempegowda Layout issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in
respect of Sy.No.5 insofar as sl.no.3 and 4 of Annexure-B to the
property situated at Kodigehalli village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk, and etc.
IN W.P.No.1753 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
G. Ramakrishnappa,
Aged about 58 years,
Son of Junjappa,
Residing at Hunasemaradapalya,
35
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 050. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P. West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. I.G. Gachchinamath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and
3)
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification, dated 21.5.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the second respondent and final
36
notification dated 18.2.2010, issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 issued by first
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioner's
schedule lands are concerned.
IN W.P.No.17369 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
K. Rajanna,
Aged about 61 years,
Son of Late Kalappa,
Resident of Nagarabavi,
Yeshawanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P. West Extension,
37
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. M.N. Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification, dated 21.5.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the second respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010, issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 issued by first
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioner's
schedule land is concerned.
IN W.P.No.35629 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. C. Dase Gowda,
Aged about 33 years,
Son of Chikkathimmaiah,
2. C. Jagadish,
Aged about 30 years,
Son of Chikkathimmaiah,
Both residing at No.95,
"Mudalamane" Issaac Road,
Nagarabavi,
Bangalore - 560 072. ...PETITIONERS
38
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P. West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. V.Y. Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification, dated 21.5.2008, published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the second respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010, issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 issued by first
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioners
schedule land is concerned.
39
IN W.P.No.35628 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
S. Ramaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
Son of Late Siddaramaiah,
No.15, Issaac Road,
Nagarabavi,
Bangalore - 560 072. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P. West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. V.Y. Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
40
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification, dated 21.5.2008, Bangalore published in Karnataka
Gazette dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of
the BDA Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the second respondent
and final notification dated 18.2.2010, Bangalore, issued under
Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act
1976, issued by first respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to
the petitioner's schedule land is concerned.
IN W.P.Nos.35625 - 35627 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
A. Kannaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
Son of Late Aadiyappa Setty,
Resident of Bheemanakuppe Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
...PETITIONER
( By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001,
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
41
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. V.Y. Kumar,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the 2nd respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the 1st
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioner schedule
lands are concerned.
IN W.P.Nos.37316-37317 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. Mudduramaiah,
Son of Late Kare Gowda,
Aged about 85 years,
Residing at No.717,
6th Main Road,
Krishna Nadi Road,
Brundavana Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 019.
2. Smt. S. Sumathi,
Wife of Sri. M. Ramu,
42
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at No.717,
6th Main Road,
Krishna Nadi Road,
Brundavana Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 0109. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001,
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. C.R. Gopalaswamy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and
3)
*****
43
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008, published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the 2nd respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the 1st
respondent vide Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioners
schedule lands are concerned.
IN W.P.No.42138 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
Sri. N.K. Shivakumar,
Aged about 24 years,
Son of S. Krishnappa,
Resident of Bheemanakuppe Village,
Hunise Marada Dakhale,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. ...PETITIONER
( By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing and
Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001,
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
44
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. C.R.
Gopalaswamy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008, published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the 2nd respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the 1st
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioner's
schedule land is concerned.
IN W.P.Nos.10650-10653 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. G. Umapathi,
Aged about 61 years,
Son of Guruppa Shetty,
No.176, 6th Cross,
Ganapathinagar,
Hosakerehalli Main Road,
Mysore Road,
45
Bangalore - 560 026.
2. K. Subramanyam,
Aged about 61 years,
Son of Late Chinna Subbarayalu,
No.18-2-77A, Ashokanagar,
Thirupathi,
Andhra Pradesh,
PIN: 517 510.
3. A. Kannaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
Son of Late Aadiyappa Setty,
Resident of Bheemanakuppe Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. ...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001,
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
46
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. C.R.
Gopalaswamy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008, published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the 2nd respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the 1st
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioners'
schedule lands are concerned.
IN W.P.Nos.9830-9837 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Ramanna,
Aged about 57 years,
Son of Late Channamaraiah,
2. Smt. Shobha,
Aged about 50 years,
Wife of Sri. Ramanna,
3. R. Rohith,
Aged about 28 years,
Son of Sri Ramanna,
Petitioners 1 to 3 are residing at
47
No.51, II 'A' Main Road,
Dattatreya Nagar,
Hosakerehally,
BSK III Stage,
Bangalore - 560 085. ...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001,
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. C.R.
Gopalaswamy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
48
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008, published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the 2nd respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the 1st
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioners'
schedule lands are concerned.
IN W.P.No.32869 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
T.A. Muniswamy Naidu,
Aged about 49 years,
Son of Late T. Anjaneyulu,
No.112, 7th Main Road,
5th Cross, Srinivasanagar,
Bangalore - 560 050. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001,
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
49
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. B.V. Shankara Narayana Rao, Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008, published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the 2nd respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the 1st
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioner schedule
lands are concerned.
IN W.P.No.50027 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Sri Thimmappa,
Aged about 49 years,
Son of Late Kendanna,
Residing at Bettanapalya Village,
Ramohalli Post,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 074. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabhushan, Advocate)
50
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001,
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008, published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the 2nd respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the 1st
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioner's
schedule property are concerned.
51
IN W.P.Nos.32653-32656 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. P.V. Johny,
Aged about 65 years,
Son of Late Varghese Mathai,
2. Smt. Saramma Johny,
Aged about 63 years,
Wife of Sri. P.V. Johny,
Both residing at No.74/E,
17th 'A' Cross, 4th Block,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore - 560 079.
Both represented by their
GPA Holder: Sri Sajjan Johny,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of Sri. P.V. Johny. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabhushan, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001,
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
52
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Ashwin S Halady,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008, published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the 2nd respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the 1st
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioners
schedule land are concerned.
IN W.P.No.20526 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
S. Ramachandra,
Son of Late Sanjeevaiah,
Hindu, aged about 54 years,
Residing at Old No.322/15,
New No.20, 6th Cross,
G.P. Rajarathnam Road,
Hanumanthanagar,
Bangalore - 560 019. ...PETITIONER
53
(By Shri. A.V. Srinivas, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park, Bellary Road,
Bangalore - 560 020.
2. The Additional Land Acquisition
Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park, Bellary Road,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. Secretary to Government of Karnataka,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
M.S.Building,
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Ashwin S
Halady, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3)
****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the resolution
No.340/2009 dated 12.01.2010 passed by the respondent No.1
(Annexure-L) and consequently final notification dated
18.2.2010 passed by R-3 at Annexure-J so for as Sl.No.693
therein is concerned.
54
IN W.P.No.25616 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
S. Ramachandra,
Son of Late Sanjeevaiah,
Hindu, aged about 54 years,
Residing at Old No.322/15,
New No.20, 6th Cross,
G.P. Rajarathnam Road,
Hanumanthanagar,
Bangalore - 560 019. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. A.V. Srinivas, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumar Park,
Bellary Road,
Bangalore - 560 020.
2. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park, Bellary Road,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. Secretary to Government of Karnataka,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
M.S.Building, Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. M.N.
Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
55
Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the resolution
No.340/2009 dated 12.1.2010 passed by the first respondent,
vide Annexure-L and consequently final notification dated
18.2.2010, passed by the third respondent at Annexure-J so far
as Sl.No.697 therein concerned.
IN W.P.No.16908 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
S. Ramachandra,
Son of Late Sanjeevaiah,
Hindu, aged about 54 years,
Residing at Old No.322/15,
New No.20, 6th Cross,
G.P. Rajarathnam Road,
Hanumanthanagar,
Bangalore - 560 019. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. A.V. Srinivas, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumar Park,
Bellary Road,
Bangalore - 560 020.
2. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
56
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park, Bellary Road,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. Secretary to Government of Karnataka,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
M.S.Building, Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. Praveen
Kumar Raikote, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the resolution
No.340/2009 dated 12.1.2010 passed by the first respondent,
vide Annexure-L and consequently final notification dated
18.2.2010, passed by the third respondent at Annexure-J so far
as Sl.No.751 therein concerned.
IN W.P.No.41277/2011
BETWEEN:
Bettaiah,
Son of Muni Huchhaiah,
Aged about 90 years,
Residing at Hunasemarana Palya Village,
Ramohalli Post,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. J.M. Rajanna Shetty, Advocate)
57
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its
Secretary to Government.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A. Lokanath,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification, dated 21.05.2008 under Section 17(1) and (3) of
the B.D.A. Act 1976, issued by respondent no.2, as per
Annexure-F and etc;
58
IN W.P.NO.13342-43/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Rangegowda,
S/o. late Kempegowda,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at Beemanakuppe Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore-560 060.
2. Smt. Ningamma,
W/o. Rangegowda,
Aged about 55 years,
Resident of Bheemanakuppe Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore-560 060. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. T.M. Naik, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department,
M.S. Building, Bangalore-560 001,
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore-560 020.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
59
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri A. Lokanath, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.05.2008 published in the gazette dated
22.05.2008 and marked as Annexure-F, and etc.
*****
IN W.P.NO.20398/2010
BETWEEN:
Smt. M.H. Mamatha,
W/o. late M.N. Harinath,
Aged 44 years,
Resident of No.1433, Pipeline,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-560 040. ... PETITIONER.
(By Shri. M.R. Rajagopal, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001,
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore.
60
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri Ashwin S. Halady, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash both the preliminary
and final notifications, preliminary notification dated
21.05.2008 gazetted dated 22.5.2008, and also final notification
dated 18.02.2010 issued by the 1st respondent Bangalore as per
Annexure-K and Annexure-N insofar as the land of the
petitioner in Sy.No.55/2 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas at
Bhimanakuppe village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
and etc.
IN W.P.NOS.251-255/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Mohan Kumar,
S/o. Chikkathimmaiah,
Aged about 36 years,
Resident of Bettanapalya,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 023.
2. Sri. T. Nagaraju,
S/o. late Thayappa,
Aged bout 51 years,
61
Resident of Bettanapalya Village,
Bhimanakuppe Dakale,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 023.
3. Smt. Jayamma,
W/o. K.P. Narayanamurthy,
Aged about 50 years,
Resident of No.75/1, 2nd Cross,
Kanakanapalya,
2nd Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560 011. ... PETITIONERS.
(By Shri. M.R. Rajagopal, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001,
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore-560 001.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri M.N. Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate for Respondents 2
and 3)
62
These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash both the
preliminary notification dated 21.05.2008 and final notification
dated 18.2.2010 issued by Respondent No.1 as per Annexure D
and F insofar as the lands of these petitioners namely, land
bearing Sy.No.190/1, extent 0.25 guntas, Sy.No.223/3 extent
0.05 guntas, Sy.No.222/1 extent 0.12 guntas situated at
Bheemanakuppe village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk.
IN W.P.No.11688 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
P. Vijay,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of T.P. Ayyanna Gowda,
Residing in Sy.No.91 of
Bheemanakuppe Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. ...PETITIONER
(By Smt. Shwetha Anand, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing and
Urban Development,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
63
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition
Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for M.N.
Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008, issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act 1976 at Annexure-C by the respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976, issued by the first
respondent at Annexure-E in so far as to the petitioner schedule
land is concerned.
IN W.P.No.30102 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
Mr. M. Manjunatha,
Aged 30 years,
Son of M. Muniraju,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
64
Bheemana Kuppe Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. B.S. Nagaraj, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. K.M.
Prakash, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 and published in the Gazette on
22.5.2008 at Annexure-A and the final notification dated
18.2.2010 vide Annexure-C issued by the Government of
Karnataka in its Gazette.
65
IN W.P.Nos.38252-38253 OF 2012
BETWEEN
1. Mr. M. Srinivasa Murthy,
Aged 51 Years,
Son of Munigangappa,
Occupation:Agriculturist,
Bheemana Kuppe Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060.
2. Mrs. M. Swetha,
Aged 30 years,
Daughter of Muniraju,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Bheemana Kuppe Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. B.S. Nagaraj, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore - 560 020.
66
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. C.R. Gopalaswamy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and
3)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 and published in the Gazette on
22.5.2008 at Annexure-A and the final notification dated
18.2.2010 at Annexure-D, issued by the Government of
Karnataka in is Gazette and restrain the respondents from
taking any action in pursuant to the aforesaid notifications.
IN W.P.No.22777 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
M. Lakshminarayana,
Son of Sri. Muniyappa,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at No.140,
Avalahalli, Mysore Road,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONER
(By M/s. Kumar and Bhat, Advocates)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
67
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority
(BDA), Bangalore.
3. Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority
(B.D.A.) Bangalore.
4. Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 4
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A. Lokanath,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the final notification,
Bangalore dated 18.2.2010 passed by the 1st respondent, as per
the Annexure-J and etc;
IN W.P.Nos.33243-33246/2011
BETWEEN:
De Paul Service Society,
Hosapalya, Byrohalli Road,
68
Kumbalagodu Post,
Bangalore-560 074,
Represented by its President
Father Fransis,
Aged about 48 years. ... PETITIONER.
(By Shri. H.S. Santosh, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
M.S. Building, Bangalore-560 001,
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore-560 020.
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri B.V. Shankar Narayan Rao, Advocate for Respondents 2
and 3)
These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the final
notification issued by the 1st respondent for the formation of
Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout issued at Annexure-T under
Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act,
69
1976 vide order dated 18.2.2010 insofar as the petitioner's
lands, and etc.
IN W.P.No.13000 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
Smt. Anuradha,
Wife of Dr. M.R. Sreevathsa,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at "Krishna",
54 and 55, K.G.Nagar Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 019. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Ashwin Kumar M.S, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary, Department of Housing and
Urban Development,
M.S. Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
70
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. M.N.
Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act 1976 at Annexure -E, by the second respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010, Bangalore, issued under Section
19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976,
issued by the first respondent at Annexure-F in so far as the
petitioner's lands which are morefully described in the schedule
hereunder are concerned and allow this writ petition.
IN W.P.Nos.10531-532 of 2012
BETWEEN:
1. Mrs. K.K.Geetha,
Wife of A.Shankarappa,
Aged about 49 years,
2. Sri. A. Shankarappa,
Son of Appaiahanna,
Aged about 61 years,
Both are residing at No.182,
Outer Circle, White Field,
Bangalore - 560 066. ...PETITIONERS
(By Smt. K.K. Thayamma, Advocate)
71
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Secretary, Department of Housing and
Urban Development,
M.S. Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. Deputy Commissioner of
Land Acquisition,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore - 560 020.
4. Mrs. Bridget,
Wife of Late Joseph Kalathil,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at Kumbalagod Post,
Kengeri,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A. Lokanath,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Vide order dated 24.1.2014 notice to respondent no.4 held
sufficient )
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash preliminary
72
notification dated 21.5.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act 1976 at Annexure -A, by the second respondent in so far as
to the petitioners' schedule land is concerned and etc;
IN W.P.No.9167 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
Shri. B. Jambukeshava,
Aged 60 years,
Son of Late Basavaraju,
Presently at Channasandra,
Kadugodi Post,
Bangalore South Taluk. ...PETITIONER
(By Smt. K.K. Thayamma, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Secretary, Department of Housing and
Urban Development,
M.S. Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. Deputy Commissioner of
Land Acquisition,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore - 560 020.
73
4. Mrs. Bridget,
Wife of Late Joseph Kalathil,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at Kumbalagod Post,
Kengeri,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A. Lokanath,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash preliminary notification
dated 21.5.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette dated
22.5.2008 issued by under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act 1976 at Annexure -A the R-2 in so far as to the petitioner's
schedule land is concerned and etc;
IN W.P.Nos.9165 AND 9405 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. M.M. Thimmaiah,
Son of Late Machaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at Badaga Village,
Kutta P.O.,
Virajpet Taluk,
Kodagu District.
2. Sri. A. Shankarappa,
Son of Appaiahanna,
74
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at No.182,
Outer Circle White Field,
Bangalore - 560 066. ...PETITIONERS
(By Smt. K.K. Thayamma, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Secretary, Department of Housing and
Urban Development,
M.S. Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. Deputy Commissioner of
Land Acquisition,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore - 560 020.
4. Mrs. Bridget,
Wife of Late Joseph Kalathil,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at Kumbalagod Post,
Kengeri,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
75
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A. Lokanath,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A, by the 2nd respondent in so far as to
the petitioners'' schedule land is concerned and etc;
IN W.P.No.2211 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. R. Ranukaiah,
Aged about 65 years,
Son of Late Revanna,
Residing at Sulikere Village,
Sulikere Post,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 050.
2. R. Rajashekaraiah,
Aged about 58 years,
Son of Late Revanna,
Residing at Sulikere Village,
Sulikere Post,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 050. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
76
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P. West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. A. Lokanath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification, dated 21.5.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the second respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010, issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 issued by first
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioners
schedule lands are concerned.
77
IN W.P.Nos.14913 AND 14914 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Sri. Puttappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of Late Mahimanna,
Residing at Ramasandra,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P. West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
78
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2
and 3)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification, dated 21.5.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the second respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010, issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 issued by first
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioner's
schedule lands are concerned.
IN W.P.No.31120 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
N. Ravishankar,
Aged about 34 years,
Son of Late R.G. Nanjundappa @
R.G. Nanjundaradhya,
Resident of Kommaghatta,
Sulikere Post,
Bangalore - 560 060. ...PETITIONER
( By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001,
79
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A. Lokanath,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008, Bangalore published in Karnataka
Gazette dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of
the BDA Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the 2nd respondent and
final notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of
the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the
1st respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioner
schedule lands are concerned.
IN W.P.No.15705 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Sri. Basavaraju,
Aged about 57 years,
Son of Revanna,
Residing at 'Bangale',
Sulikere Village and Post,
80
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabhushan, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001,
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. M.S.
Chandrashekar Babu, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008, published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the 2nd respondent and final
81
notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the 1st
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioner's
schedule land is concerned.
IN W.P.Nos.9101 AND 9102 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
K.M. Basavaradhya,
Aged about 76 years,
Son of Late Mallikarjunaiah
@ Mallikarjuna Aradhya,
Resident of Kommaghatta Village,
Sulekere-post, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 060.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabhushan and Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar,
Advocates )
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing and
Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
82
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraja, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008, published in the Karnataka
Gazette dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of
the BDA Act, 1976, Annexure-A by the second respondent and
final notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of
the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the
first respondent at Annexure-B in so far as the petitioner's lands
which are morefully described in the schedule to writ petition.
IN W.P.Nos.37190-37191/ 2012
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Jayalakshmamma,
Aged about 66 years,
Wife of D. Venkanna,
Residing at Upparahalli Village,
Manchenahalli Hobli,
Gowribidanur Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District.
2. Sri. R.V. Shamanna,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of Late Doddavenkataramanappa,
Residing at No.1, Ramasandra Village,
Soolikere Post,
83
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 060. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. D.L. Jagadeesh, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A. Lokanath,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the final notification
84
dated 18.2.2010 vide Annexure-F to the writ petition issued by
the first respondent and etc;
IN W.P.NOS.40644-645/2011
BETWEEN:
Sri. Dabbagullappa,
S/o. Late Rangappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Resident of Ramasandra Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. ... PETITIONER.
(By Shri. M.R. Rajagopal, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001,
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri K. Krishna, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
85
These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification
issued by the second respondent BDA, under Section 17 (1)(3)
of the Act dated 21.05.2008, as per Annexure-J, and also the
notification issued under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act, dated
18.02.2010 as per Annexure-N, insofar as the lands of the
petitioner is concerned.
IN W.P.NO.44048/2011
BETWEEN:
Sri. K.N. Basavaradya,
S/o. Nanjundaradya,
Aged about 60 years,
Resident of No.1189/C, 4th Main,
14th Cross, M.C. Layout,
Bangalore-560 040. ... PETITIONER.
(By Shri. M.R. Rajagopal, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001,
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
86
Bangalore. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri V.Y. Kumar, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification
issued by Respondent No.2 - BDA, under Section 17(1)(3) of
the Act dated 21.05.2008 vide Annexure-H and also the
notification issued by R1 under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act
dated 18.02.2010 vide Annexure-K insofar as the lands of the
petitioner are concerned.
IN W.P.NO.51015/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Basavaraju,
S/o. late Rangappa,
Aged 35 years,
Resident of Ramasandra Village,
Sulikere Post, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 060.
2. Sri. Dabbagullappa,
S/o. late Rangappa,
Aged 52 years,
Resident of Ramasandra Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 060. ... PETITIONERS.
(By Shri. M.R. Rajagopal, Advocate)
87
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001,
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore-560 020.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri A.
Lokanath, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification
issued by the second respondent BDA, under Section 17 (1)(3)
of the Act dated 21.05.2008, as per Annexure-H, and also the
notification issued under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act, dated
18.02.2010 as per Annexure-J, insofar as the lands of the
petitioners are concerned, and etc.
IN W.P.Nos.30740-30743/2010
BETWEEN:
1. B.K. Krishnaraju,
Aged about 70 years,
88
Son of Late Srirangappa,
2. B.K. Shashi Kumar,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of B.K. Krishna Raju,
3. Vishnuvardhan Raju,
Aged about 35 years,
Son of B.K. Krishna Raju,
4. K. Latha,
Aged about 40 years,
Wife of Sanjeeva Raju,
All are residing at Ramasandra Village,
Sulikere Post, Sulikere Bangle,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk - 560 060.
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. S. Chennaraya Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Principal Secretary to
Government of Karnataka
Urban Development Department,
M.S.Building,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001,
2. Bengaluru Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bengaluru - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
89
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bengaluru Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bengaluru - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. I.G.
