Sri M Venkata Swamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri M Venkata Swamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2010

Bench: B.S.Patil

WP E7292/2007

IN 'I'i'-{E13 i'fEGI"I COURT O14' K/kRi\EA'I'AKA AT E3ANGAI.,OR£§
DATEI) THIS THE 7'"! DAY OF JANUARY. 20 
BEFORE

H113}---10N'131,1'; MR.JUS'E'1CI'3 r3.s._PA';?:ii;  .

WRIT PETITION NO.17292,»'2G~07  

BETWEEN:

1. SR1 M.\'/ENKA'I'/\ SWAMY.
S/O LATE MUNISHAMANNA.
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

2. SR1 IVLASWATH NARAY'AN';"%«-- _
S/O LATE CLMUNIYAPPA.' '   
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,"  V

BOTH ARE RESI17.iNG A1? 2:   A ' 
NO3396. 13i!'I't..cR'Qs,s.~. _  

2% MAIN. s3I~1As*--1>RI"NAQAR;-_  _ 7
BANAS}-EAN EAR-.I 2231-> S'."A£'.}E'.T ~
BANGAI;OP.E 4.560 *;i>2s."'  

3. SR1 sE1§:'1'HARAMA.,f-~ '  "

s/0 1,A*I:r«:pi1,I.APpA._g. "  .
AGED AB(:L3'I% 50 YEARS'; _ 
NQ204. CI--1URCH .Sf*I'R{~:.1~:'1':'

NEW 'I'I»i1.PI>AsA:NL)RA.

1»m[1_; ':;aIa§>._Ls'1'A(;I=:. J ':53 V i"€f--;(,}A..R 1'>os'1".

 " BANf}A.1'-()R_Ee__ 560 075.  PE'I'I'I'1ONERS

(BYL;2J §};xi*A.Ki;MA.I{~s.PA"1'1:.,, SR. COUNSEL FOR

'SR'I»P. M.T€ZX.}--2A'3'ANA SWAMY. ADV.)

V AND: 

h  'H-:1: s'I*A"1'I~: cw KA.RNA'I'AKA.

 BY  SECRE'1'A.RY.
'..:>;a:3AR'1*M1e:N'1'01:' HOUSING AND
URBAN DI£'\/E£I,()PMEN'I',

VA  .. .,V_M.S.BUIIJDIN(}.

BANGALORE -- 560 00% .



VVP 17292/200"?

3
ORDER

1. In this writ. petition, petitioners are challenging the notil'i(:at.ions3 issued under Secrtion 3(1), 28(1) and Sect.io"n_»28[4} of the Karnataka Iiidustriai Areas Development AVtTit:,:'4':".,}.V966 [hereinaiter referred to as 'the Act'. for conseqtientiai orders.

2. Petitioners were the owners of:"1«1«aI13'r_f_1itJJVea'1i*i*r1_vg' situated at Hebbai Village, Bangatioge North T21_1Lii{:, 9 V guntas having purchased the saIi1_E_3x:iiI71C1€.i" a regisvteregii sale deed dated 20.03.1972 from its-:i".)1'e'viot;1siVo'V.tiiers--_one C.Mur1i a 321 i. L ' YP} and others. The 31".".Pet.itiV(3ne:f:Seeth:1,ft-11ﬁ_i$z"ti'he exchisive owner of iahd _H_ebba1 Viiiage, Baiigalore North TE11LIkg rheAasVu'i"ii1g'5V_sits-,__:h'ai?ing inherited the same from his i}1.t.heI' Pit] elm) f '.1»-t7VI'1(';i e.c1."-(31th 1 2 . 2005. :.Bja'i:.ga1ore [§eve1opment' Authority {hereiriafter re'i"errev;!.i'to for short} acquired both these iands for V _forri1a'"tion.-__'oi' otiter ring road as per the preiimineuy notification .444'-djéitedr__18.V09.1990 issued under Section 17(1) of the B.D.A.Act. This was foliowed by the final r1ot'iI"i(:at"ior.1 dated '$t).I.l995 iSSI.I€d tmder Section i9[1} of the said Act. Both

-6-.

