Karnataka High Court
Sri. Munihanumaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2024
Author: Ravi V. Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V. Hosmani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.13273 OF 2018 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MUNIHANUMAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs,
1 . SMT. BASAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNIHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
2 . SRI HANUMANTHAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNIHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3 . SRI NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE MUNIHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4 . SRI RAMAMURTHY
S/O LATE MUNIHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
5 . SRI MUNIRAJU,
S/O LATE MUNIHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 060.
2
6 . SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA,
W/O KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 060.
7 . SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 060.
8 . SMT. GOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 060.
9 . SMT. LATHA,
W/O LAKESH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO.62, 10TH CROSS,
BENDRENAGAR,
KADIRENAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 070.
PETITIONERS ARE REP. BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER SRI.UMESH C.,
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
R/AT CHALLEGHATTA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TQ,
BANGALORE-560 060.
...PETITIONERS
[BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE (PH)]
3
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. UNDER SECRETARY TO
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
4. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI PRINCE ISAAC, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER THE ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS FOR ACQUISITION OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONERS
HAS TO BE QUASHED FINAL NOTIFICATION IN VIEW OF SECTION 11 (A)
OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AT ANNEXURE-B DATED 18.2.2010
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 17.01.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following relief:
"The entire proceedings for acquisition of land of petitioners has to be quashed final notification in view of Section 11-A of Land Acquisition Act which is at Annexure-B dated 18.02.2010 in no.UDD 51 MNX 2010, etc."
2. Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that petitioners were legal heirs of deceased Munihanumaiah, owner of land bearing Sy.no.58/2 of Challaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore, South Taluk, measuring 01 Acre and 36 guntas. It was submitted, said land was acquired by Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short) for formation of Nada Prabhu Kempegowda Layout under Preliminary Notification dated 21.05.2008 and Final Notification dated 18.02.2010, respectively issued under provisions of Bangalore Development Authority Act ('BDA Act' for short). And when notices were issued to interested persons including petitioners, they had filed claim statement on 19.09.2010 to fix compensation and pay it to them. It was submitted, BDA failed to consider same and award was not 5 passed as required under Section 12 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act' for short).
3. When respondent no.4 - ALAO did not pass award even till year 2013, petitioners filed W.P.no.34161/2016 for direction to consider their claim statement and pass award. Said writ petition was disposed of on 30.09.2013 (Annexure-D), directing claim statement to be considered within a period of eight weeks. Despite said direction, no award was passed and there was violation of Section 11-A of LA Act constraining petitioners to file present writ petition.
4. It was submitted, during pendency of this petition, petitioners submitted representation to ALAO on 25.03.2019 as per Annexure-E requesting for dropping of acquisition proceedings insofar as their land. In pursuance of same, survey was conducted. Survey report at Annexure-F clearly shows private layout with sites formed and sold and constructions put up. Accordingly, BDA issued endorsement dated 29.04.2019 at Annexure-G stating that it was not possible to take possession of petitioners' land. It was submitted, said endorsement established that BDA had failed to 6 take possession and complete acquisition. Consequently, petitioners were entitled for relief as sought for.
5. Learned counsel pointed out that in its statement of objections, BDA admitted possession of petitioners' property was not taken on ground of dispute regarding title. It was submitted, civil suits had all ended in settlement/compromise and after cancellation of sale deeds executed on basis of fabricated documents, there was no dispute about petitioner having subsisting interest. As such, there was no dispute either regarding petitioners' title or possession over property. It was therefore submitted that there was failure to implement scheme within reasonable time and neither possession was taken nor award passed leading to violation of Section 11-A of LA Act.
6. Relying on decision in Sri Suryaprakash and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (W.P.nos.10286-291/2014, disposed of on 05.12.2016), it was submitted, this Court had held for failure to complete acquisition process by passing award and taking possession within reasonable time, entire acquisition proceedings would be deemed lapsed/abandoned: 7 "7. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments in the case of RAM CHAND & OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS -
(1994) 1 SCC 44; and SMT.ANDALAMMA VS STATE OF KARNATKA & OTHERS - 2002 (4) KCCR 2361, in support of his contention that BDA having not passed the award within a reasonable period, the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed and shall be treated as having been abandoned. He has also placed reliance on the unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.6354-6356/2011 disposed of on 01.12.2011 pertaining to the very same layout, wherein the subsequent purchasers who had purchased after long lapse of time had approached this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings and succeeded in their challenge.