Gachchinamath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 as per Annexure-L and final
notification dated 18.2.2010 as per Annexure-W with regard to
acquisition of petitioners lands in Sy.Nos. 118 and 123 situated
at Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk
and drop the same from Acquisition under the said notifications
consequently restrain the respondents from interfering with the
petitioners lands without taking due recourse of law and direct
the respondents to pay the costs of these proceedings.
IN W.P.NO.8901 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
H.R. Charitable Trust,
A registered Charitable Trust,
Having its registered office at
No.8, Appajappa Agrahara,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018,
Represented by its Managing Trustee,
Sri. R. Srinivas. ...PETITIONER
90
(By Shri. Shanmukhappa, Advocate for M/s. Kesvy and
Company)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore.
3. Bangalore Development Authority,
Represented by its Commissioner,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. Praveen
Kumar Raikote, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to call for the relevant records
which ultimately resulted in issuing the preliminary notification
dated 21.5.2008 vide Annexure-A and the final notification
dated 18.2.2010 vide Annexure-B and quash the impugned
preliminary notification dated 21.5.2008 vide Annexure-A and
the final notification dated 18.2.2010 vide Annexure-B issued
91
by the first respondent in so far as it relates to acquiring the
lands belonging to the petitioner herein.
IN W.P.NO.13416/2010
BETWEEN:
Revanabasappa,
Since dead, by Legal Representatives:
1(a) Smt. Shivarudramma,
Aged about 58 years,
W/o. late revanabasappa.
1(b) Sri. S.R. Renuka Prasad,
Aged about 36 years.
1(c) Sri. S.R. Mohan Kumar,
Aged about 34 years.
1(d) Sri. S.R. Niranjan Kumar,
Aged about 32 years.
1(b) to (c) are the daughter and sons of late
Revanabasappa,
All 1(a) to 1(c) are residing at No.44,
Sulikere Village & Post,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. ... PETITIONERS.
(By Shri. R. Bhadrinath, Advocate)
92
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
M.S. Building, Vidhana Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001,
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West Extension,
Bangalore-560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West Extension,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri Ashwin S. Halady, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
preliminary notification dated 21.05.2008, Bangalore published
in the Karnataka Gazette dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section
17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act,
1976 at Annexure-C by the second respondent and etc.
93
IN W.P.Nos.11306-307/2010
BETWEEN:
1. Srinivas @ Seenappa,
S/o. late Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 56 years,
2. Mohan,
S/o. late Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 40 years,
Both are residents of Ramasandra village,
Sulikere Post,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. M.C. Basavaraju, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore-560 001,
Represented by its Secretary.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020.
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
94
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the acquisition
proceedings of R3, the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, T.
Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore-560 020, vide
preliminary notification dated 21.5.2008 publication in
Karnataka gazette on 22.05.2008 and etc.
IN W.P.No.23247 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
B.R. Chandrashekaraiah,
Son of Late Rudrappa,
Aged 60 years,
Resident of Bangale Village,
Sulikere Post,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. M.C. Basavaraju, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
95
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A.
Lokanath, Advocate for Respondent No.1)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the acquisition
proceedings of R-3, the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, T.
Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore - 560 020,
vide preliminary notification dated 21.5.2008 publication in the
Karnataka Gazette on 22.5.2008, vide publication No.498 as far
as the petitioner is concerned at Sl.No.1240 at page No.65 for
Sy.No.123 of Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk, measuring 02 acres, 20 guntas vide Annexure-J
and etc;
IN W.P.NO.42536/2011
BETWEEN:
B.R. Chandrashekaraiah,
S/o. late Rudrappa,
Aged 60 years,
Resident of Bangale Village,
Sulikere Post,
96
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District. ...PETITIONER.
(By Shri M.C. Basavaraju, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore-560 001.
Represented by its Secretary.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020.
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri V.B. Shivakumar, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the acquisition
proceedings of R3 - the Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore vide
preliminary notification dated 21.5.2008 publication in the
Karnataka Gazette on 22.5.2008 vide publication No.498
97
insofar as the petitioner is concerned at Sl.No.1239 at page
no.65 for Sy.No.122 of Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 35 guntas vide Annexure-H,
and etc.
IN W.P.No.44554/2012
BETWEEN:
Smt. Soubhagyamma,
W/o. V.K. Ramegowda,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at No.38, MIG,
80 Feet Road, Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bangalore-560 060. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. G. Narayana Rao, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Bangalore-560 001,
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West Extension,
Bangalore-560 020.
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West Extension,
Bangalore-560 020.
98
4. K.G. Nandini Enterprises,
Nandagokula Layout,
Represented by its joint developers
Nagaraju,
Sy.No.161, Ramasandra Village,
Near Sir M.V. Layout, Kengeri Hobli,
Sulikere Post, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore-560 060. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri G.S. Kannur, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976, at Annexure-A by R2 and etc.
IN W.P. No.29668 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Muniyamma,
Aged about 75 years,
Daughter of Late Dodda Arasappa,
2. Smt. Hanuma Narasamma,
Aged about 70 years,
Wife of Late Gangappa,
3. Smt. Hanumakka,
Aged about 67 years,
Daughter of Late Narasaiah,
99
All are residents of Kommaghatta,
Krishnasagara Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 060. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P. West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. A. Lokanath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification, dated 21.5.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
100
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the second respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010, issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 issued by first
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioners
schedule lands are concerned.
IN W.P.No.28722 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
N. Mallikarjuna Aradhya,
Son of H. Nanjundappa,
Aged about 60 years,
No.218, 5th Main Road,
NGEF Layout, Nagarabavi,
Bangalore - 560 072. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P. West Extension,
101
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. A. Lokanath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification, dated 21.5.2008, Bangalore published in Karnataka
Gazette dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of
the BDA Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the second respondent
and final notification dated 18.2.2010, issued under Section
19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 issued
by first respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioners
schedule lands are concerned.
IN W.P.Nos.9839-9841 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. N. Eere Gowda,
Aged about 61 years,
2. Shivalinge Gowda,
Aged about 58 years,
3. M. Puttaswamy Gowda,
Aged about 53 years,
4. M. Shivanna,
Aged about 50 years,
All are sons of
Late Muniveere Gowda
102
And residing in Sy.Nos.
155, 156 and 157 of
Kommaghatta Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing and
Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A. Lokanath,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
103
notification dated 21.5.2008 , Bangalore published in Karnataka
Gazette dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of
the BDA Act 1976 at Annexure-A by the second respondent
and final notification dated 18.2.2010, Bangalore issued under
Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act
1976 issued by the first respondent at Annexure-B, in so far as
to the petitioners schedule lands are concerned.
IN W.P.Nos.11966 - 11967 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. K.P. Manjunath,
Aged about 36 years,
2. K.P. Virupaksharadhya,
Aged about 30 years,
Both are sons of
Late Putta Nanjundappa, and
Residing in the houses
Constructed in the land
Bearing Sy.No.111/5,
Kommaghatta Village,
Kekngeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate )
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing and
Urban Development,
104
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. Praveen
Kumar Raikote, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 , Bangalore published in Karnataka
Gazette dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of
the BDA Act 1976 at Annexure-A by the second respondent
and final notification dated 18.2.2010, Bangalore issued under
Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act
1976 issued by the first respondent at Annexure-B, in so far as
to the petitioners schedule lands are concerned.
IN W.P.No.19807 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
Smt. P.N. Niranjani,
Wife of H.M.S. Kumar,
105
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at Kommaghatta Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONER
( By Shri. M. Sreenivasa, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. A. Lokanath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
106
notification Annexure -A dated 21.5.2008, published in the
Karnataka Gazetted dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1)
and (3) and the final notification issued under Section 19(1)
Annexure-B dated 18.2.2010 published in the Karnataka
Gazette dated 25.2.2010 by the respondents in so far it relates to
the petition schedule land and etc;
IN W.P.Nos.12927-935 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Somashekar,
Son of Sri. Huchappa,
Aged about 59 years,
2. Sri. H. Ravindra,
Son of Sri. Huchappa,
Aged about 52 years,
3. Sri. H.S. Deepak,
Son of Sri. Somashekar,
Aged about 31 years,
4. Smt. Leelamma,
Wife of Sri. Somashekar,
Aged about 53years,
All are residing at
Kommaghatta Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. M. Sreenivasa, Advocate)
107
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. D.L. Jagadeesh Associates, for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification Annexure -A dated 21.5.2008, published in the
Karnataka Gazetted dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1)
and (3) and the final notification issued under Section 19(1)
Annexure-B dated 18.2.2010 published in the Karnataka
Gazette dated 25.02.2010 by the respondents in so far it relates
to the petition schedule land and etc;
108
IN W.P.No.26373 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. B.M. Krishnamurthy,
Son of Sri. M. Muniyappa,
Aged about 47 years,
2. Ms. Hemalatha,
Daughter of Sri. B.M. Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 18 years,
3. Ms. Lavanya,
Daughter of Sri. B.M. Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 17 years,
4. Master Kiran Gowda,
Son of Sri. B.M.Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 16 years,
Petitioner no. 3 and 4 being minors are
Represented by their father natural Guardian
Sri. B.M. Krishnamurthy,
All are Residing at Babasahebara Palya,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060.
Represented by G.P.A. Holder
Mr. M.K.K. Durrani.
5. M/s. N.D. Properties Private Limited,
A Private Limited Company,
Incorporated under the Companies Act
109
1 of 1956, having its office at
No.398, 2nd Floor, 7th Cross,
Mico Layout, BTM 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 076,
Represented by its Managing Director and
G.P.A. Holder of petitioners no. 1 to 4
Mr. M.K.K.Durrani,
Aged about 49 years. ...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. Kamal and Bhanu, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary to Government.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
110
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. A. Lokanath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 as per Annexure-C issued by
second respondent and to quash the final notification dated
18.2.2010 as per Annexure-F issued by first respondent.
IN W.P.No.12781 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
Marappa,
Son of Kadirappa,
Aged about 70 years,
Residing at No.76,
ISEC Road,
Nagarabhavi,
Bangalore - 560 072. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. J.M. Rajanna Shetty, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its
Secretary to Government.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
111
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. B.V.
Shankaranarayana Rao, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification, Bangalore dated 21.05.2008 under Section 17(1)
and (3) of the B.D.A. Act 1976, issued by respondent no.2, as
per Annexure-E and etc;
IN W.P.Nos.16259-16266 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Lakshmidevamma,
Wife of B.M. Venkatesh,
Aged about 50 years,
Kommaghatta Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060.
2. B.M. Anjineya,
112
Son of Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Kommaghatta Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. T.M. Naik, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department,
M.S. Building, Bangalore-560 001,
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore-560 020.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri B.V. Shankara Narayana Rao, Advocate for Respondents 2
and 3)
These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.05.2008 published in the gazette dated
22.05.2008 and marked as Annexure-J issued by
Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority under
Section 17(1) and (3) of BDA Act 1976 and etc.
113
IN W.P.NO.13726/2012
BETWEEN:
Shri Hanumaiah,
S/o. late Marulaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
Kommaghatta Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore-560 060. ... PETITIONER.
(By Shri. T.M. Naik, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department,
M.S. Building, Bangalore-560 001,
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore-560 020.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri B.V. Shankar Narayana Rao, Advocate for Respondents 2
and 3)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
114
notification dated 21.05.2008 published in the gazette dated
22.05.2008 and marked as Annexure-E, and etc.
IN W.P.Nos.33131 & 35309/2011
BETWEEN:
Smt. K.S. Manjula,
Daughter of K.H. Srinivasa Murthy,
Aged about 62 years,
Residing at Sy.No.31/2,
Hosabyrohalli,
Kumma Ghatta Panchayathi,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 060. ...PETITIONER.
(By Shri M. Ravi Prakash, Advocate)
AND:
1. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020.
Represented by its Commissioner.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020.
3. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Revenue Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
115
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri V.Y. Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the acquisition
proceedings initiated by the respondents under the original of
Annexure-C dated 21.05.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
Notification Part III under the original of Annexure-C to the
writ petition and the final notification issued by the first
respondent dated 18.2.2010, and etc.
IN W.P.Nos.33132/2011 & 35176/2011
BETWEEN:
Sri. B. Premananda Shetty,
S/o. Sri. K.A. Sheenappa Shetty,
Aged about 59 years,
Residing at Sy.No.42/1,
Hosabyrohalli,
Kumma Ghatta Panchayathi,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 060,
And presently at Udupi,
Dakshina Kannada District,
Represented by his GPA Holder:
Smt. K.S. Nalini, D/o. K.H. Srinivasa Murthy,
Residing at Sy.No.31/2,
Hosabyrohalli,
Kumma Ghatta Panchayathi,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 060. ...PETITIONER.
(By Shri M. Raviprakash, Advocate)
116
AND:
1. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020.
3. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Revenue Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri V.Y. Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the acquisition
proceedings initiated by the respondents in preliminary
notification dated 21.05.2008 published in the Karnataka
Gazette notification Part III under the original of Annexure-B to
the writ petition and etc.
IN W.P.Nos.22103-22104/2012
BETWEEN:
Sumathi Mothkar,
D/o. Sri. S.R. Lakshmikantha Reddy,
117
Aged about 45 years,
Resident of HIG 9/4, 9th Cross, KHB Colony 2nd Stage,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore-560 032. ... PETITIONER.
(By Shri. K.H. Jagadish, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark West,
Bangalore-560 020.
2. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark West,
Bangalore-560 020.
3. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary.
Urban Development Department,
M.S. Building,
Bangalore-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3)
These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.05.2008 vide Annexure-E, issued by R3,
in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
118
IN W.P.No.43470 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
Smt. Lakshmidevamma,
Aged about 60 years,
Wife of B.M. Venkatesh,
residing at No.554,
6th Mai Road,
4th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. D.L. Jagadeesh, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Choudaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Choudaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
119
(By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. C.R.
Gopalaswamy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 vide Annexure-M and also quash
the final notification dated 18.2.2010 vide Annexure-B to the
writ petition issued by first respondent and etc;
IN W.P.No.3134/2012
BETWEEN:
Sri. Paramashivaiah,
S/o. late Veeranna,
Aged about 64 years,
Residing at Sy.No.154,
Kommagatta Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. ...PETITIONER.
(By Shri A.G. Shivanna, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
M.S. Building,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
120
Kumara Park West Extension,
Bangalore-560 020.
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P. West Extension,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri A. Lokanath, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.05.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-B by the 2nd respondent and etc.
IN W.P.No. 26369 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Gangappa,
Son of Late Sri Mariyappa,
Aged about 47 years,
2. Sri Nandish,
Son of Sri Gangappa,
Aged about 19 years,
3. Ms.Deepika,
Daughter of Sri Gangappa,
Aged about 17 years,
121
Petitioners no.3 being minor is
Represented by her father and
Natural guardian Sri Gangappa
All are residing at Babasahebara Palya,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060.
4. M/s. N.D. Properties Private Limited,
A Private Limited Company,
Incorporated under the Companies Act,
1 of 1956 having its office at No.398,
2nd Floor, 7th Cross, MICO Layout,
BTM 2nd Stage, Bangalore - 560 076.
Represented by its Managing Director,
G.P.A. Holder of petitioners 1 to 3
Mr. M.K.K. Durrani,
Aged about 49 years.
...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. Kamal and Bhanu, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary to Government.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
122
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. V.Y. Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 as per Annexure-C issued by
second respondent and to quash the final notification dated
18.2.2010 as per Annexure-F issued by first respondent.
IN W.P.Nos.26368 & 37509-511 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Rudrappa,
Son of Late Veerabhadrappa,
Aged about 50 years,
2. Ms. Pavithra,
Daughter of Sri. Rudrappa,
Aged about 19 years,
3. Ms. Divya,
Daughter of Sri Rudrappa,
Aged about 18 years,
4. Ms. Usha,
123
Daughter of Sri Rudrappa,
Aged about 16 years,
Petitioner No.4 being minor is
Represented by her Father and
Natural Guardian Sri Rudrappa.
5. Sri. V. Ramesh,
Son of Late Veerabhadrappa,
Aged about 47 years,
6. Ms. Ramya,
Daughter of V. Ramesh,
Aged about 19 years,
7. Ms. Ranjitha,
Daughter of V. Ramesh,
Aged about 17 years,
8. Ms. Neha,
Daughter of V. Ramesh,
Aged about 15 years,
Petitioners no. 7 and 8 being
Minors are represented by their
Father and Natural Guardian
Sri. V. Ramesh.
9. Sri. V. Nagaraj,
Son of Late Veerabhadrappa,
Aged about 38 years,
10. Master Punith,
Son of Sri V. Nagaraj,
Aged about 16 years,
124
11. Master Yatish,
Son of Sri. V. Nagaraj,
Aged about 14 years,
Petitioners No.10 and 11 being minors
are represented by their father and
Natural Guardian Sri. V. Nagaraj.
All are residents of Babasahebara Palya,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060.
12. M/s. N.D. Properties Private Limited,
A Private Limited Company,
Incorporated under the Companies Act
1 of 1956, having its office at
No.398, 2nd Floor, 7th Cross,
Mico Layout, BTM 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 076,
Represented by its Managing Director
And G.P.A. Holder of petitioners No.1 to 11,
Mr. M.K.K.Durrani,
Aged about 49 years. ...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. Kamal and Bhanu, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
125
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary to Government.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. V.Y. Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 as per Annexure-C issued by
second respondent and to quash the final notification dated
18.2.2010 as per Annexure-F issued by first respondent.
IN W.P.No.26365 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Nagaraj,
Son of Sri L.Veerakempaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
2. Smt. Latha,
126
Daughter of Sri Nagaraj,
Aged about 28 years,
3. Ms. PUshpalatha,
Daughter of Sri. Nagaraj,
Aged about 26 years,
4. Mr. Anchan,
Son of Sri Nagaraj,
Aged about 24 years,
5. Mr. Kiran,
Son of Sri. Nagaraj,
Aged about 22 years,
All are residing at Babasahebara Palya,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060.
6. M/s. N.D. Properties Private Limited,
A private Limited Company,
Incorporated under the Companies Act,
1 of 1956, having its office at No.398,
2nd Floor, 7th Cross, Mico Layout,
BTM 2nd Stage, Bangalore - 560 076.
Represented by its Managing Director and
G.P.A. Holder of petitioners 1 to 5
Mr. M.K.K. Durrani,
Aged about 49 years. ...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. Kamal and Bhanu, Advocates)
127
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary to Government.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. V.Y. Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 as per Annexure-C issued by
second respondent and to quash the final notification dated
18.2.2010 as per Annexure-F issued by first respondent.
128
IN W.P.No.26364 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. M. Maranna,
Son of Late Sri Muniyappa,
Aged about 35 years,
2. Sri. Lokesh,
Son of Late Sri. Muniyappa,
Aged about 30 years,
3. Sri. Gangamarappa,
Son of Late Sri. Nanjappa,
Aged about 72 years,
4. Sri. M. Muniyappa,
Son of Late Sri Maralaiah,
Aged about 74 years,
5. Sri. Betta Thimmaiah,
Son of Late Sri. Bettathimmaiah,
Aged about 67 years,
6. Sri. B.C. Thimmarayappa,
Son of Sri. Chennamaraiah,
Aged about 47 years,
7. Sri. Nanjapapa,
Son of Late Sri. Annaiappa,
Aged about 52 years,
8. Sri. B.V. Ramachandra @
Chandrappa,
Son of Late Sri Veerakempaiah,
129
Aged about 44 years,
Petitioners 1 to 8 are
Residing at Babasahebara Palya,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060.
9. M/s. N.D. Properties Private Limited,
A Private Limited Company,
Incorporated under the Companies Act
1 of 1956, having its office at
No.398, 2nd Floor, 7th Cross,
Mico Layout, BTM 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 076,
Represented by its Managing Director and
G.P.A. Holder of petitioners 1 to 9
Mr. M.K.K.Durrani,
Aged about 49 years. ...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. Kamal and Bhanu, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary to Government.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
130
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. V.Y. Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 as per Annexure-C issued by
second respondent and to quash the final notification dated
18.2.2010 as per Annexure-F issued by first respondent.
IN W.P.No.26363 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Kumar,
Son of Late Chennamaraiah,
Aged about 36 years,
2. Sri. Raghavendra,
Son of Late Chennamaraiah,
Aged about 29 years,
3. Sri. Thimmaraju,
Son of Late Chennamaraiah,
131
Aged about 26 years,
All are residing at
Babasahebara Palya,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060.
4. M/s. N.D. Properties Private Limited,
A Private Limited Company,
Incorporated under the Companies Act
1 of 1956, having its office at
No.398, 2nd Floor, 7th Cross,
Mico Layout, BTM 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 076,
Represented by its Managing Director and
G.P.A. Holder of petitioners 1 to 3
Mr. M.K.K.Durrani,
Aged about 49 years. ...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. Kamal and Bhanu, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary to Government.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
132
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. V.Y. Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 as per Annexure-C issued by
second respondent and to quash the final notification dated
18.2.2010 as per Annexure-F issued by first respondent.
IN W.P.Nos.26374 AND 34638 - 34639 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. B.M. Murali,
Son of Muniyappa,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at Babasahebara Palya,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060.
Represented by G.P.A. Holder
Mr. M.K.K. Durrani.
133
2. M/s. N.D. Properties Private Limited,
A Private Limited Company,
Incorporated under the Companies Act
1 of 1956, having its office at
No.398, 2nd Floor, 7th Cross,
Mico Layout, BTM 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 076,
Represented by its Managing Director and
G.P.A. Holder of petitioner no.1
Mr. M.K.K.Durrani,
Aged about 49 years. ...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. Kamal and Bhanu, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary to Government.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
134
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. V.Y. Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 as per Annexure-C issued by
second respondent and to quash the final notification dated
18.2.2010 as per Annexure-F issued by first respondent.