WP 17292/2007 these notil'ieat:ions are produced along with the writ petition at AnneXu.1'eS--E 81 F. respectively. /--\.l'ter utilizing the land for formation of ring road and at the request of the petitioijiers. the BDA vide resolutiori dated 04.04.1997 resolved to ut'1L1iillZE3d portion of the lands in these two suwey ntir_ribers_l'l_tolV' the original owners vi:/... the petitioners' 'hF3'I'Ci'l1f1. _.ﬂLitim:'<t,11*e:t-Gl"--is V the Copy of the said resolution. belejeen «.l'rLs:;:i.;~..ytl1e resolution AnnexurewG. notil'ie'at--i.oi'i~.had been .isst,1e'é.l4t'o"'aequire' nearly 44 acres 19 gtintae of la-1"-.-dd.tor"forn':ation..o.i7'§oL1t.er ring road falling in the lltirtherlllei-tteristiohl Road 3"'-1 stage layout. and ot1t,'_oi' the of 18 acres 5 guntas had and khatheciars of several lands »t.'iiej"p.etitioners herein of Hebbal village resisted at at that they were left with very little hgolclings 'VE1'ﬂ(_'._lV that lsmall bits of land which was left out afterinKt:t.ill'f;:at.i:o;1_ for the ring road should be clewnotified/re~ al--lotted&' the only piece of lands left with them. Taking; note' oﬂiihe fact that the extent. involved were very small l the owners were a class belonging to agrieult:u1'al labourers d'ep'e--ncling mainly on the income obtained by sale of vegetables ll .gro_Cv1i on small bits of land. it was felt: that a total ex;t.ent of 2 26 guntas out of the :--;1cqt1i1'ed portion belonging to 17 wt 1 11.3.4/.4uu.r kh'athe.da1's iiutludirig the petitioners herein could be resallotted to the owners. it was also noticed that the khathedars had Voluntarily made available the extent of land required for outer ring road and due to their <:o--operation formation oi7..road~.Vwas eompleted and their main dernand was for deAnoti.E§iilea'ti£l)i".---._ I balance Iand which remained unmilized and"whiehmwas I:14()'1.= required for the outer ring road. In:-.this 7bael<"groulnd,pthe subject was placed before the a,t1thority7for"a deei'si'orr_to rljaaliotllr. the remaining extent of land the land"own§ei"s. On 04.04.1997, the aut,hor'i'tJt_/4_."appifove.dJ"the.Vb}*oposa1l to hand over the iand measuring 226 "a_e"res in :Various{_'sLri'vey numbers of I--lebbai villa Fe 1'e'ri*1a"rir3.i'ri<f latter 'fo1'n'i'atiorrofthe outer rin of road. . _ s e _ 5

4. It isnot. in portion of 2 guntas in each of the lands eortii?17_il€»ed";irr'E:3y.l"'Nos.80/1 and 80/2 came to be re itl'eQI1Veyed:_---arid the lp"e'tit.ioners were (tailed upon to pay the te=.wa.r't'lsl reveorweyanee by .a notice dated 27.11.1998 issueydllby Petitioners paid the amount towards re- leonveyanee;Charges in a sum of RS.40.452/-- on 03.03.2007 as evidenced by the chalian produced at Annexurevii. The BDA executed a sale" deed dated 27.03.2007 in favour of VE\/ItVe11I<at.a Swamy and MJ-Xshwath Narayan in respect of 2 1% we 17292/2007 in the notification as is clear iroin AnnexurewR. Final notifi(:at.ion under Section 28{4) was issued on 18.03.2006 acquiring these two lands. The i{arnatal<;'a Indt1st.ri'al--,TArea Development Board {he1'eina'fter referred to as il"V).I' short] purported to allot 4 guntas of land in V' 80/2 in favour of the BarlgalolﬁéWll\/l'&h'ai--i1aga}f£t'l<TifEl1iSp0iT¥ Corporation [hereinafter referred to for As'hot~'t}l per, the allotment. letter dated V. for oil passenger amenity centre. It*"'is'lL_"i--nl"-this ba(:kgii'ound. the petitioners have challenged this alloti'11ei'itlasLWell.

6. The eorit7e11ti}or1l_V is that. the 6"' respondelritlﬂhasi. bus depot for parking of buses in the adjoilniiig. question of taking over the petition._ers land for_setting"up passenger amenity centre does dnot. all, as itlisnot. at ease where the 6?" respondent. has 'stand in the adjoining land.