.........
.........
10. Having carefully considered the respective contentions, the undisputed facts that emerge are, that though final notification was issued as back as in the year 1986 (28.11.1986), BDA has not chosen to pass any award even as on today.
Though 30 years have elapsed, possession of the land remained with the original owners and subsequently with the purchaser. The owners and purchaser from them have altered their position by developing the land. They have put up construction of residential houses over the land.
.........
.........
15. The question acquisition having not been completed, no award having been passed nor possession of the land having been taken for the last three decades the entire acquisition proceedings stand lapsed as having been abandoned by the BDA and the State Government."
8
7. For same ratio, reliance was placed on decisions of this Court in Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and Anr. v. K.H. Shivanna and Ors., in W.A.no.557/2021 in W.P.no.13139/2019 disposed of on 23.03.2022; The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and Anr. v. Sri Muninanjinappa and Anr. in W.A.no.1268/2021 in W.P.no.10583/2016 disposed of on 17.03.2022; and Chikkathayappa Reddy and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Anr., in W.P.no.26920/2010 disposed of on 28.02.2022.
8. It was further submitted, failure to pass award within two years in violation of Section 11-A of LA Act, led to lapsing of acquisition as per decision in Nagu Bai v. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2001 Kar 1169, which read as follows:
"11. Section 11A was brought on the statute by amending Act to mitigate the loss and undue hardship caused to the owner of the land. It was made obligatory for the Land Acquisition Officer to make the award under Section 11 statutorily within the period of two years from the date of publication of the final notification. In case the award was not made within that period the entire proceedings for acquisition of land were made to lapse. Section 11A did not only cast an obligation on the Land Acquisition officer to make the award under Section 11 within the period of two years from the date of declaration, but also provided the consequence, if 9 such a declaration was not made. The consequence of not making the award was that the entire proceedings of acquisition of land would lapse, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Abdul Majeed Saheb's case, supra. The Land Acquisition Officer was statutorily under an obligation, at the pain of invalidation of the acquisition itself, to make the award within two years unless it fell within one of the provisos or the explanation provided thereto. In the present case, neither the proviso nor the explanation stands attracted to the facts. As the award was admittedly made beyond the period of two years from the date of declaration the entire acquisition stood lapsed".
9. For fortification of contention, reliance was also placed on decisions in B. Byrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., in W.A.no.4567/2011 disposed of on 14.02.2023; Samuha Seva House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., in W.A.no.18006/2011 disposed of on 13.02.2023; Sri N. Madeswara v. State of Karnataka and Ors., in W.P.no.34652/2010 disposed of on 14.02.2023; Sri D.U. Shivashankar (Rep. by his LRs.) v. State of Karnataka and Ors., in W.P.no.35966/2010 disposed of on 14.02.2023; Bangalore Development Authority and Anr. v. Sri Amarlal V. Talreja and Anr., in W.A.no.1332/2021 disposed of on 01.02.2023.
10
10. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Krishna Reddy and Ors. v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, LMD Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1988 (4) SCC 163, had highlighted need for immediate disbursal of compensation in land acquisition cases, lest it is rendered nugatory as follows:
"12. We can very well appreciate the anxiety and need of claimants to get compensation here and now. No matter what it is. The lands were acquired as far back in 1977. One decade has already passed. Now the remand means another round of litigation. There would be further delay in getting the compensation. After all money is what money buys. What the claimants could have bought with the compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988. Perhaps, not even one half of it. It is a common experience that the purchasing power of rupee is dwindling. With rising inflation, the delayed payment may lose all charms and utility of the compensation. In some cases, the delay may be detrimental to the interests of claimants. The Indian agriculturists generally have no avocation. They totally depend upon land. If uprooted, they will find themselves nowhere. They are left high and dry. They have no savings to draw. They have nothing to fall back upon. They know no other work. They may even face starvation unless rehabilitated. In all such cases, it is of utmost importance that the award should be made without delay. The enhanced compensation must be determined without loss of time. The appellate power of remand, at any rate ought not to be exercised lightly. It shall not be resorted to unless the award is wholly unintelligible. It shall not be exercised unless there is total lack of evidence. If remand is imperative, and if the claim for enhanced compensation is tenable, it would be proper for the appellate court to do modest best to mitigate 11 hardships. The appellate court may direct some interim payment to claimants subject to adjustment in the eventual award.