IN W.P.No.26372 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Rangappa,
Son of Chikkahanumaiah,
Aged about 81years,
Residing at Babasahebara Palya,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060.
2. M/s. N.D. Properties Private Limited,
A Private Limited Company,
Incorporated under the Companies Act
1 of 1956, having its office at
No.398, 2nd Floor, 7th Cross,
Mico Layout, BTM 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 076,
Represented by its Managing Director and
G.P.A. Holder of petitioner No.1
135
Mr. M.K.K.Durrani,
Aged about 49 years. ...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. Kamal and Bhanu, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary to Government.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. V.Y. Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
136
notification dated 21.5.2008 as per Annexure-C issued by
second respondent and to quash the final notification dated
18.2.2010 as per Annexure-F issued by first respondent.
IN W.P.NO.16364/2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. A.N. Vishwanath,
S/o. Sri. A.G. Nagappa,
Aged about 45 years,
Resident of No.24, Ekadanta Badavane,
K. Krishna Sagara Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore-560 060. ... PETITIONER.
(By Shri. M.R. Rajagopal, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001,
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore. ... RESPONDENTS
137
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash both the preliminary and
final notifications preliminary notification dated 21.05.2008
and also final notification dated 18.2.2010, issued by the
Respondent No.1 as per Annexure-W and Annexure-Z insofar
as the lands of these petitioner viz., Sy.No.29 & 30 of K.
Krishnasagara Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
IN W.P.NOS.38442/2011 & 38449-451/2011
AND 38454/2011
BETWEEN
IN W.P. 38442/2011:
Sri. Munirathna
Aged about 45 years
S/o late Narasimhaiah
R/at Kenchaghatta Village,
Tiptur Post & Taluk
Tumkur Dist
IN W.P.38449-38451/2011:
1.Smt Rubina Anjani
Aged about 29 years
W/o Abdul Rashid @ Haroon Rashid
R/at No. 83, 17th Cross,
Muthyalammanagara,
Bangalore-54
138
2.Sri Anjum Suhail
Aged about 33 years
S/o Nazeer Ahmed
R/at no. 31/1, H colony,
Indranagara 1st stage,
Bangalore-38
3.Sri Abdul Rafiq @ Abdul
Aged about 48 years
S/o late Abdul Razack
R/at no. 275, 3rd Cross,
4th main, Rahmathanagar,
R.T. Nagar Post,
Bangalore- 32
IN W.P.38454/2011:
Smt Gangamma
Aged about 71 years
W/o B.S. Thimmaiah
R/at no. 29, 2nd main road,
Someshwara Temple Road,
Kathriguppa Main Road,
BSK 3rd Stage, Bangalore-85 ... PETITIONERS.
(By Shri M.R. Rajagopal, Advocate)
AND:
1.The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore-01
2.The Commissioner
139
Bangalore Development Authority
Kumara Park West
Bangalore.
3.The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Bangalore Development authority
Kumara Park West
Bangalore. ... RESPONDENTS.
COMMON
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri B.V. Shankaranarayana Rao, Advocate for Respondents 2
and 3)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash both the preliminary
& final notifications preliminary notification dt.21.5.08 issued
by the BDA & also final notification dt.18.2.10 issued by
Respondent No.1, Bangalore as per Ann-T & Ann-V in so far
as the lands of the these petitioners viz., sy.nos.33/2B, 229/1,
47/1 45 & 39 of K.Krishanasagara & Bheemanakuppe Village,
Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
IN W.P.No.11025 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
M. Nanjappa,
Since dead by his
Legal representative
N.Shivashankar,
Aged about 42 years,
Son of Late M. Nanjappa,
Residing at No.702,
140
MPM Layout, 80 feet road,
Opposite to Ambedkar Institute
Of Technology, Mallathahalli,
Bangalore - 560 056. ...PETITIONER
( By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001,
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. P.S. Dinesh
Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008, Bangalore published in Karnataka
Gazette dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of
the BDA Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the 2nd respondent and
final notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of
141
the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the
1st respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioner's
schedule land is concerned.
IN W.P.No.29520 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. G. Lakshminarayana,
Son of Late G. Govindappa,
Aged about 49 years,
2. Venkatalakshmamma,
Wife of Late Nanjundaiah,
Aged about 54 years,
3. Mangalal Gowri,
Wife of N. Shankar,
Aged about 45 years,
4. Devaki,
Wife of Chandraiah,
Aged about 40 years,
All are residing at No.225,
6th Cross, Rajagopalanagar Main Road,
Near Lakhsi Devi Four Mill,
Peenya 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 058.
5. Rangappa,
Son of Prasuramappa,
Aged about 52years,
Since dead by his
142
Legal representatives,
5(1) Hanumakka,
Wife of Late K.P. Rangappa,
Aged about 65 years,
5(2) K.R. Umesh,
Son of Late K.P. Rangappa,
Aged about 38 years,
5(3) Krishna,
Son of Late K.P. Rangappa,
Aged about 35 years,
5(4) Ranganath,
Son of Late K.P. Rangappa,
Since dead by his
Legal representatives,
a) Smt. Pushpa,
wife of Late Ranganath,
aged about 40 years,
b) Sri. Chetan,
son of Late Ranganath,
aged about 15 years,
c) Tejaswini,
daughter of Late Ranganath,
aged about 13 years,
5(5) Smt. Mahalakshmi,
Daughter of Late K.P.Rangappa,
Aged about 45 years,
143
All are residents of No.121,
3rd Floor, 4th Main,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 049.
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. B. Srinivas, Advocate )
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Authority Department,
Bangalore.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
Represented by its Commissioner,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. M.N.
Ramanjaneya Gowda Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
144
notification dated 21.5..2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3)
of the BDA Act and final notification dated 18.2.2010 issued
under Section 19(1) of BDA Act vide Annexure-B and C to the
W.P. in so far as it pertains to the land of the
petitioners/schedule property and etc;
IN W.P.Nos.35001-003/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. C. Sunitha Reddy,
D/o. Sri. Narayana Reddy,
Aged about 37 years,
Resident of No.59, 9th Cross,
Muniswar Nagar,
Ullal Main Road,
Jnanabharathi Post,
Bangalore-560 056.
2. Sri. M. Venkateshwara Reddy,
S/o. M. Ramakrishna Reddy,
Aged about 50 years,
Resident of No.1095,
M.R.K. Reddy Gardens,
Pavithra School Road,
Manganahalli, Bangalore-60.
3. Sri. Sudhakar Reddy,
S/o. C. Venkateshwara Reddy,
Aged about 64 years,
Residing at No.59, 9th Cross,
Muniswar Nagar,
Ullal Main Road,
Jnanabharathi Post,
Bangalore-560 056. ... PETITIONERS.
145
(By Shri. V.N. Madhava Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S. Building, B.R. Ambedkar Road,
Bangalore-560 001,
Represented by its Secretary.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark West,
Bangalore-560 020.
By its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark West,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri B.V. Shankar Narayana Rao, Advocate for Respondents 2
and 3)
These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.05.2008 published in the gazette dated
22.05.2008 issued under Section 17(1) & (3) of the BDA Act,
1976 at Annexure-G by R2 and etc.
146
IN W.P.Nos.12969-12972 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
Smt. Achamma Ammini Joseph,
Aged about 91 years,
Wife of Late Mr. K.A. Joseph,
No.87, 7th Cross,
1st Main, Versova Layout,
Kaggadasapura Road,
Sir C.V. Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 093
Represented by her GPA Holder
Mr. Joseph Alexander,
Aged about 64 years,
Son of Late Mr. K.A. Joseph,
No.87, 7th Cross, 1st Main,
Versova Layout,
Kaggadasapura Road,
Sir C.V. Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 093. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
147
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P. West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. V.Y. Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification, dated 21.5.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the second respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010, issued under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 issued by first
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioner's lands
which are morefully described in the schedule hereunder are
concerned.
IN W.P.No.20417 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
Smt. Jashodha Bai,
Wife of Sri. Krishnaram Chowdary,
Aged about 62 years,
Residing at No.118,
Sukkur Circle, Kengeri Town,
Bangalore South Taluk. ...PETITIONER
148
(By Shri. N.R.Naik and Associates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Revenue Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Secretary,
Urban and Rural Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District,
Bangalore.
4. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West, Bangalore.
5. The Additional Land
Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West, Bangalore.
6. The Tahasildar,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6
149
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. B.B. Patil,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 read
with under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, praying to
direct the respondent Authorities to confirm the possession of
land which is in occupation of the petitioner past 26 years and
issue grant certificate in her favour and etc;
IN W.P.No.19475 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. D. Jaichand,
Son of Deepchand,
Aged about 62 years,
2. Smt. J. Rajkumari,
Wife of Sri. D. Jaichand,
Aged about 56 years,
Both residing at No.6,
1st Cross, Vasantha Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 052. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. S. Shivaswamy, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park,
Bangalore.
150
[cause title amended
As per court order dated
3.1.2012] ...RESPONDENT
(By Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to
consider the objections of the petitioners dated 18.09.2008
produced as Annexure-B and etc;
IN W.P.No.12225/2010
BETWEEN:
Sri. S.K.N. Swamy,
S/o. Sri. S.V.K. Swamy,
Aged about 57 years,
Resident of 298, 1st Floor, 15th Cross,
5th Phase, J.P. Nagar,
Bangalore-560 078. ...PETITIONER.
(By Shri. K.H. Jagadish, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark West,
Bangalore-560 020.
2. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
151
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark West,
Bangalore-560 020.
3. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
M.S. Building,
Bangalore-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri Ravi G. Sabhahit, Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.05.2008, vide Annexure-H issued by R3
and the final notification dated 18.2.2010, vide Annexure-J
issued by R3 insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
IN W.P.No.31121 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. N. Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 62 years,
Son of L. Nanjappa,
2. N. Vijay,
Aged about 44 years,
Son of L. Nanjappa,
Both residing at No.94,
Kamakshipalya Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 079. ...PETITIONERS
152
(By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P. West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. M.N. Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification, dated 21.5.2008, published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the second respondent and final
notification dated 18.2.2010, issued under Section 19(1) of the
153
Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 issued by first
respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioners
schedule land is concerned.
IN W.P.Nos.9842-9844 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. K.B. Yellappa,
Aged about 60 years,
2. K.B. Muniraju,
Aged about 41 years,
Both are sons of late Doddabyrappa,
Residing at Farm House,
Constructed in Sy.No.3/2,
Kenchapura Village,
Sulikere Post,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. ...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001,
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
154
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. M.N.
Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008, Bangalore published in Karnataka
Gazette dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of
the BDA Act, 1976 at Annexure-A by the 2nd respondent and
final notification dated 18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of
the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the
1st respondent at Annexure-B in so far as to the petitioners'
schedule lands are concerned.
IN W.P.No.28892/2012
BETWEEN:
Sri. Rangaswamaiah,
Son of Naduthiraiah,
Aged about 66 years,
Residing at Gidadhapalya @
Soolikattepalya Village,
Thavarekere Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
155
Bangalore Urban District. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. A. Nagarajappa, Advocate )
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumarapark West,
Bangalore - 560 009.
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer of
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. B.V. Shankaranarayana Rao, Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification at Annexure-E dated 21.5.2008 made in published
in the Karnataka Gazette dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section
17(1) and (3) and final notification issued under Section 19(1)
at Annexure-F dated 18.2.2010 published in the Karnataka
156
Gazette dated 25.2.2010 by the respondent in so far as relates to
the petition scheduled land and etc;
IN W.P.No.36986/2011
BETWEEN:
Sri. Maregowda,
Son of Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 51 years,
Residing at Kenchanapura Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. A. Nagarajappa, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumarapark West,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer of
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
157
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. U Abdul
Khadar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification vide Annexure-E dated 21.5.2008 published in the
Karnataka Gazette dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1)
and (3) and final notification issued under Section 19(1) vide
Annexure-F dated 18.2.2010 published in the Karnataka
Gazette dated 25.2.2010 by the respondent in so far as it relates
to the petition schedule land and etc;
IN W.P.No.33899 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
Smt. Narsamma,
Wife of Sri. T.G. Rangashamaiah,
Aged about 70 years,
No.716, 2nd D Cross,
8th Main Road, 3rd Phase,
3rd Block, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore - 560 079. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. L.K. Srinivasamurthy, Advocate for M/s. Law
Associates)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
158
Urban Development Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001,
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
Represented by its Commissioner ,
Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park East,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park East,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. U.
Abdul Khader, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 vide Annexure-E to an total extent
of 6 acres of land in respect of the Sy.No.106 situated at
Kenchanapura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk
and etc;
IN W.P.Nos.32882-32883 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
Mrs. Gowramma,
Wife of Late Govindaraju,
Aged about 60 years,
159
Residing at No.125,
Kenchanapura Village,
Sulikere Post,
Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONER
(By M/s. B.M. Shyamprasad and Associates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P.West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Ashwin S Halady,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008, Bangalore published in Karnataka
Gazette dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of
160
the BDA Act 1976 at Annexure-H by the R2 insofar as the
schedule property and final notification dated 18.2.2010 issued
under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority
Act 1976 issued by the R1 at Annexure-K in so far as the
petitioner's schedule land is concerned.
IN W.P.No.7297 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
H.C. Prakash,
Son of Late Sri Chikkanna,
Aged about 43 years,
Residing at No.730 C,
9th Cross, 5th Main,
M.C.Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. B.K. Nagaraj, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
161
3. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary to
Revenue Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. B.V.
Shankaranarayana Rao, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the final notification
dated 18.2.2010 at Annexure-E issued by the respondents so far
as the petitioner is concerned.
IN W.P.Nos.11837 - 11838 AND
11925-11926 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. G. Nirmala,
Aged about 47 years,
Wife of Sri. S. Thimma Raju,
Resident of No.143/96,
Banashankari Banagiri Nagar,
III Stage, Bangalore - 560 085.
2. Sri. B.C.Chikkanna,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of Late Sri Chikkanna,
Residing at Byadarahalli Village,
Yeshwanthapur Hobli,
162
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 091. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. B.K. Nagaraj, Advocate )
AND:
1. The Principal Secretary to
Government of Karnataka,
Housing and Urban Development
Department, M.S.Buildings,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. M.N.
Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
******
These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 issued by the first respondent in
163
favour of R-2 and 3 at Annexure-K published in the Karnataka
Gazette on 21.5.2008 and also quash the final notification dated
18.2.2010 issued by the R3 published in the Gazette on
18.2.2010 at Annexure-M in so far as the petitioners lands are
concerned and etc;
IN W.P.Nos.33657 AND 40928 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Gangamallamma,
Wife of Late Muthurayappa @
Arasappa,
Aged 65 years,
2. Sri. S.M. Arase Gowda,
Son of Late Muthurayappa @ Arasappa,
Aged 42 years,
3. Sri. S.M. Muniyappa,
Son of Late Muthurayappa @
Arasappa,
Aged 39 years,
4. Smt. S.M. Uma Devi,
Daughter of Late Muthurayappa @
Arasappa, aged 37 years,
5. Sri. S.M. Annayanna,
Son of Late Muthurayappa @
Arasappa, aged 35 years,
All are residing at No.14,
Seegehalli Village,
Magadi Road,
164
Bangalore North Taluk. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. G.S. Venkata Subba Rao, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Principal Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka,
M.S.Buildings,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Beedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
K.P.West, Bangalore - 560 020.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
K.P.West, Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. B.V.
Shankar Narayana Rao, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification vide dated 22.5.2008 vide Annexure-G notification
under Section 17(1) and (3) of BDA Act 1976, and also the
final notification vide dated 18.2.2010 vide Annexure-M in so
far as it relates to the schedule properties and etc;
165
IN W.P.No.45934 /2011
BETWEEN:
Sri. P. Gopinath,
Age: 27 years,
Son of Sri. S. Palani,
Resident of Seegehalli Village,
Yeshwanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District.
...PETITIONER
( By Shri. G. Papi Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department,
M.S.Buildings,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
By its Secretary.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
166
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. B.V.
Shankaranarayana Rao, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to call for the concerned records
and issue appropriate writ and quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3)
of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 vide
Annexure-M and the final notification dated 18.2.2010, issued
by the first respondent, vide under Annexure-P.
IN W.P.Nos.39390/2012 & 40994/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. N. Ganganarasimhaiah,
S/o. Sri. Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 60 years.
2. Sri. Devaraju,
S/o. Sri. N. Ganganarasimhaiah,
Aged about 31 years.
3. Sri. Shivashankar,
S/o. Sri. N. Ganganarasimhaiah,
Aged about 25 years.
4. Sri. Ganganarasimhamurthy,
S/o. Sri. N. Ganganarasimhaiah,
167
Aged about 23 years.
All are residents of
Seegehalli Village,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. ... PETITIONERS.
(By Shri. G.S. Venkat Subba Rao, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Principal Secretary,
Housing & Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka,
M.S. Buildings,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Beedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road, K.P. West,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1)
These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 22.05.2008 vide Annexure-F and also the
final notification dated 18.2.2010, vide Annexure-H insofar as
it relates to the schedule properties, and etc.
168
IN W.P.Nos.46127-46129/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Venkatamuniyappa,
S/o. late Muniyappa,
Aged 77 years.
2. Sri. Venkata Arasappa,
S/o. late Muniyappa,
Aged 75 years.
3. Sri. Mariyappa @ Venkata Arasappa,
S/o. late Muniyappa,
Aged 66 years.
All are residents of No.14,
Seegehalli village,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. Venkata Subba Rao, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Principal Secretary,
Housing & Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka,
M.S. Buildings, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
169
Bangalore-560 020.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri K. Krishna, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 vide Annexure-C and also the final
notification dated 18.2.2010 vide Annexure-F insofar as it
relates to the schedule properties, and etc.
IN W.P.Nos.16418-16419 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. M/s. C.P.S. Enterprises,
No.71, Surya Residency,
6th 'A' Cross, A.R.Extension,
Gandhinagar,
Bangalore - 560 009,
By its Director Chetan Narayana,
Aged 37 years,
Son of Late H.G. Narayan.
2. M/s. S.P.C.S. Traders Private Limited,
No.65/14, Gangadhara Nilaya,
B.M.Road, Hassan by its
Director Sachin Narayan,
Aged 33 years,
170
Son of Late H.G. Narayan. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. P.S. Manjunath and Shri. Vivekananda, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Principal Secretary to Government,
Urban Development Department,
Vikas Soudha,
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
Chowdaiah Road,
Bangalore, by its Commissioner.
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore District,
Bangalore.
4. State of Karnataka
By Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Vikas Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 , 3 and 4
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. Praveen
Kumar Raikote, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash serial No.64 and serial
171
No.160 in the preliminary notification, Bangalore dated
21.5.2008 at Annexure-H and serial No.68 and serial no.159 in
final notification No.UDD 51 MNX 2010, Bangalore, dated
18.2.2010 at Annexure-W in so far as the petition schedule
lands are concerned in Sy.No.8 and 97 of Kannally village
which are more fully described in the schedule.
IN W.P.No.28146 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
Smt. T. Bhagyamma,
Wife of Sri. S. Krishnappa,
Aged about 30 years,
Owner of Site No.30A,
Residing at Sy.No.94/3 and
94/5, Segehalli,
Heshwanthpura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. M. Shivaprakash, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
State of Karnataka,
Bangalore.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore.
172
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. A.
Lokanath, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and 3
Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to call for entire records
pertaining to the notification at Annexure-G and K from the
office of respondent Authorities pertaining to Seegehalli
Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, in
respect of land bearing Sy.No.94/3 and 94/5 and etc;
IN W.P.No.46941/2011
BETWEEN:
B. Eshwara,
Son of Byrappa @
Doddabyrappa,
Aged about 52 years,
Resident of Sulikere,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. H. Kantharaj, Advocate)
173
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
(Land Acquisition)
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj , Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. K.M.
Prakash, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 vide Annexure-A issued by the
second respondent and final notification published in Karnataka
Gazette dated 18.2.2010 vide Annexure-B, notified by first
respondent by issuing a writ of certiorari as illegal.
174
IN W.P.Nos.26370 & 34640-642 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Hanumaiah,
Son of Late Sri Maraiah,
Aged about 67 years,
2. Sri. H. Murli,
Son of Late Sri. Muniyappa,
Aged about 32 years,
3. Master Dheeraj,
Son of Sri. Murli,
Aged about 11 years,
4. Master Puneeth,
Son of Murli,
Aged about 5 years,
Petitioners No.3 and 4
Being Minors are represented
By their father and Natural Guardian
Sri. H. Murli.
5. Sri. H. Manjunath,
Son of Hanumaiah,
Aged about 35 years,
6. Master Samanth,
Son of Sri. H. Manjunath,
Aged about 51 years,
7. Master Pawan,
Son of Sri. H. Manjunath,
Aged about 4 years,
175
Petitioners no. 6 and 7 being
Minors are represented by their
Father and Natural Guardian
Sri. H. Manjunath.
8. Smt. Mangla,
Daughter of Hanumaiah,
Aged about 42 years,
9. Smt. Lakshmi,
Daughter of Hanumaiah,
Aged about 38 years,
Petitioners no. 1 to 9 are
Residing at No.44,
3rd Main, 4th Cross,
Kengeri Upanagara,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 076.
Petitioners 1 to 9 are
Represented by G.P.A. Holder
Mr. M.K.K.Durrani.
10. M/s. N.D. Properties Private Limited,
A Private Limited Company,
Incorporated under the Companies Act
1 of 1956, having its office at
No.398, 2nd Floor, 7th Cross,
Mico Layout, BTM 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 076,
Represented by its Managing Director and
G.P.A. Holder,
Mr. M.K.K.Durrani,
Aged about 49 years. ...PETITIONERS
176
( By Shri. Kamal and Bhanu, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary to Government.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. A. Lokanath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 as per Annexure-C issued by
second respondent and to quash the final notification dated
18.2.2010 as per Annexure-F issued by first respondent.