7. The fxcqtiisition Officer along with other authorities respo'n_dents 3 to 5 have filed statement of objections inter alia that the EDA re-conveyed the land by ___"t':%t;i,itii'ig the registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners WP 17292/2007

8. The most 1'n1poi'tant. aspect. in t.his case is that upon the final notification dated 18.01.1995 issued by the State GoVe1'nrnen.t acquiring the land for forniation of outer 1*i.eg road by the BDA. the land stood vested in the em. '*iii{¢'--,csr)A became the owner of the property and in fact. itlprocee-dedV_"£?ol"» form the outer ring road by eonvincing"i.hey land owi'1e'rsVth_a,t the tiny bits of lands left over after for'n1atio117_ol" i'ing'--if_oa.d wil'l_Tbe re.- transferred in their favour. 'it iI1."t'hI's' _baCl{'groui1d and appreciating the pathetic state_..oi?A"t.l1e.._Vpet.it.ion.ersVAr.'and other similarly placed owners ol""tiii'13,r, bitsﬁoif' la:/itls.i1J_ost of whom were agricultural labourers. the"B'DA":*esol'v_e(i t.oih_ancl over unutilized portions of land l.~';:_'[.{'_."l'}ﬁ"*. jo_1"igir1a!_«--oyw-ners as is evident from AnnexL1re~G.__. become the owner of the property, it e\fery"'righii*----tonegotiate with the land owners and pass" sucth iesyollution in favour of the land owners agreeing tio"facilii/ate' the'«._BI)A in formation of the outer ring road which was t'.he&1n'i.at1;.Ve1' .oi7.-t11'geI1t necessity. The BDA has acted on its promise to' 'the land owners by executing the registered sale it "~.d'e.s;d,s colie.-gftiing the value of the unutilized land and handing oyer'--.possessic)1'i of the same to the owners including the .pet_i_t.ioi1ei's herein. In such circuriistances, when these " --.«develop1nerits were taking place between the BDA and the land ti"

we 17292/2007 10

owners. it was not open for the State to issue one more notiileation proposing to acquire the land for the purpose of KIADB. The State Government has neither notified or consulted the BDA. nor cared to find out the developinents"lthat:';ha.ve taken place eulrninating in the promise made to the land"o\$v who voluntarily gave up the lands for'l'o1'-m'ati--on vol""1'ingroadlon V condition that they should be allowed to retain _l..li.1°:_ ijeihiétitlltng portion for their own use. The a_e't~Vi.on ollthe'State"Gove-rhnient' and the KIADB in acquiring questio.n Vleeeping the owners and the BDA i.'I:1"-v,(,11:«'1l.'>l::(3l7_vCllS1"€gEl1'd. to the agreement reached"betweenthe owners is unjust. illegal and issued under Section 28[l_} a1Ai(:llv.';'38_{V4«}.yslioyc-i,ng.as if they were t.he private lands owned by the of the petitioners though they had alrseadjy been aequire'ol lay the BDA is totally illegal. .9; 'V.,orrh§--."t'!argi1Amei1t.vHlladvarieed by the learned Counsel Sri aope.a1iI1g for the 6*" respondent. ~ Bl\/ITC stating thatlthe pet:_itji.--onei*s have no locus standi to challenge the l aequisiti"e.nl:'is miseoneeived. in as much as the lands belonged l to_th_ese' petitioners and were acquired for the BDA for fornlation road and the ring road was formed aftier renioving the WP 17292/2007

1. 1 resistance from t.he petitioners on the promise that remaining portion alter formation of road will be re~transfei'red to the petitioners. in Fact. BDA in order to keep up its promise executed the sale deeds in lavour of the petitioners. .lfle.nce, in my considered view, the impugned acquisition p'rove:eediijigs' and the consequential allotment orders made in ""l'avo:t"n7 lot" 6""

respondent are vitiated. i may also». add .l;1€1;fV.3""tlfi&1l:V'the *5ii." respondent has sufficient land for tt.sing~it:'as'es.a 'depot :a.nd<1i1*)r having access to the main road; i'CqtE'ir€111€i'1"t now plgeavdedll; is for establishing a iaasserigef'an}enityVac-entire. :';:_,/its rightly pointed out by the pe't~ttioi1_eiits,'A respondent has established a depot and 11o:i_."a'ibds" '"l'l"iei*e will be no passengers in :1 whie.h is meant only for parking the buses. Theijelore, 'e.stab"ii.sh':1.n5'a assen fer amenit ' centre in a L A V s 3 bus clepot a1)pea1fs"ve1*y' unusual and strange. At any rate, nothing :pi'c\re:1¢t.s the 6"' respondent to establish such an amen-ity' ee"nti*e :wi,t'liin the land which is available wherein the depot';-..__ is V_i3'e.iii~gA established. Looked from any angle. the i "".__i.fept1gned"acquisition proceedings cannot be sustained. VV.1'C')."-..}"f.'I"'6I1(.?f,'.. this writ. petition is allowed. The impugned V'"-.not._illcat.i(Jns issued by the State Government and the ' WP 17292/2007 , 12 (T()I1S€qL1€I'1'LiE-11 2i1I.10tn1€n.i. orders Inade in fe21voL1r of the 6"' I'€SpOI)dC11'1. are sei aside.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court