(emphasis supplied)
11. Likewise, in Ram Chand and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1994 (1) SCC 44, similar observations were made in context of examining reasonableness of time taken for completion of acquisition proceedings. Taking note of failure to take possession and develop land, it was held:
"25. There appears to be some force in the contention of the petitioners that the object of respondents was to peg the price of the lands acquired from the different cultivators to a distant past and not to proceed further because if the awards had been made soon after the declarations under Section 6, respondents had to pay or tender the compensation to the claimants, which for some compulsion, respondents were not in a position to pay or tender them. But, nonetheless, the exercise of power in the facts and circumstances of the cases by the respondents has to be held to be against the spirit of the provisions of the Act, tending towards arbitrariness. In such a situation this Court in exercise of power under Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226, could have quashed the proceedings. But, taking into consideration that in most of the cases, the Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority have taken possession of the lands and even developments have been made, it shall not be proper exercise of discretion on the part of this Court to quash the proceedings because, in that event, it shall affect the public interest. Moreover, third party interests created in the meantime are also likely to be affected and such 12 third parties are not impleaded. The relief of quashing the acquisition proceeding having become inappropriate due to the subsequent events, the grant of a modified relief, considered appropriate in the circumstances, would be the proper course to adopt. The High Court or this Court, can grant a modified relief taking into consideration the injury caused to the claimants by the inaction on the part of respondents and direct payment of any additional amount, in exercise of power under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution."
(emphasis supplied)
12. Learned counsel also relied on ratio in Shimoga Urban Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2002 KAR 2078, to emphasize effect of delay in completion of acquisition proceedings.
13. In Sri H.N. Shivanna and Ors. v. The State of Karnataka, Dept. of Industries and Commerce, Bangalore and Anr., reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 8956, Division Bench of this Court by referring to decisions in Ram Chand, Shimogga UDA etc., had held reasonable time within which acquisition proceedings had to be concluded cannot be more than two years, in case of acquisition under Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, ('KIAD Act', for short). 13
14. In Sri K.B. Lingaraju and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (W.P.nos.34318-322/2016 and W.P.nos.34323-326/2016 disposed of on 17.08.2017), held declaration against acquisition proceedings under provisions of KIAD Act was with reference to Section 24 (2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('RFCTLARR Act', for short). Learned Single Judge referring to Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors. v. MIDC and Ors., reported in 2012 AIR SCW 6343, Ram Chand and H.N. Shivanna's cases (supra), held delay of seven years in passing award was not reasonable and declared acquisition proceedings as abandoned/lapsed. It was submitted, W.A.no.6819/2017 filed against said decision was dismissed on 14.02.2020.
15. It was submitted, even where statute did not prescribe period of limitation for exercise of any power, same had to be exercised within reasonable time, by referring to decisions of Apex Court in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Ors., reported in 2009 (9) SCC 352; Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Anr., 14 reported in 2020 (14) SCC 232 and Vivek M. Hinduja and Ors. v. M. Ashwatha and Ors., reported in 2020 (14) SCC 228.
16. It was submitted Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi's case (supra), had held right to property as a human right and which was followed by this Court in M. Nagabhushan Reddy and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (W.A.no.4583/2011 and connected matters disposed of on 01.02.2023). It was submitted, appeal filed against common judgment in M. Nagabhushan Reddy's case (supra) was dismissed by Apex Court in Bangalore Development Authority and Anr. v. Chinnamma and Ors., in SLP (C) Diary no.21328/2023 on 09.10.2023. And similar order was passed in Smt.Badamma and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., in W.P.no.58827/2013, disposed of on 13.01.2023. Learned counsel for petitioners also sought to rely on decision in M. Mahadevaiah v. State of Karnataka and Ors., in W.P.no.46520/2016 disposed of on 18.04.2023.
17. On other hand, Sri Prince Isaac, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 - State and 15 Sri Murgesh V. Charati, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.3 and 4 - BDA opposed writ petition.