177
IN W.P.Nos.26362 & 34634-637 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Nanjappa,
Son of Sri Annaiappa,
Aged about 52 years,
2. Ms. N. Sumithra,
Daughter of Sri Nanjappa,
Aged about 27 years,
3. Sri. N. Maranna,
Son of Sri. Nanjappa,
Aged about 24 years,
4. Ms. N.Anasuya,
Daughter of Sri. Nanjappa,
Aged about 20 years,
5. Ms. N. Geetha,
Daughter of Sri. Nanjappa,
Aged about 18 years,
All are residing at
Babasahebara Palya,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060,
Petitioners 1 to 5 represented
By G.P.A. Holder Mr. M.K.K.Durrani.
6. M/s. N.D. Properties Private Limited,
A Private Limited Company,
178
Incorporated under the Companies Act
1 of 1956, having its office at
No.398, 2nd Floor, 7th Cross,
Mico Layout, BTM 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 076,
Represented by its Managing Director and
Petitioners 1 to 5 represented
By G.P.A. Holder
Mr. M.K.K.Durrani,
Aged about 49 years. ...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. Kamal and Bhanu, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary to Government.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
179
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri. A. Lokanath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 as per Annexure-C issued by
second respondent and to quash the final notification dated
18.2.2010 as per Annexure-F issued by first respondent.
IN W.P.No.26367 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Kariyappa,
Son of Sri. Annaiappa,
Aged about 60 years,
2. Sri. Muniyappa,
Son of Sri. Kariyappa,
Aged about 36 years,
3. Ms. Manjula,
Daughter of Sri. Kariyappa,
Aged about 33 years,
4. Ms. Shobha,
Daughter of Sri. Kariyappa,
Aged about 31 years,
5. Ms. Mala,
Daughter of Sri Kariyappa,
Aged about 29 years,
180
6. Mr. Pradeep,
Son of Sri. Kariyappa,
Aged about 27 years,
All are residing at
Babasahebara Palya,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 060.
7. M/s. N.D. Properties Private Limited,
A Private Limited Company,
Incorporated under the Companies Act
1 of 1956, having its office at
No.398, 2nd Floor, 7th Cross,
Mico Layout, BTM 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 076,
Represented by its Managing Director
Mr. M.K.K.Durrani. ...PETITIONERS
( By Shri. Kamal and Bhanu, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary to Government.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
181
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bellary Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1 )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 as per Annexure-C issued by
second respondent and to quash the final notification dated
18.2.2010 as per Annexure-F issued by first respondent.
IN W.P.NO.19118/2010
BETWEEN:
Sri. Nanjunda Aradhya,
S/o. late Nanjappa Aradhya,
Aged about 81 years,
Resident of Kommaghatta Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. ... PETITIONER.
(By Shri. M.R. Rajagopal, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
182
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001,
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri Praveen Kumar Raikote, Advocate for Respondents 2 and
3)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification
issued by the second respondent BDA, under Section 17 (1)(3)
of the Act dated 21.05.2008, as per Annexure-J, and also the
notification issued under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act, dated
18.02.2010 as per Annexure-N, insofar as the lands of these
petitioners are concerned.
IN W.P.NOS.6313-6318/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. N. Umashankar,
S/o. Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
Resident of No.108, Thaggiguppe Village,
Magadi Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
183
2. Sri. Mariyappa,
S/o. late Bettaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
Resident of Bettanapalya Village,
Bhimanakuppe Dakale,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
3. Sri. Bettappa,
S/o. late Bettaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
Resident of Bettanapalya Village,
Bhimanakuppe Dakale,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
4. Sri. Javarappa,
S/o. late Bettaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
Resident of Bettanapalya Village,
Bhimanakuppe Dakale,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
5. Smt. Jayamma,
W/o. late Hichchappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Resident of Bettanapalya Village,
Bhimanakuppe Dakale,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
6. Sri. K. Shivalingam,
S/o. Sri. Kuppaswamy,
Aged about 49 years,
184
Resident of No.1121, Sai Baba Nilaya,
9th Cross, 2nd Block,
BSK 1st Stage,
Bangalore-560 050. ... PETITIONERS.
(By Shri. M.R. Rajagopal, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001,
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri C.R. Gopalaswamy, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.5.2008 and also final notification dated
18.2.2010 issued by the 1st respondent as per Annexure-G and
Annexure-H insofar as the lands of these petitioners, and etc.
185
IN W.P.NOS.1746 & 1748-54/2011
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Hanumantha Rao,
S/o. Mankoji Rao,
Aged about 48 years,
Farm House, Ramasandra,
Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore. ...PETITIONER
(IN W.P.1746/2011)
2. Sri. Nanjundappa J.H.,
S/o. J.P. Halappa,
Aged about 69 years,
Resident of 1271, 4th Main,
7th Cross, Chandra Layout,
Bangalore-40.
3. Sri. Dobbagulappa,
S/o. Rangappa,
Aged about 48 years,
Resident of Ramasandra Village,
Bangalore South, Bangalore District.
4. Sri. Manjunath,
S/o. Rangappa,
Aged about 35 years,
Resident of Ramasandra Village,
Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Zone,
Bangalore District.
5. Smt. Gowramma,
W/o. Venkatesh,
Aged about 37 years,
Resident at No.16, 50 feet road,
186
Muneshwara Block.
6. Sri. Venkatesh,
S/o. Sri. Shivaramaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
Resident at No.16, 50 feet road,
Muneshwara Block. ...PETITIONERS
(IN W.P.NOS.1748-54/2011)
(By Shri. M.R. Rajagopal, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore.
2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri C.R. Gopalaswamy, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3)
These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.05.2008 gazetted dated 22.05.2008 and
also final notification dated 18.02.2010 issued by the R1,
187
Bangalore, as per Annexure-Q and Annexure-W insofar as the
lands of the petitioners, and etc.
IN W.P.Nos.33267/2011 AND
W.P.33695-699/11 AND
W.P.33779/2011
BETWEEN:
Muddanna,
Aged 60 years,
S/o. late Veerakempaiah,
Residing at Bheemanakuppe
Village, Ramohalli,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. ... PETITIONER.
(By Smt. K.K. Thayamma, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary.
Urban Development Department,
M.S. Building,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
K.P. West Extension,
Bangalore-560 020.
Represented by its Commissioner,
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumarapark West Extension,
Bangalore-560 020.
188
4. S. Chandrashekar,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o. late Sanjeevaiah,
Residing at No.20, 4th Cross,
AGS Layout,
Bangalore-560 061. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1, Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for
Shri A. Lokanath, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3, Shri A.V.
Srinivas, Advocate for Respondent No.4)
These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 21.05.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette
dated 22.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, 1976 marked as Annexure-A and final notification dated
18.2.2010 issued under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act, and etc.
These petitions having been heard and reserved on
29.4.2014 and coming on for pronouncement of orders this day,
the Court delivered the following:-
189
ORDER
These petitions are heard and disposed of together having regard to certain common issues that arise for consideration.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the proposed acquisition of their lands for the formation of a residential layout known as 'Nada Prabhu Kempe Gowda Layout'. The acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act', for brevity) spans lands spread over 12 villages. A preliminary notification, issued under Section 17 of the BDA Act was issued on 21.5.2008, proposing to acquire an extent of 4814 acres and 15 guntas of land. However, the extent was confined to 4043 acres and 27 guntas of land as per the final notification, issued under Section 19 of the BDA Act dated 18.2.2010.
The extent of land sought to be acquired in each of the 12 villages is as follows :
190
Name of Name of Name of the Name of the Village Total extent the Taluk Hobli Acre-Guntas District
1) Sheegehalli 99 - 38
2) Kannelli 413 - 13 Bangalore Bangalore Yeshwanthpur 3) Kodigehalli 453 - 25 North
4) Manganhalli 37 - 24
5) Kommaghatti 721 - 34
6) Bheemanakuppe 833 - 25
7) Bheemanakuppe- 40 - 27 Ramasagara
8) Sulikere 318 - 14 Bangalore Bangalore Kengeri Urban South 9) Kenchanapura 250 - 38
10) Ramasandra 391 - 14
11) Kommaghatti- 154 - 12 Krishnasagara
12) Challaghatta 328 - 03 GRAND TOTAL 4043 - 27 The reasons assigned for exclusion of lands, which found place in the preliminary notification, but which were not included in the final notification, were that the particular lands could not be integrated with the layout to be formed because of the fact that the same were either found to be outside the residential zone under the Zonal Regulations and were reserved 191 for development under varied zones (Green Belt, Forest, Hi-
tech etc.) or were found to be occupied by a temple or other place of worship, or was government land reserved for a particular scheme, housed educational institutions, were on the periphery of the proposed layout and consisted of farm land with farmers residing therein, or were completely built up, or were otherwise inconveniently situated on the edge of other non-residential zones and certain lands having been parallelly acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB).
3. The petitions are brought by persons, who may be broadly grouped under the following heads, namely:
(a) Agriculturists who claim that they are cultivating the land and residing therein and wholly dependant on the land for their livelihood.
(b) Persons engaged in rearing milch cattle and vending milk for their livelihood.192
(c) Nurserymen, who have well developed nurseries and are also said to be cultivating the land for other purposes.
(d) House owners, who have built pucca houses well before the initiation of the acquisition proceedings.
(e) Persons who have established small scale industries including brick factories.
(f) Others claiming that the land in question is most inconveniently located for being integrated in the formation of the layout. This is also a common ground urged by several of the above petitioners as well.
Even during the pendency of these petitions, the BDA having been called upon by this court to re-examine the claim of the petitioners, as it was their uniform claim that they were subjected to arbitrary treatment in other lands, which were either similarly situated or were being similarly utilized, having been identified by the BDA for deletion from the acquisition process, while overlooking the case of the petitioners - and on the BDA reporting to this Court, after having re-examined the 193 lands in question, that it would recommend to the State for withdrawal from acquisition, as the lands involved in particular petitions were indeed similarly placed as those lands which were given up from the acquisition proceedings before the issuance of the final notification, several petitions were disposed of, recording the submission of the BDA that the lands involved therein would not be acquired. The following tabular statement provides brief particulars of those petitions.
Writ petition Date of Survey No. Name of the Extent of land
No. Disposal Village Acres Guntas
19430/2010 23.4.2014 165/3 Ramasandra 1 26
42857/2011 25.3.2014 143/1 Ramasandra 30
143/2 1 17
39580/2010 30.4.2014 112 Ramasandra 32
and 22 guntas
kharab land
113 05
and 3 guntas
kharab land
26977/2010 31.1.2014 114 Ramasandra 3 26
9404/2010 31.1.2014 178/2 Ramasandra 2 35
9405-407/2010 12.2.2014 160/6, Ramasandra 2 20
160/6-P3 12
194
160/6-P6 19
31571/2010 23.4.2014 64 Kommaghatta 5 28
2987-88/2011 4.3.2014 61/2 Kommaghatta 2
15413/2010 2.4.2014 93/3 Kommaghatta 1 20
110 2 2
10983/2012 2.4.2014 100/2 Kommaghatta 1
10710/2010 21.4.2014 10/1 Manganahalli 1 5
10/2 1 34
33805- 31.1.2014 151/2 Bheemanakuppe 26
806/2010 151/3 20
10728- 31.1.2014 86 Bheemanakuppe 8 26
729/2010
10740/2010 31.1.2014 112 Bheemanakuppe 4 23
31485 & 23.4.2014 96/2 Bheemanakuppe 1 8
33865/2011 96/3 1 5
40881- 23.4.2014 1/1 Bheemanakuppe 1 12
40883/2011 1/2 1 09
1/7 25
33623/2012 28.4.2014 52/3 Bheemanakuppe 30
7654-56/2012 23.4.2014 92/1 Bheemanakuppe 2 30
103/3 1 20
195
103/4 20
4287/2012 21.4.2014 95/1 Bheemanakuppe 1 23
27933/2013 23.4.2014 164/2 Bheemanakuppe 22
9108- 12.2.2014 168/3 Bheemanakuppe 1 24
9110/2010 170 2 20
171 3 31
11962- 12.2.2014 35/1 Bheemanakuppe 02
963/2010 36 4
2198-200/2011 2.4.2014 164/3 Bheemanakuppe 13
164/2 38
163 8.8
47173-74/2011 23.4.2014 27/2 Sulikere 29
27/4A 1 6
27856/2010 28.4.2014 8 Sulikere 2 30
38091/2013 23.4.2014 36 & 34 Seegehalli Site No.136
measuring
east to west
15 feet and
north to
south 40
feet
47301/2013 12.2.2014 Site No. 143 Seegehalli 30x40 Sq.ft
in Sy.No.34
& 36
(Revenue
site
purchased
prior to
preliminary
notification
196
18748/2013 12.2.2014 Site No.23 Kodigehalli 40 x 30
in Sy.No.2
39824- 12.2.2014 1)Site No.28 Kodigehalli 45 x 30 Sq.Ft.
2)Southern
40 x 15 Sq.Ft.
830/2012 Half Site (all sites bear
No.6 Assessment
3)Site No.8 No.51) 40 x 30 Sq.Ft.
4)Northern
45 x 15 Sq.Ft.
Half Site
No.20
5) Site No.5 40 x 30 Sq.Ft.
6)Site No.30 45 x 30 Sq.Ft.
7)Site No.26 45 x 30 Sq.Ft.
11966/2010 29.4.2014 37/1 Kommaghatta 31 guntas
39/1 23 guntas
43467- 30.4.2014 33 Kommaghatta 2acre2gunta
468/2012 33 s
33 3 acres
34/1 3 acres
5acre25gun
ta
Before referring to the contentions urged by the several counsel for the parties, the particulars of lands and other properties of each of the petitioners herein are briefly stated hereunder:
197
Sl. WP No. Sy. Village Extent Trees / No. No. Acres - Construction Guntas present in the land 32186/2010 7/3 Kodigehalli - 12 Two houses,
1.
coconut trees 32187/2010 and 5 22 2500 Arecanut, 75 34096-98/10 70/4 7½ coconut, 200 21 ½
2. Kodigehalli teak, 10 jack fruit trees, 70/3 31 Vermiculture, Nursery 37886/2012 71/7B Kodigehalli 19 A house,
3. Coconut trees, Sericulture 40958/2012 70/6 Kodigehalli 3 - 24 Fruit-bearing
4.
trees, crops
43714/2012 135 3 - 35 Fruit bearing
Kodigehalli & 0.5 trees, crops
5.
guntas
karab
14140-147/2010 1/2A 1 - 13
& 2
6. guntas
kharab
Industry,
Nursing
College,
1st Petitioner Residential
Quarters,
23/8 Kodigehalli 14.8 Nursery
1/2A 6
23/6 11
2nd Petitioner 1/2A 25 House,
godown, fruit
bearing trees
3rd Petitioner 23/7 8 Industrial
sheds
4th Petitioner 1/2A 70ft x Residential
40 ft. buildings let
out to tenants
198
5th Petitioner 1/2A 70ft. x House site
40ft.
34413-34423/11 48/2 24
48/3 Kodigehalli 12
1st Petitioner
48/5 14
49/1 1 - 20 Residential
houses
53/3P 1 - 2¾
53/4P 1 - 10
7.
53/16 10
P Kodigehalli
2nd Petitioner 53/2P 2 Residential
houses
3rd Petitioner 48/1 24 Residential
houses
4th Petitioner 52/1 37 ½ Residential
houses
5th Petitioner 53/11 27
Residential
P
houses
8. 35445-48/2011
27 Residential
st 53/5P
1 Petitioner houses
2nd Petitioner 53/5P Kodigehalli 21 Residential
houses
3rd Petitioner 53/3P 37 Residential
houses and a
temple
4th Petitioner 53/6P 10 Residential
houses
9. 33858 & 34282/11 52/7 15 School
Kodigehalli approved by
52/8 17 Government
199
10. 34191/2011 53/5P Kodigehalli 26 Residential
house
11. 22087-102/2012 Site 50 ft. x Residential
No.57 30 ft. building
1st Petitioner Katha Kodigehalli
No.
107
2nd Petitioner Site Kodigehalli 30 ft. x Residential
No. 40 ft. building
758/7
(Old
No.7),
Khata
No.75
8
3rd Petitioner Site Kodigehalli 30 ft. x Residential
No. 40 ft. building
107/6,
Khata
No.18
7
4th Petitioner Site Kodigehalli 50 ft. x Residential
No. 30 ft. building
58,
Katha
No.10
7
5th Petitioner Site Kodigehalli 30 ft. x House site
No. 40 ft.
50,
Khata
No.10
7
6th Petitioner Site Kodigehalli 30 ft. x Residential
No.5, 40 ft. building
Khata
No.10
7
200
7th Petitioner Site Kodigehalli 30 ft. x Residential
No.4, 40 ft. building
Khata
No.10
7
8th Petitioner Site Kodigehalli 30 ft. x Residential
No.47 40 ft. building
,
Khata
No.10
7
9th Petitioner Site Kodigehalli 50 ft. Residential
No.56 x 30 ft. building
,
Khata
No.10
7
10th Petitioner Site Kodigehalli 40 ft. x Residential
No.19 30 ft. building
,
Khata
No.10
7
11th Petitioner Site Kodigehalli 40 ft. x House site
No.20 30 ft.
,
Khata
No.10
7
12th Petitioner Site Kodigehalli 15 ft. x House site
No.17 37 ft.
,
Khata
No.10
7
201
13th Petitioner and Site Kodigehalli 40 ft. x House site
No.36 15 ft.
14th Petitioner
,
Khata
No.10
7
15th Petitioner Site Kodigehalli 30 ft. x Residential
No.53 40 ft. building
,
Asses
sment
No.10
7
16th Petitioner Site Kodigehalli 28 ft. x Residential
No.1, 40 ft. building
Asses
sment
No.10
7
12. 17461/2010 53/8 1 - 20
st School
1 Petitioner
Kodigehalli
53/9 2 -
13. 40115/2010 28/3 1 - 17 Residential
& Layout
Kodigehalli 1 gunta
kharab
14. 40110-112/2010 27 1 - 5
28/4 39
(old Kodigehalli Residential
no.28/ layout
2)
28/6 1 - 4
15. 22375/2011 Site Kodigehalli 30 ft. x Residential
No.4 40 ft. building
in
Sy.No
. 94/3
202
16. 3107/2012 139 Kodigehalli 4 Solid waste
(Old management
No.53 plant approved
) by BBMP
17. 19767/2010 5 Kodigehalli 13 Small Scale
Industry of
Granite
cutting &
polishing,
Two Houses
18. 1753/2013 25 Bheemanakuppe 1 - 8 Nursery,
Floricultural,
Horticultural
crops & 1700
arecanut, 70
coconut, 15
mango, 60
teak trees, etc.
19. 17369/2010 226/5 Bheemanakuppe 16 Coconut trees
& other crops
20. 35629/2010 177 Bheemanakuppe 3 - 30.16 Residential
houses, trees,
vegetable &
flower plants
21. 35628/2010 New 4 8 House site
Sy.No
.
223/1 Bheemanakuppe
0, Old
Sy.No
.
223/2
22. 35625-627/2010 98/1 13 Industrial
building
98/2 Bheemanakuppe 14 manufacturing
plastic
98/4 7 granules
23. 37316-317/2012 Agriculture,
Several trees,
1st Petitioner 41 5 - 10
Bheemanakuppe Poultry farm
in four sheds,
2nd Petitioner 42 4 - 7 Godowns, etc.
203
24. 42138/2012 207/1 Bheemanakuppe 16 House, Two
cow sheds
25. 10650-10653/11
1st Petitioner 188/6 7 Developed the
lands to
187/2 14 establish an
Bheemanakuppe industry
2nd Petitioner 187/2 10
3rd Petitioner 188/6 7 Plastic
industry
manufacturing
Polythene
covers
26. 9830-37/2010 Horticultural
farm with fruit
1st Petitioner 81/1C Bheemanakuppe 1 - 28
bearing trees,
ayurvedic
2nd Petitioner 81/1A Bheemanakuppe 1 - 1 medicinal
plants &
3rd Petitioner 82/1A Bheemanakuppe 1 - 5 flower plants.
Tombs of
82/1B Bheemanakuppe 1 - 1 ancestors, a
rain harvesting
Petitioners 1 and 2 81/1B 1 - 20 plant, a cattle
shed, four
82/2 2 - 3 borewells.
Bheemanakuppe They supply
83 3 - 24 milk to local
milk societies.
81/2 1 - 24
27. 32869/2013 94 Bheemanakuppe 2 - 30 House sites
and certain
constructions.
Coconut trees
28. 50027/2013 189/2 Bheemanakuppe 13 A residential
house, other
three tenanted
houses, a flour
mill, a cement
brick factory,
eight sheds.
204
29. 32653-656/2010 52/5 1 - 1 Fruit bearing
trees,
52/6 24 flowering
Bheemanakuppe plants, crops,
53/4 1 - 20 2 houses, a
godown, cattle
50/5 1 - 1 sheds, two
borewells.
30. 20526/2010 69 Bheemanakuppe 2 - 33 274 coconut
trees, 50 teak
wood trees, 20
mango trees,
50 guava trees
31. 25616/2010 69 4 - 33 19 coconut, 8
Bheemanakuppe jackfruit, 3
73 35 tamarind, 2
teakwood &
other trees, a
well.
32. 16908/2010 104/P Bheemanakuppe 2 - 36 100 mango,
1 (Old 100 teakwood,
No.10 13 jamboo, 14
4) jungle trees.
