Karnataka High Court
Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 (1) AIR KAR R 613
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY 01? OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE: J _} THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIV. Writ Petition No.6676 of 2004 (LA-BEA; A "' ' BETWEEN: MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH W/O GIRISH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NOJ193/D, 121%-I CROSS ROAD . Arm MAIN, M C EX'FENSION*.. f WJAYANAGAR * 'I - ' BANGALORE «W 560 040 PE'I'ITIONER ' SE 9; 1cI:ishfiéf§ip3,_._A§j§.] REVENUE .UEPART'PAENT. A GOVT. SOT KAI?.N;A'1'AKA " M S BUILDINGS. I _ _ -- BANGALORE. j--- ._ 560 001" ~-- REP, BY ITS P'R1NC1EA'L« SECRETARY 1. .THE c'eM'M1SS1ONER' _; BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT ..... 13AN~::AL.ORE .- 'I'HE.S;>ECSIAL ADDITIONAL LAND '- ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT ' AUTHORITY 13A1:JGALORE RESPONDENTS [By Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, AGA for R1; Sri U Abdul Khader, Adv., for R2 & R3[ THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 22'? OF 'THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRLY. NOTIFICATION DT.8.4.2003 81 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE 2 DT.9.4.03 ISSUED BY THE COMMR. EDA. VIDE ANNK AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT.9.9.2003 & PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DT. 10.9.2003 ISSUED BY R1 VIDE ANNLAND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:~ ORDER
Writ petitioner who is saidpto be the and in possession and enjoyment of the Ij'eaiiiiig"'s_ite No.71, Mailathahalli Viiiege, -5Hob1--i.0 Bangalore North Taltik, has_...so~ught for "q1;1eshing of the preliminary notificatiiont-A and final notification tiated of which the petitioners-ijre1sfl_--.s;oi1ght::5_to_he acquired by the respondent "II3éin:g'aIore'.""I)e*g}e1opment Authority for the purpose of..d0eVeIIopinent:ef Sir M Visveshwaraiah Layout in V. '_ the "ha_s__prayed for the following reliefs:
"'a_ writ of certiorari or any other . 'Iiapp.ropiféa.te writ or direction as the case may be "I.i'f»S,CI air as the petitioners lands are concerned and be pleased to quash:
.. It The preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/A. U. V.A.L.A No. 79/ 03-04 dt;8/4/03 and published in the Gazette dt.9.4.03 82. issued by the Commissioner, BDA, Bangalore, which is marked as Armexu.re--K. [ii] [iii] [iv] 3 Final no ttjicatton bearing No.AE~ 7 49- B 'lore--LAQ-2003 dt. 9/ 9/ O3 and published in the Gazette dt.10.9.03 & issued by the 151 respondent, which ts.__ marked as Annexure-L. be pleased to issue the mandamus directing the respondents*e,& % their o_fficials from dgtspossessingvg 'the--_ petitioner from the p;'operty_ in quest1'on',*~' which is described ingflthe'cc».Schedu1€~..p hereunder.
be pleased to grai't.t.."such other greliefs in the circumstances... of__ the case, in] the interest ofj__us_tice;A equtity and law."
2. I have heard Sri counsei for the petitioner 'Abdulgithaderflearned counsel for the resporiderit ----. 'Ba t'1ga1ore._DeVe1opment Authority.