18. Learned counsel for BDA, at outset submitted petition was liable to be dismissed on ground of suppression of material facts and also on ground of lack of locus standi. It was submitted, Munihanumaiah during his life time sold land as revenue sites. Purchasers had filed representation for deletion of their sites from acquisition or for re-allotment by collecting development charges. In respect of remaining extent, Munihanumaiah had executed GPA. Some of such purchasers and GPA holder had filed W.P.nos.6292- 6312/2012 challenging acquisition. Though said matter was later connected with W.P.no.32186/2010 & connected petitions, (R. Shankaran v. State of Karnataka and Ors.), disposed of on 18.12.2013, taking note of memo filed by BDA that it had passed resolution to give up revenue sites purchased prior to issuance of Preliminary Notification by collecting betterment charges, directing State to consider approval of resolution. It was submitted, though in R. Shankaran's case (supra) acquisition notifications were quashed on 11.07.2014, BDA had filed W.A.no.1783/2014 and 16 obtained interim order of stay. It was submitted, sale of land and filing of writ petitions earlier were suppressed. It was further submitted, on 16.01.2020, Government had refused to approve resolution for collection of betterment charges in respect of revenue sites. It is specifically pleaded that an interim order was granted on 31.05.2012 directing parties to maintain status-quo.
19. Insofar as endorsement dated 29.04.2019, allegedly issued by ALAO in pursuance of application dated 25.03.2019 for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate', it was submitted that no such application was available in records of BDA and endorsement would therefore being highly questionable. It was submitted, since petitioners had sold land they had no subsisting interest and therefore, locus standi to file present writ petition.
20. It was further submitted, as narrated above, acquisition proceedings have been continuously embroiled in litigation, wherein interim orders were granted. In view of same, BDA could not progress with development of layout. Consequently, challenge against acquisition on ground of delay or lack of development would be untenable. It was submitted, in view of decision in Offshore 17 Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. BDA, reported in 2011 (3) SCC 139, relief sought by reference to Section 11-A of LA Act, would be untenable.
21. Learned counsel also relied on decision in Bangalore Development Authority and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Anr., reported in 2018 (9) SCC 122, for proposition that time constraints in LA Act would not be applicable to acquisition under BDA Act, as it was held to be complete code in itself. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically held question of time dealt with in H.N. Shivanna's case (supra) stood diluted in Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) and Apex Court had held development/construction made by land owners after initiation of acquisition proceedings would be at peril of land owners and individual interest had to give way to larger public interest, would effectively nullify challenge on said basis.
22. It was also submitted only provision which would permit challenge was Section 27 of BDA Act, but, same was not urged and in view of fact that progress was stunted by Court orders and litigation, said contention even if urged would fall to ground. On above grounds, sought for dismissal of writ petition. 18
23. In reply, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that title disputes had ended in favour of petitioners. Therefore, petitioners had locus standi. It was submitted, though challenge against acquisition proceedings by reference to Section 11-A of LA Act and Section 24 (2) of RFCTLARR Act, were held to be not available in case of acquisition under BDA Act, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India had sufficient power to quash acquisition proceedings on ground of failure to conclude within reasonable time and sought for allowing petition.
24. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.
25. From above, it would appear that petitioners were claiming interest in Sy.no.58/2 of Challaghatta village, which is under acquisition by BDA for formation of Nada Prabhu Kempegowda Layout. And challenge reference to Section 11-A of LA Act, is admitted to be covered by decision in Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra). However, petitioners have sought to assail acquisition on ground of failure to complete acquisition proceedings 19 within reasonable time by referring to various decisions, which require to be adverted to.
26. Though, in Suryaprakash's case (supra), acquisition proceedings were declared as lapsed by referring to Section 24 (2) of RFCTLARR Act by this Court, relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Chand's case (supra) and Nagu Bai's case (supra). Firstly, three Judges decision in Ram Chand's case (supra) was distinguished by Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. Further, decision in Nagu Bai's case (supra) would also have to yield to ratio in Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Development Authority and Indore Development Authority's cases (supra). Therefore, Suryaprakash's case would lend no help.