A farm house,
three sheds,
two buildings
& a cement
block
manufacturing
unit.
33. 41277/2011 220 Bheemanakuppe 5 Residential
building
34. 13342-343/2012 168/5 Bheemanakuppe 5.4 AC sheet
roofed house,
Mango &
other trees
35. 20398/2010 55/2 Bheemanakuppe 1 - 35
54/2 2 - 11 Agriculture
56/2 Bheemanakuppe 1 - 38
57/1 1 - 36
205
36. 251-255/2013
1st Petitioner 222/1 12
Agriculture
2nd Petitioner 190/1 25
223/3 0.05
Bheemanakuppe
3rd Petitioner Site 40 ft. x House site
No. 40 ft.
190/1,
Khath
a
No.36
3/190
37 11688/2010 91 Bheemanakuppe 4 House,Cattle
sheds,
Nursery,
Supplies milk
38. 30102/2012 84/1 Bheemanakuppe 1 - 29 Nursery farm,
Brick
Manufacturing
unit.
39. 38252-253/2012
Nursery farm,
1st Petitioner 99/2 34 Brick
Bheemanakuppe manufacturing
nd
2 Petitioner 99/1 37 unit.
40. 22777/2010 73 Bheemanakuppe 5 Agricultural
land
41. 33243-246/2011 57/2 3 - 30 Running Non-
formal
59 1 - 27 Training
Bheemanakuppe Institute,
61 6 - 1 Nursery,
Various trees,
62 5 Intends to
establish PU
College &
School.
206
42. 13000/2010 35/1 Bheemanakuppe 20 24 coconut
trees, 22
teakwood
trees, & other
trees
43. 10531-32/2012 49/1 Bheemanakuppe 2 - 32 Green Belt
area, 750
coconut, 300
sapota, 160
mango &
other trees,
Two
residential
houses
44. 9167/2012 49/2 Bheemanakuppe 1 - 23 2 residential
houses,formed
layouts and
sold some
sites wherein
constructions
have been put
up
45. 9165/2012 & 48 Bheemanakuppe 3 - 24 750 coconut,
300 sapota,
9405/2012
160 mango &
other trees,
two residential
houses,servant
quarters,
formed
layouts and
sold some
sites wherein
constructions
have been put
up
46. 2211/2013 137 Ramasandra 30 Nursery
plants,
floricultural &
horticultural
crops, large
number of
fruit-bearing
trees
207
47. 14913-914/2013 92/1 27 Nursery
93/1 Ramasandra 15 plants,
floricultural &
horticultural
crops, large
number of
fruit-bearing
trees
48. 31120/2010 108 Ramasandra 2 - 22 Ragi, Paddy &
other crops
49. 15705/2013 123 Ramasandra 2 - 21 Nursery
plants,
floricultural &
horticultural
crops, large
number of
fruit-bearing
trees
50. 9101-9102/10 107 30 Animal
husbandry,
108 2 Different
trees, Pump
111/6 Ramasandra 5 houses,
watchman
111/1 4 shed, cattle
2 shed, coconut
godown, etc.
51. 37190-191/2012 160/3 Ramasandra 5 4 residential
houses, a
pump house,
coconut &
other trees
52. 40644-645/2011 92/2 23 Poultry farm,
Ramasandra Residential
93/2 23 houses.
53. 44048/2011 173/2 Ramasandra 2 - 20 Proposes to
form a
residential
layout for
which he has
paid the
betterment &
conversion
charges.
208
54. 51015/2013
92/2 7 30 Mango
1st Petitioner
trees
93/2 15
2nd Petitioner 92/2 Ramasandra 7 Hotel and
chicken shop
93/2 16 in 8 guntas
and in rest,
160 8 agriculture
55. 30740-743/2010
1st Petitioner 123 14 4 houses, a
small temple,
tombs, well,
Ramasandra many trees
nd
2 Petitioner 118 1 - 10 Fruit yielding
& other trees
3rd Petitioner 118 1 - 10 Agriculture, &
has grown
several trees
4th Petitioner 118 1 Agriculture
56. 8901/2010 101/3 5 - 23 + 20
guntas
kharab Running an
101/5 2 - 11 + 10 engineering
guntas college and
kharab intends to start
a medical
106 Ramasandra 1 - 6 college
110/2 3 - 37 + 1
gunta
kharab
57. 13416/2010 132 Ramasandra 1 - 17 Farm house,
coconut
godown,
storage shed,
cow shed,
temple,
various fruit
bearing trees
209
58. 11306-307/2010 90 Ramasandra 3 - 11 Agriculture,
horticulture,
animal
husbandry,
floriculture
59. 23247/2010 123 Ramasandra 2 - 20 Agriculture,
horticulture,
animal
husbandry,
floriculture
60. 42536/2011 122 Ramasandra 35 Agriculture,
horticulture,
animal
husbandry,
floriculture
61. 44554/2012 160/P Ramasandra 8 Agricultural
5 land
62. 29668/2010 34 Kommaghatta 3 - 34 Nursery
plants,
horticulture,
floriculture,
various fruit-
bearing trees
63. 28722/2010 40/1 Kommaghatta 1 - 37 Various fruit-
bearing trees,
two open
wells.
64. 9839-41/2010 155 4 Four houses,
156 1 - 37.08 Silk-rearing
Kommaghatta house, fruit-
157 3 - 21 bearing trees,
flowering
plants, supply
of milk
65. 11966-967/2010 111/5 Kommaghatta 4 - 7 Tombs of
ancestors, 3
43/1 7 - 5 RCC
buildings,
godown, cattle
sheds, various
fruit-bearing
trees.
210
66. 19807/2010 46 1 - 20 Donated to
(MR M/s. Nalanda
No.28/ Education
2002- Society and
03) several
buildings have
46 Kommaghatta 1 - 20 been
(MR constructed to
No.20/ run various
2003- institutions
04) after obtaining
permission
46 4 - 33 from
Government.
214 3 - 26 Leased to one
Somashekar to
carry out
agricultural
activities like
nursery,
poultry
farming, dairy
farming, sheep
breeding,
trees, etc.
67. 12927-935/2010 60/1 8 - 7 Running a
nursery, a
61/4 9 - 10 dairy.Growing
Fruit yielding
61/5 8 - 32 trees, farm
house, cow
61/6 8 - 19 shed, sheep
shed, coconut
209 1 - 25 storing shed,
Kommaghatta nursery sheds.
210 1 - 25 There are
2000 coconut
211 1 - 37 trees, 3500
areca
213 3 - 32 trees,1000
mango trees of
214 3 - 26 export-
oriented
varieties.
211
68. 26373/2010 28 Kommaghatta 1 Petitioners 1
to 4 have
Jointly owned by
entered into a
Petitioners 1 to 4
joint
development
agreement
with petitioner
no.5 wherein,
P-1 to 4 would
be entitled to
48% & P-5
would be
entitled to
52%, in
respect of
which
substantial
sums have
been paid by
P-5 to
Petitioners 1
to 4 and
towards
development
of land as
well.
69. 12781/2011 31/2 Kommaghatta 5 - 32 A house, a
farm house,
labout sheds,
coconut trees
& other trees.
70. 16259-266/2012
1st Petitioner 116 2 Residential
houses, sheds,
2nd Petitioner 123/1 18 water tanks,
fruit bearing
Petitioners 1 and 2 122/1 2 - 10 trees, arena
nut trees,
122/2 31 coconut trees,
Kommaghatta nursery farm.
122/3 35
122/4 38
212
123/1 1 - 14
123/2 1 - 1
71. 13726/2012 116 Kommaghatta 5 - 12 Coconut trees,
arecanut trees,
sapota trees, a
Nursery. An
AC sheet-
roofed house
& a RCC
roofed house
72. 33131/2011 & 31/2 Hosabyrohalli, 5 - 10 A residential
Kommaghatta house
35309/2011
46 Panchayath 1 - 14 Arecanut,
Coconut,
Plantain trees,
paddy
73. 33132/2011 & 42/1 5 Coconut trees,
Hosabyrohalli, Plantain trees,
35176/2011
Kommaghatta paddy ragi.
Panchayath Servant
32 5 quarters
74. 22103-104/2012 47 5.05 Intends to
Kommaghatta build a farm
49/2 5.05 house
75. 43470/2012 34/1 5 - 25 Residential
Kommaghatta buildings,
35/1 3 - 33 garden nursery
labour
quarters.
Coconut trees,
Arecanut
trees, banana,
teakwood
trees grown.
76. 3134/2012 143 Kommaghatta 4 Residential
house, cattle
shed, milk
vending,
various fruit-
bearing trees.
213
77. 26369/2010 18 36 Petitioners 1
to 3 have
(Jointly owned by
K. Krishnasagar entered into a
Petitioners 1, 2 &
joint
3)
development
agreement
with petitioner
no.4 wherein,
P-1 to 3 would
be entitled to
48% & P-4
would be
entitled to
52%. Huge
sums have
been paid by
P-4 to
Petitioners 1
to 3 and
towards
development
of land as
well.
78. 26368/2010 & 14 1 - 26 ½ Petitioners
have entered
37509-511/2010
14 1 - 27 into a joint
(Jointly owned by K. Krishnasagar development
Petitioners 1 to 14 1 - ½ agreement
11) with petitioner
15 26 no.12 wherein,
P-1 to 11
would be
entitled to
48% & P-12
would be
entitled to
52%. Huge
sums have
been paid by
P-12 to these
petitioners and
towards
development
of land as
well.
214
79. 26365/2010 37 2 - 29 Petitioners
K. Krishnasagar have entered
(Jointly owned by
into a joint
Petitioners 1 to 5)
development
agreement
with petitioner
no.6 wherein,
P-1 to 5 would
be entitled to
48% & P-6
would be
entitled to
52%. Huge
sums have
been paid by
P-6 to these
petitioners and
towards
development
of land as
well.
80. 26364/2010 13 K. Krishnasagar 3 Petitioners
have entered
(Jointly owned by
into a joint
Petitioners 1 to 8)
development
agreement
with petitioner
no.9 wherein,
P-1 to 8 would
be entitled to
48% & P-9
would be
entitled to
52%. Huge
sums have
been paid by
P-9 to these
petitioners and
towards
development
of land as
well.
215
81. 26363/2010 37 K. Krishnasagar 2 - 28 Petitioners
have entered
(Jointly owned by
into a joint
Petitioners 1 to 3)
development
agreement
with petitioner
no.4 wherein,
P-1 to 3 would
be entitled to
48% & P-4
would be
entitled to
52%. Huge
sums have
been paid by
P-4 to these
petitioners and
spent towards
development
of land as well
82. 26374/2010 & 26 13 1st Petitioner
19 1 - 4 has entered
34638-639/2010
K. Krishnasagar into a joint
(Owned by 23 19 development
Petitioner No.1) agreement
with petitioner
no.2 wherein,
P-1 would be
entitled to
48% & P-2
would be
entitled to
52%. Huge
sums have
been paid by
P-2 to 1st
petitioner and
spent towards
development
of land as well
216
83. 26372/2010 27 K. Krishnasagar 5 - 7 1st Petitioner
has entered
(Owned by
into a joint
Petitioner No.1)
development
agreement
with petitioner
no.2 wherein,
P-1 would be
entitled to
48% & P-2
would be
entitled to
52%. Huge
sums have
been paid by
P-2 to 1st
petitioner and
spent towards
development
of land as well
84. 16364/2010 Sy. K. Krishnasagar 30 ft. x Residential
No. 40 ft. site
24,
Khata
No.33
6
85. 38442/2011 33/2B K. Krishnasagar 3 - 1 Developed
into a
residential
layout
86. 11025/2010 15 Manganahalli 6 - 33 Residential
house, fruit
bearing trees,
flowering
plants.
87. 29520/2012 30 Manganahalli 6 - 15 Factory
manufacturing
ferro alloys in
28 guntas.
88. 35001-03/2012 14 Manganahalli 10 Residential
building
217
89. 12969-12972/10 49/1 4 - 2 Three houses,
cows and
49/P4 4 buffaloes
Manganahalli shed. Various
49/P5 2 trees, Nursery,
Floricultural
57 4 - 2 and
horticultural
activities
carried on.
90. 20417/2010 49 Manganahalli 3 Cultivating the
land under
Bagair Hukum
and submitted
representation
for
confirmation
of occupation.
Has formed a
registered
charitable
trust.
91. 19475/2010 28 Manganahalli 8 - 33 Running
industry in a
shed
measuring
40000 sq.ft.
There exists a
railway line
and rain water
channel.
Comes under
White
category.
92. 12225/2010 Site Manganahalli 40 ft. x Residential
No.33 30 ft. site
Khata
No.
13/P6
(Old
No.13
) in
Sy.
No.13
218
93. 31121/2010 101/1 Kenchanapura 3 - 7 Agricultural
purposes
94. 9842-9844/2010 3/2 3 Entire land
fully built up.
3/3 Kenchanapura 33 Some houses
let out to
3/6 17 tenants &
some sites
sold to third
parties.
95. 28892/2012 118/2 Kenchanapura 1 Fruit-bearing
trees and other
crops
96. 36986/2011 109 Kenchanapura 6 - 19 Land has been
converted for
non-
agricultural
purposes.
97. 33899/2011 106 Kenchanapura 6 Buildings, a
Temple,
several trees.
98. 32882-883/2010 125 Kenchanapura 2 - 29 Brick
manufacturing
unit, poultry
farm.
Agricultural
activities.
99. 7297/2010 34 Seegehalli 14 35 coconut
trees, garden
36 Seegehalli 3 - 39 land, borewell
is dug.
100. 11837-838/2010 Layout is
& 11925-26/10 formed in the
said land and
1st Petitioner 34 1
sites sold to
Seegehalli
various
36 13 persons, who
have built
2nd Petitioner 36 Seegehalli 1 13
houses and are
residing there.
101. 33657/2010 & 1/3 Seegehalli 19 ¾ House, Brick
manufacturing
40928/2010
1/4 Seegehalli 16 industry,
several
coconut trees.
219
102. 45934/2011 37/5 Seegehalli 1 Factory shed
(Old for cement
No. business.
37/1) Three shops, a
house. Land
converted to
non-
agricultural
purposes.
103. 39390/2012 & 1/4 Seegehalli 14 Residential
guntas house,
40994/2012
& 10 agricultural
guntas activities.
104. 46127-129/2013
1st Petitioner 1/4 Seegehalli 5
2nd Petitioner 90/1 Seegehalli 29
1/4 Seegehalli 12
1/3 Seegehalli 8
Residential
1/2 Seegehalli 7 house,
agricultural
91/1 Seegehalli 1 - 27 activities.
3rd Petitioner 1/4 Seegehalli 6
1/3 Seegehalli 4¼
91/1 Seegehalli 23
105. 16418-419/2010
25% of bid 8 Kannahalli 1 - 18 Got converted
amount deposited 2 land from
by 1st Petitioner in agricultural
respect of purposes to
public utility
purpose.
220
25% of bid 97 Kannahalli 2 - 10 Got converted
amount deposited land from
by 2nd Petitioner in agricultural
respect of purposes to
public utility
purpose.
106. 28146/2010 Site Kannahalli 53 ft. x Residential
No.30 57 ft. house
7 in
Sy.
No.94
/3
107. 46941/2011 17 Sulikere 1 - 20 Running a
small scale
unit
108. 26370/2010 & Petitioners
34640-642/2010 have entered
into a joint
Jointly owned by 14 K. Krishnasagar 1 - 20 development
Petitioners 1 to 9 agreement
15 K. Krishnasagar 12 with petitioner
no.10 wherein,
14 K. Krishnasagar 1 - 10 P-1 to 9 would
be entitled to
116 Kommaghatta 3 - 7 48% & P-10
would be
entitled to
52%. Huge
sums have
been paid by
P-10 to these
petitioners and
spent towards
development
of land as
well.
221
109. 26362/10 & Petitioners
34634-637/2010 have entered
into a joint
Jointly owned by 36 Kommaghatta 1 - 22 ½ development
Petitioners 1 to 5 agreement
24 Kommaghatta 38 with petitioner
no.6 wherein,
23 Kommaghatta 11 ½ P-1 to 5 would
be entitled to
28 Kommaghatta 1 - 8 48% & P-6
would be
22 K. Krishnasagar 2 - 20 entitled to
52%. Huge
sums have
been paid by
P-6 to these
petitioners and
spent towards
development
of land as well
110. 26367/2010 22 K. Krishnasagar 2 - 19 Petitioners
Jointly owned by have entered
Petitioners 1 to 6 26 K. Krishnasagar 20 into a joint
development
19 K. Krishnasagar 4 agreement
with petitioner
36 K. Krishnasagar 1 - 11 ½ no.7 wherein, P-1 to 6 would 23 K. Krishnasagar 11 ½ be entitled to 28 Kommaghatta 22 ½ 48% & P-7 would be entitled to 52%. Huge sums have been paid by P-7 to these petitioners and spent towards development of land as well.
222
111. 19118/2010 82 Kommaghatta 3 - 14 Wet land & 86 Kommaghatta 4 - 8 Garden lands 2 tombs, a 107 Ramasandra 27 temple a borewell.
108 Ramasandra 1 - 11.08 127 Ramasandra 1 - 39
112. 6313-6318/2012 1st Petitioner 98 Kannahalli 1 Brick industry, residential house, residential quarters 2nd Petitioner 228/6 Bheemanakuppe 0.08 Residential house 3rd Petitioner 228/6 Bheemanakuppe 0.08 Residential house 4th Petitioner 228/6 Bheemanakuppe 0.08 Residential house 5th Petitioner 228/6 Bheemanakuppe 0.08 Residential house 6th Petitioner 39 Bheemanakuppe 0.11 Residential house
113. 1746/2011 & 1748-54/2011 1st Petitioner 174 Ramasandra 2 - 24 Mangalore -
tiled buildings 175 Ramasandra 6½ Asbestos sheet houses 94 Ramasandra 1 - 2 Coconut arecanut, mango trees 2nd Petitioner 174 Ramasandra 2 - 23 Coconut, arecanut, mango, banana trees 3rd Petitioner 175 Ramasandra 1.04 Residential house 223 4th Petitioner 88 Ramasandra 1 - 8 Residential house, Cattle sheds 5th Petitioner 8 Sulikere 1 Residential house 6th Petitioner 146/2 Bheemanakuppe 3 - 14 Garden land 156/1 Bheemanakuppe 1 - 9 7th Petitioner 167/1 Bheemanakuppe 1 - 10 Manufacturing chamber bricks.
114. 33267/2011 & 70 Bheemanakuppe 5 - 21 Residential 33695-699/2011 houses, Farm & 33779/2011 65 Bheemanakuppe 2 - 13 house, 3500 coconut trees, 65 Bheemanakuppe 3 7500 arecanut trees, 800 72 Bheemanakuppe 1 mango trees, 410 sapota 13 Challaghatta 20 trees.
Sericulture Bio-Control Powder Manufacturing Unit.
4. Shri C.M.Nagabushana appearing for the several petitioners in the petitions in W.P.2211/2013, W.P.1753/2013, W.P.14913 & 914/2013, W.P.12969-972/2010, W.P.17369/2010, W.P.29668/2010, W.P.28722/2010, W.P.31121/2010, W.P.35629/2010, W.P.35628/2010, W.P.35625-27/2010, W.P.31120/2010, W.P.9842-44/2010, W.P.11025/2010, W.P.42138/2012, W.P.10650-653/2011, 224 W.P.9830-37/2010, W.P.50027/2013, W.P.32653-656/2010 and W.P.15705/2013, would contend that having regard to the fact that the BDA has withdrawn from acquisition in respect of large tracts of land after being appraised of the nature and situation of the same, it is inexplicable that the lands of the several petitioners concerned, who are similarly placed as those land owners, having been ignored, as being patently arbitrary.
It is contended that there are instances where the BDA has sought to acquire a portion of the land belonging to a land holder, while leaving out another portion making it economically unviable to utilize the land in any manner. It is also claimed that the BDA has acquired land in the midst of lands which are not the subject matter of acquisition, virtually creating an island of the acquired land. It is pointed out that almost 800 acres of land had not found place in the final notification, though the same were found in the preliminary notification - the reasons assigned for giving up those lands are 225 perplexing. In that, it is claimed that the same are found in zones other than residential zones as indicated in the zonal regulations and that the same are built up, consisted of nurseries and farm land, or were found with places of worship, etc., etc., are glaring circumstances which would have been evident even before formulating any scheme preceding the acquisition. That the same has been noticed by the BDA only after objections having been raised would indicate that the acquisition proceedings have been initiated without regard to ground realities. This is further fortified by the fact that the BDA has continued to find that other lands were all similarly situated and has chosen to drop the lands from acquisition, even during the pendency of these proceedings. This would indicate a total lack of diligence and application of mind, in satisfying itself of the viability of acquisition of the lands in question. This is also apparent from the fact that while fertile irrigated lands are sought to be acquired, barren and dry land adjacent to such 226 profitably cultivated lands - are significantly not notified for acquisition.