3. Sri _ learned counsel for the mosaic tiles and is also residing in the very premises.
-9.9 B-arigaliore Development Authority requests be cailed tomorrow though the report placed by the Very official of the BDA indicates that petitioner has continued to remain in A '~:9f"'pos's«ession and occupation of the building constructed on 9 the site and running a manufacturing unit to manufacture 4
4. if such is the factual position, the acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned has become stale and inconclusive, not havin.gVi»~.44 taken possession of the subject property, acquisition under the provisions of""th--e:f ,E3'an*ga1_or"e. Development Authority Act, I9-?'6 Automatically. the notifications. issued forl'lthe._'pi.i.rp3ose acquiring the lands vvill not_...einiire.._ypto .the.,benl3efit of the authority insofar as 0'-particuiigizydtlparcel of land is concerned as it.is._nov\j"coVnced_edV:that~ 'authority has not taken possessi.Qn..bt_1t' the petitioner to remain in posvs.essi'on V ; 0 h
5. It court to protect interest of the Ci'Ef;Zt:?.n:S__pA.ftj0II1ab€i1T1_g¢ subjected to harassment by the gwhirrisical exercise of power by public vvas definitely open to the authority to have saved thesituation even in terms of the order that had to be passed by this court earlier in writ petition l\§o.16133 of 2004 and connected matters disposed of on 6.6.2006 by offering the petitioner any alternative 5 solution, but the authority having kept quiet and non responsive to this writ petition as Well as travai1s»:.:':of_V_the petitioner and even having orders / observations / directions contained " ii of . - this court dated 6.6.2006 passed:';in of 2004 and connected matters, gross irresponsibility on .$E}q"e.:vresvpondent - authority, but also a of functioning as it is obvious that some the petitioner have been 'authority itself whereas many petitioner are driven to approach "'2vhieh again only demonstrates the erratVic--.._V%dmanner._ functioning of this authority, to 'A"be..._...<:reated under the statute for the ddevelopineiiti of~Banga1ore city and surrounding areas! 'ggnothin
6.} _f'What'f'ii_s.'happening in the name of development is cfhshort of destruction and haphazard manner of 4:; ~ ":d:'1'unet'ioning to the detriment of persons/citizens like the ' petitioner. §'\«~-
6
7. in the wake of the inaction on the part of the authority itself and which is now conceded in terms of the report placed before this court by the authori'tl'!y5"':".;tV is obvious that the situation is more akin to by the provisions of section 20__of the Act"
provision the authority if it is:;'=no'1i'_'_A within the area earmarked'l-féifr.deyelflpmféiigé'Alllittien "if authority is of the ,.9DinioAn«~l:llil1-at'--~._aslhla'resuilt of the development in the 'the land owner whose land is_1;eft_ gain, then the authority tax and it will be open take action to claim such betterment tax in a'&C'C(ll_j'daHC€ with law, after issue of _ necessary notice-.to_ the petitioner in this regard. V"eheard Sri Krishnappa, learned counsel for the'-~.peti'tion.erl and Sri Abdul Khader, learned counsel for "'thepresp.o'ndent -- authority on merits, it is found that the _ 'situation is one which is irredeeniable and irretrievable for ,.the authorities as the authority by its own inaction and letharginess has allowed the acquisition proceedings V 7 insofar as the petitioner is concerned to lapse. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings in terms of the prelirriinary notification under section 17 of the notification under section 19 of the quashed only insofar as it relates'-to of the petitioner in terms ofthe novel the court according . to 'the is in possession of site
9. It is alsoopen ensure that the structure, i.f"a'11yf:..o1fi_ tl1e.sit.e is brought in conformity with the bu;i_ldinglAbly.e--la'ws an'd__I'egulations which are in force in the Concc.rried lareafltt"is'rather surprising nay annoying that ;a~ public'-»a_uthorityT like the Bangalore Development 'Atithori'tj7 behaves in a most irresponsible manner to without responding to either the land own'ers'v--._'tra'<fails and even has the tenacity to ignore and Vbyptassveven court orders. as if this court had in a _ situation similar and in a cause brought before this court "earlier by a group of land owners, has already passed orders [passed in Writ petition No.16}33 of 2004 and 8 connected matters disposed of on 6.6.2006], it is the bounden duty of the public authority like the Development Authority to have implemented that order in letter and spirit andvrlflotd to to seek relief only before this court. :5 it it y 4
10. Though Sri Abdul Klaad-er, 1éar{1ca_ respondent -- authority tolhthelylnotice of the court that this Writ petition for default and had come be that in no way absolves the 'authoirity: frorn -its ginsensible, irresponsible conduet. on notice about this writ petitionilwayp "year 2004 and if the public auth~_o'rit.y is.' insensiti've and irresponsible to the notice Court to examine the grievance and for is sought for in the writ petition and as _ has""bee.n'e:etended by the very authority to other similarly .py.d:pAlao__ed lpersons. then it is nothing short of a most i';re's'ponsib1e conduct on the part of the public authority "Which is always expected to not only respond to the needs and travails of the citizens of the Country, but is also duty 9 bound to obey and respect court orders. The Bangalore Development Authority has miserably failed inw ineeting either of these requirements.
11. In the circumstances, the' notification dated 8.4.2003 :
writ petition] and the fina1"'-notification [Copy at Annexure~L to hereby quashed by issue of only to the extent of petit*ion£er's covered by these two notific:i;:tions.. and n4o't7.'jfor'n1lore:.
12. 'l'he--..:B'ang"a1ore Development Authority is mulctedtwlith cost of '$10,000/~ for the misery V. that'3'§.t __caused.._tQ. a person like the petitioner.
paid within four weeks by depositing the am"ount'before this court. Where after. the petitioner can it draw the amount through his counsel. If the respondent it "'faiIs'Alto deposit the cost, then the registry is directed to "issue a certificate in favour of the petitioner, to enable the 10 petitioner to realize the amount as though it is a decree of the civil court.
14. Writ petition is allowed. Rule made abso1ui_'e..e e ' AN/~