27. Further, in Muninanjinappa's case (supra), it was observed, though delay/failure to conclude acquisition proceedings (initiated under provisions of KIAD Act) was sought to be attributed to seizure of records by Lokayukta, such ground was found not pleaded and Final Notification was in fact issued in year 2007; while seizure of records was in year 2010 and there was no explanation 20 for failure to pass award. Hence, acquisition was quashed. Even in K.H. Shivanna's case (supra), it was noted Preliminary Notification under Section 28 (1) of KIAD Act was issued on 07.08.2006, but until 21.03.2019 i.e. date of filing writ petition no further proceedings were taken. Under such circumstances, it was held failure to complete acquisition even after lapse of 14 years was unreasonable and Division Bench confirmed order of learned Single Judge quashing acquisition, by referring to Ram Chand and H.N. Shivanna's cases (supra).
28. However, in Premakala Prabhakara Reddy v. State of Karnataka, in W.P.no.23812/2016 (disposed of on 07.03.2019), it has been held that ratio in H.N. Shivanna's case (supra) was not good law, in view of Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) etc. and said order is confirmed by Division Bench in W.A.no.3897/2019 disposed of on 23.04.2021.
29. Though in Chikkathayappa Reddy, Suryaprakash and H.N. Shivanna's cases (supra) were referred to quash acquisition, it was noted that failure to conclude proceedings even after 14 years was not due to any Court orders and BDA was discriminating 21 against petitioners by not preferring appeal against order quashing acquisition proceedings in respect of another portion of land, which was subject matter of writ petition.
30. In B. Byrappa's case (supra), on ground that no explanation was offered by BDA for passing award 24 years after issuance of Final Notification, following ratio in M. Nagabhushana Reddy's case (supra), acquisition was quashed; while in N. Madeshwar, D.U. Shivashankar and Amarlal V. Taleraja's cases (supra), ratio in B. Byrappa's case (supra), was followed.
31. Though, appeal by BDA against decision in M. Nagabhushana Reddy's case (supra) was dismissed in Chinnamma's case (supra), by keeping question of law open. Thus what would emerge from above was that there cannot be challenge of acquisition proceedings by reference to period of time prescribed in Section 11-A of LA Act. And in case of acquisition under special enactments, even challenge by reference to Section 24 (2) of RFCTLARR Act would not be available.
22
32. But, in view of fact that right to property has been held to be human right in Tukaram Kana Joshi's case (supra) and it is held in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil, Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja's cases (supra), State/Statutory Authorities cannot be permitted to keep acquisition proceedings pending for long duration of time without just cause as delay has effect of rendering compensation nugatory. Therefore, what is to be tested is reasonableness of time consumed for conclusion of acquisition proceedings.
33. BDA in its objections has stated that Munihanumaiah had formed sites and alienated them by executing sale deeds/GPA. Said purchasers had submitted representation for excluding their sites from acquisition by collecting betterment charges and also obtained direction for consideration of their representations in W.P.nos.6292- 6312/2012. Further, petitioners themselves had earlier filed W.P.no.34161/2016 for direction to consider their claim statement and to pass award, which was disposed of on 03.09.2013 directing consideration of their claim statement within period of eight weeks. Though, main contention urged is that delay in conclusion of 23 acquisition was unreasonable, as delay was brooked despite issuance of direction by this Court, but, in view of interim order directing parties to maintain status-quo, lack of progress cannot be held to be unjustified.
34. It is also seen that, W.A.no.1783/2014 filed by BDA has since been disposed of on 22.02.2024, upholding acquisition notifications in respect of Nada Prabhu Kempegowda Layout, but, by permitting land owners to seek for dropping of their land from acquisition in case, their lands were nursery lands; situated within green belt; totally built-up; buildings were constructed by religious/charitable educational institutions or on ground that similar adjoining lands were left out from acquisition. In case of site owners, liberty is reserved to register themselves for allotment of site with direction to treat their applications on priority etc. It is also seen that time limit is fixed for consideration with further direction to maintain status-quo until consideration. Hence, even if petitioners' right to question acquisition is subsisting, their challenge against acquisition proceedings require rejection. 24
35. Wherefore, challenge against Preliminary Notification no.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158/2008-2009, Bangalore, dated 21.05.2008 and Final Notification no.UDD51MNX2010, Bangalore, dated 18.02.2010 issued for acquisition of lands for formation of "Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout" is rejected, but by permitting petitioners to avail benefit of directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.no.1783/2014 disposed of on 22.02.2024, if they so desire.
With above observation, Writ petition is dismissed. Time for submission of applications/representations shall begin to run from date of this order insofar as petitioners are concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE Grd/-