Shri Nagabushana seeks to highlight a disturbing and striking feature pointing to probable mischief and mala fides on the part of the powers that be in initiating the grandiose acquisition proceedings. That proceedings were initiated for acquisition of land for the formation of the Sir M. Visveshwaraiah Layout vide preliminary notification dated 24.1.2002 proposing to acquire over 930 acres of land. A notification dated 9.4.2003 was then issued for the proposed acquisition of over 773 acres of land for the further extension of Sir M. Visveshwaraiah Layout. Yet another notification was issued on 3.2.2003 proposing to acquire 3,839 acres, for the formation of the Arkavathy layout. However, a final notification was issued restricting the acquisition to 3,329 acres. It is pointed out that even after a decade of formation of sites and allotment of the same in the Sir M.V. Layout and the further extension of the layout, an aerial survey would show 227 that there are only a few houses constructed. This is for two apparent reasons, firstly, that people are discouraged to construct houses for want of proper civic amenities and other facilities, especially water - it is pointed out that the entire quantity of water supplied from the river Cauvery does not exceed 1200 MLD, whereas the present need of the City is over 1800 MLD it is well neigh impossible to meet further demands. Secondly, because the sites are allotted to, or held by persons only as an investment, at the cost of farmers who have been paid a paltry compensation of less than Rs.20/- per sq.ft. for their land whereas, the allotees of sites either have sold, or are in a position to sell the sites, at not less than Rs.2,000/- or more per sq.ft. The net effect of the entire exercise of the acquisition proceedings is to deprive the original owner of the land - which was the source of his very livelihood and to enable unscrupulous persons to engage in profiteering at the cost of the helpless land owners, all in the name of serving a larger public interest. It is hence canvassed that the present acquisition apart 228 from further enhancing the urban sprawl - which is not encouraged any where in the world by town planners- is a repeat performance of the shameless and gory drama by bureaucrats and politicians - as in respect of the several residential layouts formed, which are all embroiled in one or the other controversy of large scale fraud and intrigue.
5. Shri M. Sreenivas, counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP 12927-935 & WP 19807/2010 would contend that the petitioners in these petitions are related to each other and have jointly developed the combined extent of land measuring over 55 acres into a lush green nursery and orchards consisting of over a hundred variety of trees, and certain varieties such as coconut, mango, areca etc., are in their thousands and are carrying on multi-purpose farming, apart from floriculture, dairying & sheep rearing. The marked feature of the activity is the employment of latest technologies in all the areas of activity.
229
It is sought to be demonstrated that the continued activity in the past decades is duly certified even by the Forest Department, the Department of Animal Husbandry, Coconut Development Board and a Nurserymen Co-operative Society. This is apart from nationalized banks and other financing bodies of the State having actively assisted the development. The discrimination in not considering the deletion of the subject lands from acquisition is sought to be demonstrated with reference to the circumstance that the lands are adjoining forest land. Secondly, lands of others - abutting the subject lands have been dropped from acquisition, even though the same were dry land and garden land, while the plea and objections of the petitioners have been repeatedly overlooked. Thirdly, that the area falls within the green belt area as per the Master Plan prepared by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and which has prohibited the lands in the zone from being utilized for any non-agricultural activity all these years. Fourthly, the subject lands are on the periphery of the 230 proposed layout. Fifthly, as per a Government Circular dated 1-1-1987, well developed lands capable of growing two crops a year and nurseries cannot be the subject matter of acquisition proceedings. The learned counsel has also urged the contentions canvassed by Shri Nagabushana, as above. The above is an example of prima facie material being available to indicate that the lands in question ought to have been considered for deletion from the acquisition proceedings, if other lands of the same nature were dropped from the acquisition proceedings.
6. The several counsel, appearing for the respective petitioners, Shriyuths D.L. Jagadeesh, M.R. Rajagopal, R. Bhadrinath, N. Manohar, Megharaj M, A.V. Srinivas, B.Srinivas, T.S.Amarkumar, S.Vivekananda, G.M. Srikanth, J.M. Rajanna Shetty, Agnihotri Associates, Ganapathi Bhat, S. Chennaraya Reddy, M. Shivaprakash, H.P. Leeladhar, N. Hariprasad, Uday Kumar H.B., M.G. Shukuve Kamal, N. 231 Sharada, Shanmukhappa, Shwetha Anand, G. Papi Reddy, A. Nagarajappa, T.M. Naik, H.S. Santosh, Saritha M for H. Kantharaj, G. Krishnamurthy, B.S. Nagaraj, M.C. Basavaraj, A.G. Shivanna, M. Raviprakash, N. Hariprasad and K.K. Thayamma, have similarly taken this court through the particulars of each of their petitions to demonstrate that the BDA has stubbornly refused to acknowledge that their lands and the particular user of the lands or the location of the land and in some cases, even an earlier recommendation by the concerned for deletion - fully qualified for deletion from the acquisition proceedings. It is urged that the complete absence of transparency in the manner in which the exercise of verification of the ground reality is carried out, in selectively withdrawing from acquisition in respect of certain lands while summarily rejecting the claim of the petitioners with cryptic comments, indicating a totally whimsical and laconic attitude to suit the designs of the BDA, smacks of arbitrariness and mala fides.
232
7. Shri M.G.S. Kamal appearing on behalf of several petitioners, contends that in terms of the BDA Act, any housing Scheme propounded by the BDA is required to be approved by the State Government. But this approval of the State Government is contemplated only after a notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act is issued and after the objections if any, received in respect of the same has been considered by the BDA and such modifications as may be warranted are made to the Scheme. However, it is to be noticed that the preliminary notification recites that the State Government had accorded its approval to the Scheme before hand, which has reduced the exercise of inviting objections to the acquisition if any, an empty exercise. Further, the Act does not contemplate "a prior approval" by the State of any scheme propounded by the BDA. Hence the same can only be viewed as a veil intended to cloak what is apparently a prior "sanction" of the Scheme. This is without authority of law and hence vitiates the proceedings. 233
It is contended that the BDA as a statutory body is established for the development of the City of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto. It is not an authority exercising the right of eminent domain, which power vests exclusively with the State. Therefore, the caveat in the Preliminary Notification issued under Section 17 of the BDA Act, warning owners and others interested not to obstruct or interfere with any surveyor or other person employed upon the said land, is beyond the power available to the BDA. The further requirement that any contract for disposal of the land notified, in any manner would require the sanction of the Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, is also beyond the scope of any such power. The declaration in the notification, to the effect, that in accordance with Section 36 of the BDA Act, the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, his staff and workmen being authorized to exercise powers conferred under Section 4 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is unsustainable. This is for the reason that Section 4 (1) of the LA Act contemplates a notification being issued by 234 the State proposing to acquire lands for a public purpose and after such a notification is issued Section 4 (2) would come into play. By recourse to Section 36 of the BDA Act, the Authority cannot clothe itself with power that is inconsistent with the power available to the BDA at the stage of issuance of a preliminary notification, when it is the State that would exercise its power of eminent domain at the time of issuance of the final notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act.
It is further contended that the preliminary notification has indicated the percentages of land reserved for civic amenities, the extent earmarked for formation of housing sites and the extent of area to be offered as compensation to the land holders whose lands are the subject matter of acquisition. It is urged that this is wholly out of place and would indicate a pre- determination to acquire the notified lands against all odds. For any such allocation of percentages could be contemplated only after ascertainment of the viability of acquiring the entire extent 235 notified. As seen in the present circumstances a large percentage of the lands having been dropped from the acquisition proceedings - the projected percentages have gone awry, which is not even taken note of by the BDA or the State government.
More significantly, the determination of compensation in kind, to be offered to the land holders, irrespective of the location and the user to which such lands are put and the value thereof, apart from other relevant factors, under the preliminary notification by the BDA, which is not the acquiring authority is itself illegal and without jurisdiction. There could not be a commitment to payment of compensation even before the Scheme as notified had been sanctioned by the Government.
It is also inexplicable that the preliminary notification contemplates the redelivery of possession of 40% of the land to the "farmers", out of the 55% to be formed as sites. It is fallacious to presume that all the land holders, whose lands are proposed to be acquired are "farmers". This proposal to 236 redeliver developed land would also be patently illegal as it would tantamount to allotment of sites outside the provisions applicable to allotment of sites by the BDA.
It is pointed out that the proposed acquisition envisages one half of the development being returned to the land owners. This would mean that out of over 4,000 acres of land set out in the final notification only about 2,300 would be actually allotted and over a 1,000 sites would be handed over to the original owners, who may or may not be interested in building a home for themselves. It is hence contended that the elaborate exercise is wholly unwarranted and results in a negative development rather than a development for the better.
8. Shri M.R. Rajagopal counsel appearing for several petitioners apart from questioning the acquisition proceedings on various grounds and providing factual particulars has raised a significant point of law, which is also voiced by Shri Ravi Prakash appearing for some of the petitioners. It is contended 237 that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013, which has come into effect from 1-1-2014. It is urged that as no further proceedings were taken after the final notification in the present acquisition proceedings, in terms of Section 36 of the BDA Act, further proceedings contemplated are with reference to the provisions of the repealed Act, in so far as they may be applicable. Exercise of any such power as on date, under the provisions of the repealed Act, is unworkable. It is also impermissible to invoke the provisions of the 2013 Act, as it is settled law that unless there is an amendment to Section 36 of the BDA Act, there is no machinery available to the BDA to determine and pay compensation. If on the contrary it is to be held that the 2013 Act could impliedly be pressed into service, it may be said that the proceedings have lapsed in terms of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, or in the alternative it would require 238 the complete benefit of the provisions of the 2013 Act being extended to the land owners.
9. Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel representing the BDA has sought to justify the acquisition proceedings and has pointed out that the BDA has gone out of its way to examine and reexamine the case of each petitioner scrupulously and has filtered those lands that could be left out of the acquisition proceedings. There is no warrant to characterize such deletion as being warranted since the same had passed muster before the issuance of the final notification, on account of non-application of mind on the part of the concerned. It is only those border line cases that have been reconsidered for deletion though strictly speaking the same could be even now integrated into the layout. The liberal approach of exempting lands at the instance of this court and on a sympathetic consideration of the plight of the land owners ought not to be castigated as careless and wanton action on the part of the BDA being sought to be corrected. 239
It is declared that apart from those lands that have been recommended to be withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings no other lands could be so considered and the factual assertions of the petitioners are dismissed as being self serving and not wholly correct. It is contended that the acquisition proceedings are otherwise in accordance with law and procedure and does not warrant interference only on the ground that the petitioners would suffer hardship. The acquisition of land in the instant case being for a greater public purpose of the public at large, the need of the petitioners should give way.
It is to be noticed that Statement of objections are not filed in most of the petitions and the few petitions in which such pleadings are filed are restricted to denying the petition averments generally, while asserting that the proceedings are in accordance with law.
As already noticed the several petitioners have placed material on record to prima facie demonstrate that their lands 240 are similarly situated or in many cases it is canvassed they are more deserving to be considered for withdrawal from acquisition, as has been done by the BDA, in respect of other lands, after the initiation of the proceedings. And the BDA on the other hand remaining firm in its stand that the petitioners and their lands are not similarly situated. It would be a vexed point for consideration by this court, namely, if there is indeed arbitrary exclusion of lands of some and an unfair inclusion of lands of others, some of whom are petitioners herein. The circumstance that the BDA had of its own motion recommended the withdrawal from acquisition of about 800 acres of land after issuance of the preliminary notification and recommended several hundred acres of lands for such withdrawal during the pendency of these petitions, is significant. The further fact that there were more petitions which were being filed challenging the acquisition on the same grounds- but which petitions were deliberately not considered along with this batch of petitions, - and the opaque manner in 241 which the BDA has chosen to proceed with the process of re- examining the claim of the land owners and the absence of details of, the why and how the BDA chose to differentiate various lands for such selective deletion from the acquisition process - when it would be expected that the BDA would place before this court the complete details and particulars of every single acre of land, if not every square metre, that is sought to be acquired. Though several multi-coloured maps indicating areas under acquisition, areas dropped from acquisition and areas under litigation are produced, no cohesive picture is given of whether the proposed layout would yet emerge from the mosaic of coloured areas of the maps. There is no attempt to justify and explain its actions in the face of the serious allegations of arbitrary and unfair treatment.
10. Be that as it may, it is significant that there are legal contentions raised in some of the petitions which address the very legality of the acquisition proceedings and which if found 242 to be tenable, the entire acquisition proceedings may have to be set at naught and therefore the same are addressed presently- without having to consider the course of action in respect of the factual controversies, aforementioned.
11. The legal issues that arise for consideration in the light of the contentions put forth and which have been hardly met by the BDA are :
a. Whether the procedure adopted by the BDA in initiating the acquisition proceedings is in accordance with law and within its jurisdiction.
b. Whether the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has the effect of frustrating any proceedings with reference to Section 36 of the BDA Act.
c. Whether the acquisition proceedings can be said to have lapsed by virtue of the 2013 Act having come into force.243
Point a. : We may firstly notice the language and tenor of the provisions of Chapter III of the BDA Act, especially Sections 15 & 16 in considering whether the notification issued under Section 17 is in consonance thereof. The said Sections are reproduced hereunder for ready reference.
"15. Power of Authority to undertake works and incur expenditure for development, etc.- (1) The Authority may,-
(a) draw up detailed schemes (hereinafter referred to as "development scheme") for the development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area ; and
(b) with the previous approval of the Government, undertake from time to time any works for the development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and incur expenditure therefor and also for the framing and execution of development schemes.
(2) The Authority may also from time to time make and take up any new or additional development schemes,-
(i) on its own initiative, if satisfied of the sufficiency of its resources, or
(ii) on the recommendation of the local authority if the local authority places at the disposal of the Authority the necessary funds for framing and carrying out any scheme; or
(iii) otherwise.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the Government may, whenever it deems it necessary require the Authority to 244 take up any development scheme or work and execute it subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Government.
16. Particulars to be provided for in a development scheme.- Every development scheme under section 15, (1) shall, within the limits of the area comprised in the scheme, provide for ,-
(a) the acquisition of any land which, in the opinion of the Authority, will be necessary for or affected by the execution of the scheme ;
(b) laying and re-laying out all or any land including the construction and reconstruction of buildings and formation and alteration of streets ;
(c) drainage, water supply and electricity ;
(d) the reservation of not less than fifteen percent of the total area of the layout for public parks and playgrounds and an additional area of not less than ten percent of the total area of the layout for civic amenities.
(2) may, within the limits aforesaid, provide for,-
(a) raising any land which the Authority may consider expedient to raise to facilitate better drainage ;
(b) forming open spaces for the better ventilation of the area comprised in the scheme or any adjoining area ;
(c) the sanitary arrangements required ;245
(3) may, within and without the limits aforesaid provide for the construction of houses.
17. Procedure on completion of scheme.- (1) When a development scheme has been prepared, the Authority shall draw up a notification stating the fact of a scheme having been made and the limits of the area comprised therein, and naming a place where particulars of the scheme, a map of the area comprised therein, a statement specifying the land which is proposed to be acquired and of the land in regard to which a betterment tax may be levied may be seen at all reasonable hours.
(2) A copy of the said notification shall be sent to the Corporation which shall, within thirty days from the date of receipt thereof, forward to the Authority for transmission to the Government as hereinafter provided, any representation which the Corporation may think fit to make with regard to the scheme.
(3) The Authority shall also cause a copy of the said notification to be published in the official Gazette and affixed in some conspicuous part of its own office, the Deputy Commissioner's Office, the office of the Corporation and in such other places as the Authority may consider necessary.
(4) If no representation is received from the Corporation within the time specified in sub-section (2), the concurrence of the Corporation to the scheme shall be deemed to have been given.
(5) During the thirty days next following the day on which such notification is published in the official Gazette the Authority shall serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment on any building or land which is proposed to be acquired in executing the scheme or in regard to which the Authority proposes to recover betterment tax requiring such person to 246 show cause within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice why such acquisition of the building or land and the recovery of betterment tax should not be made.
(6) The notice shall be signed by or by the order of the Commissioner, and shall be served.
(a) by personal delivery or if such person is absent or cannot be found, on his agent, or if no agent can be found, then by leaving the same on the land or the building ; or
(b) by leaving the same at the usual or last known place of abode or business of such person ; or
(c) by registered post addressed to the usual or last known place of abode or business of such person."
It is seen that the BDA need not obtain any previous approval of the Government in drawing up any development scheme. (Whether the same is necessary by virtue of Section 3
(f) (vi) or (vii) of the LA Act, is however, not examined and the question is left open). There is no explanation forthcoming as to the need for having obtained such approval when the scheme of the Act contemplates that after the publication of the scheme and service of notice as provided in Section 17 of the BDA Act and after consideration of representations, if any, received, the authority shall submit the scheme, making such modifications 247 as it may think fit, to the Government for sanction, furnishing such details as prescribed under Section 18 of the Act. It is not contemplated that the Government may consider and "approve" any Scheme even before the BDA has gathered particulars of the lands to be acquired pursuant to the notification under Section 17 of the Act. Therefore the " approval" said to have been conferred on a nascent development scheme of the BDA by the State Government dated 2.4.2008 is out of place and premature. The presumption is that the State Government and the BDA were proceeding on the footing that the proposed acquisition of the several lands notified under Section 17 of the Act were available for acquisition, even without any of the stake holders having had their say on the viability of the said acquisition in respect of their lands.
It is also to be noticed that the notification under Section 17 of the Act is issued by the Commissioner, BDA, in exercise of power conferred thereunder. The BDA is not the acquiring authority, the State Government is. It is therefore 248 impermissible for the BDA to authorize the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA and his staff to exercise power conferred under Section 4 (2) of the LA Act. This is evident from the fact that the State Government exercises its power under clause (c) of Section 3 and Section 7 of the LA Act read with Section 36 of the BDA Act to appoint the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, to perform the duties and functions of the Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition) under the LA Act, only after according sanction to the Scheme and while issuing the notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act. Any acts performed by the Addl. LAO, BDA and his staff, prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 19 of the Act, is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. The following declaration in the preliminary notification dated 21.5.2008 is a further curiosity:
". . . 45% of the land covered under the Scheme would be used for civic amenities, playgrounds, roads, etc., and the 249 residential sites would be formed by utilizing the remaining 55% developed residential area, 40% of 55% will be offered as compensation to the farmers as specified in the Scheme and the remaining 60% of 55% will be the share of the BDA. The farmers are also given option to accept the developed eligible residential land or opt for compensation / both. . . . "
The BDA was clearly off bounds in even suggesting that compensation in kind, would be offered and even to specify the percentage of the acquired land that would be compensated by returning developed land of any particular extent. This initiative of the BDA is not contemplated under Section 16 of the BDA Act, which specifies the particulars to be provided for in a development scheme. The BDA would hardly be in a position to determine percentages of land use without completing the process of addressing representations pursuant to the notification under Section 17 and the sanction by the State government in respect of the extent of land ultimately covered 250 under the notification issued under Section 19 of the Act. It may also be said that even at that stage the quantum of compensation is hardly capable of being determined. It is the State Government which would, in the eye of law, acquire the land and determine the compensation to be paid. As is evident, large swathes of land have been given up from the acquisition proceedings and it is not clarified whether the percentages declared as above are any longer valid and tenable. It is also not that all the land holders are " farmers", nor is it to be taken that all the 4,000 acres, and more of the land, is of a uniform nature and of the same value. It is therefore shocking that the State Government had even approved such a " Scheme".
12. In so far as the second point for consideration is concerned, we may first notice the language of Section 36 of the BDA Act . The same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference.
"36. Provisions applicable to the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement.-251
(1) The acquisition of land under this Act otherwise than by agreement within or without the Bangalore Metropolitan Area shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(2) For the purpose of sub-section (2) of section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Authority shall be deemed to be the local authority concerned.
(3) After the land vests in the Government under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Deputy Commissioner shall, upon payment of the cost of the acquisition, and upon the Authority agreeing to pay any further costs which may be incurred on account of the acquisition, transfer the land to the Authority, and the land shall thereupon vest in the Authority."
We may usefully refer to decided cases wherein the apex court and this court have dealt with the interplay of the provisions of the LA Act vis-a- vis the provisions of the BDA Act.
In the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. The State of Karnataka, ILR 1997 Karnataka 1419, a division bench of this court meticulously analyzed the provisions of the BDA Act and the LA Act with reference to the primary contention raised therein, namely, that the LA Act as amended by Mysore Act 17/1961, was no longer in force in view of Act No. 68 of 1984, 252 amending the provisions of the LA Act and that, that LA Act alone was applicable. Hence a preliminary notification published in the Gazette on 12.1.1989, under Section 17 of the BDA Act and the Notification under Section 19 having been published on 27.7.1991 in the Gazette, was beyond the period of one year provided under proviso (2) to Section 6(1) of the LA Act.
In addressing the above it was expressed thus:
"8. We shall now examine the provisions of BDA Act and L.A. Act with reference to contentions raised on either side. Chapter III of the BDA Act provides for developmental schemes. Section 15 empowers the Authority to undertake a development scheme. Section 16 requires the particulars, to be provided in such a scheme. Sub-section (1)(a) thereof refers to stating the land which is required for acquisition for the purpose of the scheme or which may be affected by the scheme. After preparation of a scheme, under Section 17, the authority will have to draw up a notification stating the fact of a scheme having been made which shall also contain specifications of the land proposed to be acquired and 253 on such a notification being published and a notice thereto is served upon the owners of the land, they may file objections to the same. Those objections are processed and reference is made to the Government which is thereafter sanctioned under Section 18 by the Government with such modification as it may deem fit. Under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, a preliminary notification is issued setting out the lands required for acquisition for a public purpose and objections thereto can be filed and there is a provision for hearing the objections and the same may be referred to the Government and ultimately, the Government makes a final notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act. The two sets of provisions under Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the L.A. Act are comparable with the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the B.D.A. Act. Under the provisions of the L.A. Act, if the final notification is not issued within the period mentioned therein and if any award is not made within the time prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse. In the case of schemes covered by the B.D.A. Act, the. authority has to execute the schemes with in a period of 5 years and if the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative. Thus in substance there are provisions 254 under the B.D.A. Act to indicate the proposals for acquisition, considering the objections thereto, sanctioning the proposal for acquisition on consideration of such objections and if such acts do not take place within a period of 5 years the proceedings would lapse. The Supreme Court in several decisions where questions of delay in the implementation of the proposals made under the L.A. Act for purpose of completion of the acquisition proceedings occurs, has taken the view that if the same is unreasonable, the acquisition proceedings could be quashed, prior to the introduction of Section 6 and 11- A of the L.A. Act prescribing limitation on the powers and the time within which such action should be taken. It would be a matter of policy for the Legislature to indicate the time within which such acts should be taken. In the case of B.D.A. Act, considering the nature and complexity of the implementation of the scheme, a period of 5 years has been fixed for purpose of completion of the scheme from the date of issue of the notification under Section 19 of the B.D.A. Act on sanction of the scheme. Therefore, when the Legislature itself has taken note of within what period the schemes have to be implemented and prescribes an authority thereto and also provides for as to what consequence would follow on non-implementation of 255 the scheme within that period, we do not think this Court can take a view that such implementation of the scheme is in any way discriminatory when compared to the provisions of the L.A. Act. In substance, both the provisions provided for identical situation - may be in case of L.A. Act more details are set forth such as the period within which final notification has to be issued and the period within which award has to be passed. But in case of the B.D.A. Act implementation of the scheme has been limited to a period of 5 years as provided in Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act.
9. Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act provides that where within a period of 5 years from the date of the publication in the official gazette of the declaration under Section 19(1), the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative. In the L.A. Act certain period has been fixed which is considered to be reasonable within which the final notification will have to be issued and award has to be passed and if such acts are done beyond the time prescribed therein, the acquisition of land will lapse. To the same effect is Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act. If the B.D.A. Act provides for 5 years to be reasonable period for substantial compliance with the scheme, we 256 cannot state that the said provision is unreasonable or not proper. Thus the scheme of the L.A. Act as modified by the B.D.A. Act would be applicable by reason of the provisions of Sections 17, 18, 27 and 36 of the B.D.A. Act.
10. The City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (herein-after referred to as the Improvement Act) was applicable to the Bangalore area prior to coming into force of the B.D.A. Act. The Supreme Court in THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CITB, BANGALORE vs. H. NARAYANAIAH AND OTHERS (AIR 1976 SC 2403) examined the various provisions of the Improvement Act and observed thus:-
"4. The Bangalore Act, as its preamble states, is really concerned with the "improvement and future expansion of the City of Bangalore, and for the appointment of a Board of Trustees with special powers to carry out the aforesaid purposes". As an incident of this improvement and expansion it provides for acquisition of land also. It does not, however, contain a separate code of its own for such acquisitions. But, Section 27 of the Bangalore Act lay down:257
27. Provisions applicable by the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement. The acquisition other than by agreement of land within or without the City under this Act shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and by the following further provisions....."
In that decision, the words "so far as they are applicable" appearing in Section 27 of the Improvement Act were examined. It was stated that the intention was to exclude only those provisions of the acquisition Act which became inapplicable because of any special procedure prescribed by the Improvement Act corresponding with that found in the Acquisition Act under Section 4(1). These words bring in or make applicable, so far as this is reasonably possible, general provisions such as Section 23(1) of the Acquisition Act. They cannot be reasonably construed to exclude the application of any general provisions of the Acquisition Act. They amount to laying down the principle that what is not either expressly, or, by necessary implication, excluded must be applied.
11. It is only for purpose of determining the compensation, the provisions of the L.A. Act can be 258 looked into and not for other purposes. The application of the L.A. Act is only in so far as it is applicable that is, wherever there are provisions made in the Act itself, in other cases the provisions of the L.A. Act would not be applicable. Therefore, when the Act provides that if the scheme is not implemented substantially within a period of 5 years, the same would lapse, the other provisions in the L.A. Act would not be attracted to the present case at all because L.A. Act is made applicable to schemes under the Act as modified by the Act. The L.A. Act is not independently applicable to the schemes framed under the B.D.A. Act. Otherwise, it would become impossible for the authority to implement the schemes in terms of the L.A. Act. Thus, we find no substance in the first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners nor do we find any substance in the contention that the procedures prescribed under the two enactments are so different as to result in discrimination.
12. We shall now consider the contention as to whether there are no provisions akin to L.A. Act regarding acquisition. In THE SPECIAL LAO, CITB, MYSORE v. P. GOVINDAN (AIR 1976 SC 2517) it was noticed that although the procedure laid down in Section 16 of the Mysore Act (i.e., Improvement Act) is 259 more elaborate than the procedure prescribed under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act, yet, the purpose of Section 16 of the Mysore Act is same as that of Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. We have also now drawn similar comparison between the provisions of the B.D.A. Act and the L.A. Act. Therefore, we must hold that the provisions of Section 36(1) of the BDA Act provides an identical situation in so far as they are applicable. In view of the decisions in Narayanaiah's case and Govindan's case by the Supreme Court in identical context, it must be held that the provisions of LA Act to the extent as are made applicable in BDA Act are attracted. Separate provisions are made regarding the issue of preliminary notification and the final notification as well as the period within which the proceedings under the B.D.A.Act would lapse when notified for acquisition as is clear from Chapter III of the B.D.A. Act r/w Section 36 thereof. What is therefore either expressly provided or necessarily excluded must be taken out of consideration. We hold therefore that the provisions of the Section 6 and Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act which provide for the period of limitation within which final notification can be made and award could be passed are excluded from application to acquisition made under B.D.A. Act by necessary implication. The rest of 260 the provisions other than those relating to the issue of preliminary notification, final notification or period within which the award should be passed and lapsing of proceedings under the B.D.A. Act, or the L.A. Act would certainly be applicable.
13. The argument that the L.A. Act would be applicable as amended, is advanced only with reference to the applicability of the provisions of Section 6 of the L.A. Act where the period of limitation is prescribed for issue of the final notification and Section 11A of the L.A. Act the period within which the award is to be passed. We have just now held that these two provisions are not applicable on the basis of interpretation adopted by us. In that view of the matter the general question whether reference to the L.A. Act in the BDA Act amounts to legislation by reference or incorporation or the effect thereof is not necessary to be examined or decided in this case."
The above decision has been approved by the Apex court in the case of Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka and others, (2002) 4 SCC 326. In the said case the Apex court was dealing with an appeal against a judgment of a division bench of this 261 court, which was rendered following the decision in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. case.
The point canvassed was that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 11 A of the LA Act, the award passed beyond the stipulated period of limitation is illegal and that after the expiry of the stipulated period of limitation is illegal and that after expiry of the stipulated period under Section 11A the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed.
It was observed thus with reference to paragraph 12 of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. case :
"Thus, a decision as to the inapplicability of the provisions of Section 6 and 11-A where the period of limitation is prescribed respectively for the issue of final notification and for passing the Award, in relation to proceedings for acquisition under the B.D.A. Act came to be rendered on a mere construction of the relevant provisions in the light of the very principles laid down by this Court in the earlier decisions, noticed supra, even without reference to the general question as to whether the reference in the B.D.A. Act to the provisions of the L.A. 262 Act amounts to legislation by reference or incorporation. We are in entire agreement with the reasoning and also affirm the ultimate conclusions arrived at by the High Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd case (supra) which, in our view also, is squarely in conformity with the ratio of the earlier decisions of this Court specifically noticed and relied upon, in support thereof."
And it was held as follows :
"15. So far as the B.D.A. Act is concerned, it is not an Act for mere acquisition of land but an Act to provide for the establishment of a Development Authority to facilitate and ensure a planned growth and development of the city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and acquisition of lands, if any, therefor is merely incidental thereto. In pith and substance the Act is one which will squarely fall under, and be traceable to the powers of the State Legislature under Entry 5 of List II of the VIIth Schedule and not a law for acquisition of land like the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 traceable to Entry 42 of List III of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the field in respect of which is already occupied by the Central Enactment of 1894, as amended from time to time. If at all, the B.D.A. Act, so far as acquisition of land for its developmental activities are concerned, in substance 263 and effect will constitute a special law providing for acquisition for the special purposes of the B.D.A. and the same was not also considered to be part of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It could not also be legitimately stated, on a reading of Section 36 of the B.D.A. Act that the Karnataka legislature intended thereby to bind themselves to any future additions or amendments, which might be made by altogether a different legislature, be it the Parliament, to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The procedure for acquisition under the B.D.A. Act vis-à- vis the Central Act has been analysed elaborately by the Division Bench, as noticed supra, and, in our view, very rightly too, considered to constitute a special and self-contained code of its own and the B.D.A. Act and Central Act cannot be said to be either supplemental to each other, or pari materia legislations. That apart, the B.D.A. Act could not be said to be either wholly unworkable and ineffectual if the subsequent amendments to the Central Act are not also imported into consideration. On an overall consideration of the entire situation also it could not either possibly or reasonably stated that the subsequent amendments to the Central Act get attracted or applied either due to any express provision or by necessary intendment or implication to acquisitions under the B.D.A. Act. When the B.D.A. 264 Act, expressly provides by specifically enacting the circumstances under which and the period of time on the expiry of which alone the proceedings initiated thereunder shall lapse due to any default, the different circumstances and period of limitation envisaged under the Central Act, 1894, as amended by the amending Act of 1984 for completing the proceedings on pain of letting them lapse forever, cannot be imported into consideration for purposes of B.D.A. Act without doing violence to the language or destroying and defeating the very intendment of the State Legislature expressed by the enactment of its own special provisions in a special law falling under a topic of legislation exclusively earmarked for the State Legislature. A scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for implementation under the B.D.A. Act, cannot be stultified or rendered ineffective and unenforceable by a provision in the Central Act, particularly of the nature of Sections 6 and 11-A, which cannot also on its own force have any application to actions taken under the B.D.A. Act. Consequently, we see no infirmity whatsoever in the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. case (Supra) to exclude the applicability of Sections 6 and 11-A as amended and inserted by the Central Amendment Act of 1984 to proceedings under the 265 B.D.A. Act. The submissions to the contra on behalf of the appellant has no merit whatsoever and do not commend themselves for our acceptance."
It is evident from a reading of the above opinions that the general question whether the reference to the LA Act in the BDA Act amounts to legislation by reference or incorporation or the effect thereof, was found not necessary to be examined or decided.
13. Keeping the above decisions in view if we are to address the question whether on the repeal of the LA Act with effect from 1.1.2014, the provisions of that Act, in so far as they may be applicable to the BDA Act would be deemed to remain in force, by virtue of Section 36 of the BDA Act, in order to complete the process of acquisition - is to be examined.
As to which are the provisions of the LA Act that would regulate the acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and 266 would be applicable, has been incidentally considered in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. at paragraphs 10, 11 &12 of the report extracted above. The further question which would require to be answered however, is whether the relevant provisions of the LA Act which would be applicable to the acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act, should be considered as legislation by reference or by incorporation.
In the case of Mariayappa & others v. State of Karnataka (1998) 3 SCC 276, the Apex court was dealing with the issue whether Section 11-A of the LA Act was applicable and was attracted to proceedings under the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972. (Karnataka Act, 1972, for brevity). After observing that the Karnataka Act, 1972 contains only seven sections and that it did not contain any independent machinery or provisions for the purposes of inquiry, reference, award and apportionment and payment of 267 compensation, and that Section 5 of the said Act specified that the provisions of the LA Act shall:
"..mutatis mutandis apply in respect of enquiry and award by the Deputy Commissioner, the reference to court, the apportionment of amount and the payment of amount in respect of lands acquired under this Act"
proceeded to examine whether the amendments brought to the LA Act in the year 1984 could be read into the Karnataka Act 1972.
It was held thus:
"18. The words "mutatis mutandis" have been explained by this Court in Ashok Service Centre Vs. State of Orissa- (1983) 2 SCC 82. It was stated by Venkataramiah, J, (as he then was): (SCC p.93, para
17) "Earl Jowitt's The Dictionary of English Law (1959) defines 'mutatis mutandis' as 'with the necessary changes in points of detail'. Black's Law Dictionary (Revised 4th Edn., 1968) defines 'mutatis 268 mutandis' as 'with the necessary changes in points of detail, meaning that matters or things are generally the same, but to be altered when necessary, as to names, offices, and the like...' ...Extension of an earlier Act mutatis mutandis to a later Act, brings in the idea of adaption, but so far only as it is necessary for the purpose, making a change without altering the essential nature of the things changed, subject of course to express provisions made in the later Act.", If, therefore, the words "mutatis mutandis" merely permit the application of the Central Act, 1894 (as modified by Karnataka Act, 1961) with necessary changes and without altering the essential nature of the thing changed then the said principle is applicable to the Central Act, 1894 as it stood in 1972 with the amendments brought about the Karnataka Act, 1961.
Therefore the contention for the appellant that subsequent changes made in the Central Act after 1972 also get into the Karnataka Act, 1972, cannot be accepted. That question again depends upon whether the Central Act, 1894 has been "incorporated" into the Karnataka Act, 1972 or falls within the exceptions to the said principle or whether Section 5 is to be treated as a piece of "referential legislation". 269
Incorporation of referential legislation and exceptions to Incorporation - "supplemental legislation"
19. As the case before us, as we shall presently show, falls within the "exceptions" to the rule of "incorporation", we shall refer to the relevant rulings in this behalf.
20. The leading case in which the broad principles were laid down is the one in State of M.P. Vs. M.V. Narasimhan - 1975 (2) SCC 377. On a consideration of the case-law, it was stated by Fazal Ali, J. as follows:
"Where a subsequent Act incorporates provisions of a previous Act, then the borrowed provisions become an integral and independent part of the subsequent Act and are totally unaffected by any repeal or amendment in the previous Act. This principle, however, will not apply in the following cases:
(a) Where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental to each other.
(b) Where the two Acts are in pari materia.270
(c) Where the amendment in the previous Act, is not imparted into the subsequent Act also, would render the subsequent Act wholly unworkable and ineffectual;
and
(d) Where the amendment of the previous Act, either expressly or by necessary intendment, applies the said provisions to the subsequent Act."
(emphasis supplied)
21. In that case, the position was that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 adopted the definition of public servant from Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The question was whether the subsequent amendments made in 1958 and 1964 to section 21 of the Penal Code enlarging the definition of "public servant", could be read into the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Though it was held that the 1947 Act dealt with a specific offence of "criminal misconduct", while the Penal Code dealt with 'bribery' and were not in pari materia still, it was held that having regard to the preamble and object of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the Penal code, there could be no doubt that the former Act was undoubtedly a statute supplemental to the latter. 271 Hence it was held that the amendments of 1958 and 1964 in the I.P.C. should be read into the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, as the case fell within one of the exceptions to the principle of "incorporation".
22. Similarly, in Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Special Area Development Authority [1982 (1) SCC 125], Section 69(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam (Act 23 of 1973) stated that the Special Area Development Authority under that Act would, for the purpose of taxation, have the powers which a Municipal Corporation or a Municipal Council has under the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 or the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, as the case may be. Chandrachud, C.J. gave two reasons as to why the subsequent amendments made in the 1956 and 1961 Acts could be read into the 1973 Act. One reason was that the Act of 1973 did not, in Section 69(d), incorporate any particular provision of the 1956 and 1961 Acts but said that for the "purposes of taxation" the Authority shall have the powers which a Municipal Corporation or a Municipal Council would have under the 1956 and 1961 Acts respectively. It was not therefore a case where merely some provisions of one Act were bodily lifted into another. The other reason was that the 1973 Act did not provide for any 272 independent power of taxation or any machinery of its own for the exercise of the power of taxation. Further, the three Acts were supplemental to each other.
23. Ujagar Prints (II) Vs. Union of India [1989 (3) SCC 488] is again a similar case. Under Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 it was said that the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and rules made thereunder - including those relating to refunds and exemptions from duty - shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of the additional duties as they apply in relation to the levy and collecting of the duties of excise on the goods specified in sub-section (1). Now section 3(1) provided for levy and collection of additional duties in respect of goods described in the First Schedule to the 1957 Act which were produced or "manufactured" in India. It was held that the definition of the term "manufacture" enacted in the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 - as enlarged by Amendment Act 6 of 1980 - had to be read into the 1957 Act. It was observed that the Additional Duties Act, 1957 was merely supplemental to the 1944 Act. While the 1944 Act imposed a general levy of excise duty on all goods manufactured and produced, the aim of the 1957 Act 273 was to supplement the levy by an additional duty of the same nature on certain goods. Unlike the Finance Act, the 1957 Act was incomplete as to the basis of the charge and its provisions would become totally unworkable unless the concepts of "manufacture" and "assessable value" as determined under the 1944 Act were carried into it.
24. Yet another case where the legislation was held by itself to be "unworkable" and supplemental to another Act is the one in State of Kerala Vs. M/s. Attesee (Agro Industrial Trading Corpn.) [1989 suppl. (1) SCC 733]. It was there held that the scope of exemption under the head "cotton fabrics" in schedule III item 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 would depend upon the definition in item 19 of Schedule I to Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 with reference to its amendments upto the relevant date. Hence it was held that the amendments to the Central Act were to be read into the Kerala Act.
25. Two other rulings of this Court relating to land acquisition and which arose from Karnataka are relevant in this context. In the State of Karnataka, there are two statutes,- the Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 and the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 274 1945. In each of these Acts there is a provision (Section 23 in the former and Section 27 in the latter) stating that the acquisition under the Act "shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894"
and also by certain other provisions of these Acts. (The Mysore Act of 1894 and the Central Act 1894 are almost identical). Now both these Acts of 1903 and 1945 contained provisions which require compensation to be paid with reference to the second notification which publishes the "declaration" (i.e. corresponding to Section 6 of the Central Act, 1894) and not the one which corresponds to Section 4 of the Central Act. However in 1927, the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was amended by directing compensation to be paid with reference to the first notification (corresponding to Section 4 (1) of the Central Act). The question arose in two cases, one under each of these Acts, as to whether the said amendment of 1927 would have to be read into the said Acts.
26. Now so far as the Bangalore Act of 1945 is concerned, the case was decided in Land Acquisition Officer Vs. H. Narayaniah [1976 (4) SCC 9]. This case presents no difficulty because the said Act was passed 275 in 1945 and by that, the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 already stood amended in 1927. The reference in Section 27 of the 1945 Act to the Mysore Act of 1894 therefore obviously included all the amendments made to the Mysore Land Acquisition 1894 by 1945 including the one made in 1927 and, therefore, compensation was to paid only as per the first notification (i.e. the one corresponding to Section 4(1) of the Central Act).
27. The case more in point is the one in Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. P. Govindan [1976 (4) SCC 697] which dealt with the Mysore Act of 1903 because the question there was whether the subsequent amendment of 1927 to the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shifting the relevant date for fixing compensation from the corresponding Section 6 notification to Section 4(1) notification, would have to be read into the Mysore Act, 1903. It was held that it should - notwithstanding certain obiter observation to the contrary in Naravanaih's case. The provision in section 23 of the Mysore Act, 1903 read as follows:
"23. The acquisition, otherwise than by agreement of land within or without the city under this Act, shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are 276 applicable, of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act 1894 and by the following further provisions, namely,....."
(emphasis supplied) It was held by this Court that the amendments in 1927 to the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have to be read into the Mysore Act, 1903. The decision of the Full Bench of the Mysore High Court to the contrary in Venkatamma Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [AIR 1972 Mysore 193] was overruled. In that context Beg J. (as he then was) observed: (SCC p.700, paras 6 & &) "If Section 23(1) of the (Mysore) Acquisition Act (1903) lays down, as we think it does, the only procedure for award of compensation it has to be followed as it exists at the time of acquisition proceedings. No one has a vented right in a particular procedure. It is a fair interpretation of Section 23 of the Mysore Act of 1903 to hold that it means that whichever may be the procedure there, with regard to matters regulating compensation under the (Mysore) Acquisition Act (1894) at the time of acquisition proceedings, will apply to acquisition under the Mysore Act, (1903)"....
277It was enough to lay down, as Section 23 of the Mysore Act (1903) does, that the general procedure found in the Acquisition Act (1894) will apply except to the extent it was inapplicable. This means that amendments of the procedure in the Acquisition Act, (1894) will apply if it is capable of application"
(emphasis supplied) From the above passage emphasis supplied, it is clear that when the Mysore Act, 1903 adopted the procedure under the Mysore Act, 1894, the provisions of the latter Act as they stood "at the time of acquisition" had to be applied for "regulating" the acquisition of land under the Mysore Act, 1903. This was because the Mysore Act, 1903 said that the "general procedure"
under the Mysore Act, 1894 applied except to the extent it was inapplicable.
28. In our view, the above rulings of this Court are more in point and are directly applicable to the Karnataka Act, 1972. But, before we draw our final conclusions, it is necessary to refer to three more rulings, one decided by the Privy Council and two decided by this Court recently and state why, in our opinion, those decisions are distinguishable. 278
29. The decision of the Privy Council is the one in Secretary of State Vs. Hindustan Coop. Society Ltd. [AIR 1931 PC 148]. There the provisions of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 (Act 13/1911) fell for consideration. That Act coupled with its schedule contained provisions not only for issuing relevant notification in regard to acquisition but also for reference to a Tribunal for passing an award relating to compensation. By Act 18 of 1911 a right of appeal was given to the High Court against the Award of the Tribunal. Under the Act, there was no further right of appeal to the Privy Council. In 1921, the Central Act, 1894 was amended in two respects, one by introducing Section 26(2) which deemed the award of the reference Court a "decree" and the reasons a "Judgment" and the other an amendment in Section 54 of the Central Act, 1894 giving a right of appeal to the Privy Council from any decree passed by the High Court from an award of the reference Court. Now the Calcutta Act, 1911 contained a provision in Section 69 that the "Board may acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for carrying out the purposes of the Act". Section 70 related to the constitution of a Tribunal - as detailed in Section 72 - for the purpose of performing the functions of the Court in reference to the acquisition of land for the Board under the land 279 Acquisition Act, 1894. However, Section 71 modified the Central Act, 1894 as follows:
"Section 71: Modification of Land Act, 1894: For the purpose of acquiring land under the said Act for the Board -
(a) the Tribunal shall (except for the purpose of Section 54 of that Act) be deemed to be the Court, and the President of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be the Judge, under the said Act;
(b) the said Act shall be subject to the further modifications indicated in the Schedule;
(c).....
(d) the award of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be the award of the Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."
The modification made by section 71 (a) was crucial to the case.
30. Section 77 referred to the passing of the award' by the Tribunal under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for determining the compensation, apportionment, etc. 280
31. The appellant, the Secretary of State, contended that the appeal to the Privy Council lay because the amendment to the Central Act in 1921 by substituting Section 26(2) which deemed the "award" a "decree" had to be read into the Calcutta Act, 1911 and if that was done, then an appeal would lie, under Section 54 of the Central Act, 1894 to the Privy Council. The respondents contended that such a telescoping of Section 26(2) of the Central Act, 1894 into the Calcutta Act, 1911 would be repugnant to the express words in Section 71(a): "except for the purposes of Section 54 of the Act". The said contention of the respondents was accepted by the privy Council. Their Lordships also Lord Wrenbury in Ex parte St. Sepulchre (1864) [33 L.J. Ch. 372] to the effect that it will not be possible to read the provisions of an earlier Act into a latter Act, if the earlier Act "gives in itself a complete rule on the subject matter"
It was also observed that the provision in Section 70(a) of the Calcutta Act, 1911 deliberately excluding Section 54 of the Central Act, 1894 was "an indication of the local legislature's intention that there should be, under the special Code applicable to the Improvement Trust, no appeals beyond the High Court".281
In other words, two reasons were given by their lordships as to why section 26(2) of the Central Act, 1894 could not be read into the Calcutta Act, 1911. One was that reading Section 26(2) of the Central Act, 1894 into the Calcutta Act, 1911 would be repugnant to Section 70(a) of the Calcutta Act, 1911 which expressly excluded Section 54 of the Central Act, 1894 from the purview of the Calcutta Act. The other was that such telescoping would not be permissible if the latter statute which, in certain respects, referred to an earlier statute, was otherwise a complete Code by itself. This is clear from the fact that the Calcutta Act, 1911 Contains 177 sections and a schedule, Chapter III relates to schemes and publication of notifications in that behalf and Chapter IV deals with acquisition and disposal of land containing sections 68 to 81; among these, section 70 deals with reference to the Tribunal: Section 77 deals with passing of award by the Tribunal; Section 71(b) and the Schedule to the Act (which contains 14 clauses) deals with various matters relating to notifications as well as fixation of market value. On the other hand, we have no such elaborate machinery provided in the Karnataka Act, 1972 and the Act has only seven sections. The Karnataka Act does not contain any separate procedure for inquiry, 282 award nor does it constitute a Tribunal in the place of the reference Court as done by the Calcutta Act of 1911. That is why we are of the view that the Privy Council decision is clearly distinguishable.
32. The other two recent decisions of this Court in Gauri Shankar Vs. State of up [1994 (1) 92] and UP Avas Vikas Parishad Vs. Jainul Islam [1998 (1) Scale 185], both relate to acquisition under the UP Avas Vikas Parishad Adhinyam 1965. We shall refer to the scheme of the UP Act, 1965 Chapter III of that Act deals with formulation of schemes and issue of notifications (sections 15 to 49); Chapter V deals with land acquisition etc. Sections 55 to 63, Chapter VI with constitution of Tribunal and its purposes, section 55 of the Act reads as follows:
"55(1): Any land or any interest therein required by the Board for any of the purposes of this Act, may be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894) as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, which for the purpose shall be subject to the modifications specified in the schedule to this Act". (emphasis supplied) 283
33. Section 64 (1) says that the Tribunal shall perform the functions of the reference Court under the Central Act, 1894 as modified by the Schedule, in the matter of determining the compensation. Section 66 says that the Award of the Tribunal shall, in case of land acquisition under Central Act, 1894 as modified by the Schedule, be deemed to be an award of the Court under the Central Act and shall, subject to section 54 of that Act, be final. Section 67 says award of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a decree and the grounds, a "judgment". In other words, the UP Act, 1965 contains an elaborate machinery like the Calcutta Act, 1911.
34. In Gauri Shankar's case ((1994) 1 SCC
92)), decided by K.Ramaswamy & Sahai, JJ. the notifications for acquisition under Section 28 (1) were of the year 1973 while the notifications under Section 32 (1) were of 1977. Before 1948, the Allahabad High Court had taken the view that the notification under Section 32 (1) corresponding to declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Central Act need not be issued within 3 years of the notification under Section 28(1) corresponding to section 4(1) of the Central Act. In cases arising after 1948, it was also held by the Allahabad High Court that Section 11-A was not 284 applicable to the UP Act. Gauri Shankar's case related to the 3 year rule in the proviso to Section 6 of the Central Act. K.Ramaswamy, J. held (para 8) that the principle of incorporation' applied and that the provisions of Section 28, 32 of the UP Act, 1965 were a separate and complete code, that Section 55 read with clause (2) of the Schedule, which contained the need for issuing the preliminary and final notification under sections 28 and 32 of the UP Act, formed an integral scheme (para 25). The Schedule amended Sections 4, 6, 17 and 23 of the Central Act, 1894. It was pointed out that Section 28(2) and Section 32 (1) related to the publication of notifications without prescribing any limitation and that the UP Act 1965 was "a complete code in itself". It was also held that the Act was not otherwise unworkable or ineffectual, though it may be incompatible with the provisos to Section 6(1) of L.A. Act (para 33). On the other hand, sahai, J. held that the principle of "incorporation" did not apply but that of facts, it was not a fit case for interference inasmuch as the Parishad had already taken possession. In that view of the matter, both the learned Judges directed compensation as on the date when the notification corresponding to Section 6 declaration was issued. We shall next to refer to the 285 recent judgment in Jainul Islam's case where the opinion of K.Ramaswamy, J. was accepted.
35. The question which arose in Jainul Islam's case [1998 (1) SCALE 185] under the same UP Act. 1965 was whether Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Central Act, 1894 as amended in 1984, were attracted to the UP Act. Approving the view of K.Ramaswamy, J. in Gauri Shankar's case [1994 (1) SCC 92], Agrawal, J. held that the principle of incorporation' applied and therefore the above amendments of 1948 to the Central Act, 1894 did not apply. Reference was also made to the Privy Council Judgment in Secretary of State Vs. Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd. [AIR 1931 PC 149]. After considering the various provisions of the UP Act, 1965, it was held (para 21), that provisions of Section 55 and Schedule to the Act were "on the same lines" as the provisions of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 and that the principles laid down by the Privy Council were equally applicable. Adverting to the exceptions referred to in State of M.P. Vs. M.V. Narasimhan [1975 (2) SCC 377], it was observed that the UP Act, 1965 and the Central Act, 1894 did not come within the exceptions and that the provisions of the UP Act, 1965 were not supplemental' to each 286 other, nor was the UP Act in pari materia with the Central Act because it dealt with other matters which did not fall within the ambit of the Central Act. The UP Act was self contained and complete . Agrawal, J. observed (para 23) as follows:
"The Adhiniyam and the L.A. Act cannot be regarded supplemental to each other. The Adhiniyam contains provisions regarding acquisition of land which are complete and self- contained. Nor can the provisions in the Adhinyam be said to be in pari materia with the L.A. Act because the Adhinyam also deals with matters which do not fall within the ambit of the L.A. Act".
36. In our view, these three rulings, namely Secretary of State Vs. Hindustan Cooperative Society Ltd. [AIR 1931 PC 149], Gauri Shankar's case [1994 (1) SCC 92] and Jainul Islam's case [1998 (1) Scale 185], are clearly distinguishable. As pointed out earlier the Karnataka Act, 1972 has only 7 Sections which deal with the issuance of notification corresponding to Sections 4 and 6, and 9 of Central Act and certain other minor modification relating to acquisition and payment of compensation. The Act has no provision for a separate inquiry or award or 287 reference to a Tribunal, or a machinery for payment of compensation of apportionment. The Central Act, 1894 alone is to apply in so far as it related to "inquiry and award, the reference to Court, the apportionment of amount and the payment of amount in respect of lands acquired under the Act". There are no detailed provisions as in the Calcutta Act, 1911 or as in the UP Act, 1965.
37. We are of the view that the Karnataka Act, 1972 clearly comes within the exceptions stated in M.V. Narasimhan's case for the following reasons:
Firstly there being no detailed machinery whatsoever in the Karnataka Act, 1972, that Act cannot be treated as a self-contained or complete Code. Secondly, the Karnataka Act, 1972 and the Central Act, 1894 (as amended by the Karnataka Act, 1961) are supplemental to each other for unless the Central Act supplements the Karnataka Act, the latter cannot function. Thirdly, these acts are in pari materia because the karnataka Act, 1972 - unlike the Calcutta Act, 1911 and the UP Act, 1965 - does not deal with any other subject but deals with the same subject of land acquisition which otherwise would have fallen within the ambit of the Central Act, 1894. For the 288 aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the amendments made in 1948 to the Central Act, 1894 including Section 11-A have to be read into the Karnataka Act, 1972, so far as enquiry, award, reference to Court, apportionment of amount and the payment of amount in respect of land acquired under the Act.
38. Admittedly, the prescribed period under section 11-A has elapsed and it is stated that even now, the award is not passed. Therefore, it is clear that the conditions of section 11-A are violated, and accordingly, the entire land acquisition proceedings including the notifications under section 3(1) and 3(4) of the Karnataka Act, 1972 lapse. We declare accordingly.
39. Before parting with the case, we may say that in this appeal we are concerned only with the question whether section 11-A as introduced by the Amendment in 1984 to the Central Act 1894 could be read into the Karnataka Act, 1972 and we have held that it should be read into the Karnataka Act, 1972 because there is not such provision in the Karnataka Act, 1972 as amended by the Karnataka Act, 1961. The question as to the telescoping of other amendments brought to the Central Act, 1894 by the 1984 amendment and the consequential impact thereof is not 289 before us and we should not be understood as deciding any such matter. If the question of applicability of any other amendment brought by the Central Act in 1984 to the Karnataka Act, 1972 arises in Karnataka, such a question may have to be decided separately.
40. Further, in the impugned Judgment, certain rulings under the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 have been followed. We have gone by the provisions of the Karnataka Act, 1972. We are not to be understood as having said anything with regard to the Bangalore Development Act, 1976. We are in fact told that some that some appeals are pending in this Court in regard to the said Act of 1976.
41. In the result, the appeals are allowed and it is declared that the notifications issued under the Act under Section 3(1) and Section 3(4) have lapsed." However, in Munithimmaiah's case, supra, the following observation is made :
"The decision in Mariyappa and Others case (supra) has no relevance or application to the case on hand for more than one reason. In SCC p.291 para 40 290 of the report it is found stated: "We are not to be understood as having said anything with regard to the Bangalore Development Act, 1976". That apart, this Court, on an analysis of the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 in contrast to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, observed that not only the Karnataka Act, 1972 had a skeleton of only seven sections without any full machinery for being treated as a complete code without depending on the Central Act, 1894, for being functional so far as the inquiry, passing of Award, seeking reference and apportionment and payment of compensation, etc. is concerned, but the Karnataka Act, 1972 and the Central Act, 1894 are supplemental to each other and both the Acts are in pari materia since the subject-
matter of the 1972 Act could have otherwise also come within the ambit of the Central Act and, therefore, the Karnataka Act, 1972 cannot be considered to deal with any subject other than acquisition of land." This observation was apparently made as the opinions expressed as regards the applicability of Section 11-A of the LA Act was directly in question in both the sets of cases - and 291 the contrary view expressed, in context, in Mariayappa's case was stated to be not relevant. This need not be implied as being a view expressed that any interpretation given therein should be overlooked or ignored - when the discussion and the case law cited therein would be very relevant to addressing the points for consideration in the present case on hand. The reference to and reliance on the decision in the case of Special LAO vs. P. Govindan (1976) 4 SCC 697, is especially pertinent.
In Bondu Ramaswamy vs. BDA (2010) 7 SCC 129, the position of law and the extent of applicability of the provisions of the LA Act to the BDA Act has been succinctly spelt out thus:
"80. The BDA Act contains provisions relating to acquisition of properties, up to the stage of publication 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 292 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 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, 293 the question of amendment to section 6 of the LA Act providing a time limit for issue of final declaration, will also not apply."
And further, in so far as the scope of Section 36 of the BDA Act is concerned, it is stated thus:
"89. Section 36 of the BDA Act provides that the "acquisition of land under this Act", shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable of the LA Act. In view of the categorical reference in section 36 of the BDA Act, to acquisitions under that Act, there cannot be any doubt that the acquisitions for BDA are not under the LA Act, but under the BDA Act itself. It is also clear from Section 36 that the LA Act, in its entirety, is not applicable to the acquisition under the BDA Act, but only such of the provisions of the LA Act for which a corresponding provision is not found in the BDA Act, will apply to acquisitions under the BDA Act. In view of sections 17 to 19 of the BDA Act, the corresponding provisions - Sections 4 to 6 of the LA Act--will not apply to acquisitions under the BDA Act. We therefore reject the contention that the BDA Act does not contemplate acquisition and that the acquisition which is required 294 to be made as a part of the development scheme, should be made under the LA Act, applying sections 4, 5A and 6 of LA Act."
Therefore, the general question whether the reference to the LA Act in the BDA Act and the provisions of the LA Act that would be applicable in regulating the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the BDA Act, can be construed as legislation by reference or by incorporation is to be answered.
A constitution bench of the Apex Court in the case of Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharastra, ( 2011) 3 SCC 1 has expounded on the doctrines of "legislation by reference" and "legislation by incorporation", while prefacing the reason for examination thus :
"4. Amongst others, doctrines of "legislation by reference" and "legislation by incorporation" are the creation of judicial pronouncements. One of the earliest instances, where the Privy Council, then responsible for Indian Judicial system, accepted the 295 plea of "legislation by incorporation" and interpreted the statute accordingly in the case of Secretary of State for India in Council v. Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. [AIR 1931 PC 149]. This judicial pronouncement was followed in different subsequent judgments and these doctrines were analyzed in greater depth for bringing out the distinction between them. The judgment of the Privy Council was referred with approval by this Court in different judgments including Municipal Commissioner of Howrah v. Shalimar Wood Products [(1963) 1 SCR 47]; Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1974) 2 SCC 777]; Mahindra & Mahindra v. Union of India [(1979) 2 SCC 529]; Ujagar Prints v. Union of India [(1989) 3 SCC 488]; U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam [(1998) 2 SCC 467]; Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasant Rao [(2002) 7 SCC 657] and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 4 SCC 200].
5. The principle that was enunciated by the Privy Council in the case of Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. (supra) stated, ". . . where certain provisions from an existing Act have been incorporated into a subsequent Act, no addition to the former Act, which is not expressly made 296 applicable to the subsequent Act, can be deemed to be incorporated in it, at all events, if it is possible for the subsequent Act to function effectually without the addition".
Though this principle has been reiterated from time to time, with the development of law, still certain doubts were reflected in the judicial pronouncements of the courts as to the application of this principle as an absolute proposition of law. On the contrary, this principle received criticism from various quarters. The critics said that it was causing impediments in smooth operation of the later law as well as abdication of legislative power by the legislative constituent concerned.
6. Another criticism and argument which, in fact, was even advanced before us is that while approving the principle stated by the Privy Council, the subsequent Benches have not taken into consideration the impact of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry [(1967) 2 SCR 650]. A pertinent constitutional aspect that ought to have been brought to the notice of different Benches was that the federal structure of the Constitution had come into force which controlled governance of the country and 297 therefore the principles, inter alia, stated by the Privy Council could not be adopted as law of universal application without appropriately modifying the stated position of law to bring it in complete harmony with the constitutional mandate.
7. In Gauri Shankar Gaur v. State of U.P. [(1994) 1 SCC 92], one member of the Bench of this Court, relied upon the principle stated in Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. (supra) and held that in a case of legislation by incorporation, subsequent amendment or repeal of the provisions of an earlier Act adopted cannot be deemed to have been incorporated in the adopting Act which may be true in the case of legislation by reference. This judgment was relied upon by another Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Joginder Singh Kishan Singh [1995 Supp.(2) SCC 475].
8. The amendments in various relevant laws and introduction and application of newly enunciated principles of law resulted in varied opinions. A Bench of this Court in Girnar Traders (1) v. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 8 SCC 505] (hereinafter referred to as "Girnar Traders-(1)") expressed certain doubts on the correctness of the law stated in Sant Joginder 298 Singh (supra) and referred the matter to a larger Bench. The Bench in Girnar Traders-I (supra) felt that there were good reasons for reading the provisions introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Central Act 68 of 1984") into Chapter VII of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, "the MRTP Act" or "the State Act") and Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Land Acquisition Act" or "the Central Act") is one of such provisions. Thus, the Constitution Bench is called upon to examine whether the MRTP Act is a self-contained Code or not, if so, to what effect? Further, whether, in any event, all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984 with emphasis on Section 11A can be read into the provisions of the MRTP Act?"
The Apex Court has held thus:
"87. . . . These principles have been applied by the courts for a considerable period now. When there is general reference in the Act in question to some earlier Act but there is no specific mention of the provisions of the former Act, then it is clearly considered as legislation by reference. In the case of 299 legislation by reference, the amending laws of the former Act would normally become applicable to the later Act; but, when the provisions of an Act are specifically referred and incorporated in the later statute, then those provisions alone are applicable and the amending provisions of the former Act would not become part of the later Act. This principle is generally called legislation by incorporation. General reference, ordinarily, will imply exclusion of specific reference and this is precisely the fine line of distinction between these two doctrines. Both are referential legislations, one merely by way of reference and the other by incorporation. It, normally, will depend on the language used in the later law and other relevant considerations. While the principle of legislation by incorporation has well defined exceptions, the law enunciated as of now provides for no exceptions to the principle of legislation by reference. Furthermore, despite strict application of doctrine of incorporation, it may still not operate in certain legislations and such legislation may fall within one of the stated exceptions.
(emphasis supplied)
88. In this regard, the judgment of this Court in M.V. Narasimhan (supra) can be usefully noticed 300 where the Court after analyzing various judgments, summed up the exceptions to this rule as follows :
"(a) where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental to each other;
(b) where the two Acts are in pari materia;
(c) where the amendment in the previous Act, if not imported into the subsequent Act also, would render the subsequent Act wholly unworkable and ineffectual; and
(d) where the amendment of the previous Act, either expressly or by necessary intendment, applies the said provisions to the subsequent Act."
Applying the above test, it may safely be said that the provisions of the LA Act that are made applicable to the BDA Act are in the nature of legislation by reference. It would then follow that the only procedure to be followed in respect of proceedings - post Section 19 of the BDA Act - would be that which exists at the time of acquisition proceedings. It would be a fair interpretation of Section 36 of the BDA Act to hold that it 301 means that whichever may be the procedure therein, with regard to matters regulating acquisition under the LA Act, in so far as they are applicable, at the time of acquisition proceedings will apply to acquisition made under the BDA Act.
In view of the repeal of the LA Act and the coming into force of the 2013 Act, during the pendency of these proceedings, it would be the corresponding provisions under the 2013 Act, in so far as they are applicable, that would regulate the acquisition proceedings.
It may hence be concluded that the repeal of the LA Act and the coming into force of the 2013 Act would not frustrate further acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act. For even without an amendment to Section 36 of the BDA Act, the provisions of the 2013 Act, in so far as they are applicable, would operate to regulate the acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act - according to settled principles as enunciated in the authoritative decisions referred to above. The second point framed for consideration is accordingly answered. 302
In considering the question whether the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, is concerned, it is to be observed that the further proceedings were stayed by this court by an interim order of stay of all further proceedings. The effect of that order would have to be kept in view. It is settled law that any restraint imposed by the courts on any ongoing acquisition proceedings would extend to all aspects of the process. If therefore the acquisition proceedings were kept in abeyance altogether by virtue of the interim order, the application of the provisions of the 2013 Act which have seamlessly replaced the provisions of the LA Act, in so far as they are applicable, to the BDA Act would also be kept in abeyance. It cannot therefore be said that by virtue of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the proceedings stood lapsed.
Yet another aspect that would be material is the question whether the acquisition proceedings could be resumed, by a 303 deeming fiction, from the date the proceedings were stayed and if the procedure as applicable on that date, to wit, the procedure prescribed under the LA Act would be applicable. This would be impermissible for two reasons, firstly, that the change in the law is an independent development and in terms of the changed legal position, with reference to Section 24 of the 2013 Act, as no award was passed at the time the interim order was passed by this court, it is the provisions of the 2013 Act that shall apply in the determination of compensation and other reliefs that would have to be granted. Secondly, on principle it would be impermissible. In respect of acquisition of land as on date the determination of compensation cannot be contemplated under two different sets of procedure. It is immaterial whether it is one Acquisition Act or another Acquisition Act under which the land is acquired. If the existence of two Acts could enable the State to give one owner different treatment from another equally situated, the owner who is discriminated against, can claim the protection of Article 14 of the 304 Constitution of India. (See : Nagpur Improvement Trust & another v. Vithal Rao & others, (1973) 1 SCC 500).
However, in the light of the opinion expressed, on the first point for consideration above, the acquisition proceedings are held to be bad in law and consequently the impugned notifications are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS* / nv*