Karnataka High Court
S Chandrashekarachar vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 35344 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 35344 OF 2017 (ULC)
BETWEEN:
1. S CHANDRASHEKARACHAR
S/O LATE SHANKARACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR's
1a) C. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARACHAR.S
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
1b) SRIDHAR.C
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARACHAR.S
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
1c) BHAGYAJYOTHI
D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARACHAR.S
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
by POORNIMA
SHIVANNA 1d) GIRISH C
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARACHAR.S
Location: AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
HIGH COURT
OF ALL ARE R/AT NO.43, RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 077
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 20.3.2018)
2. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE SHANKARACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE,
DR SHIVARAM KARANTH NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 077
-2-
WP No. 35344 of 2017
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M KRISHNAPPA .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 020
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVANA,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. G.M. CHANDRAHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS FROM THE R-2 BDA PERTAINING TO THE PROCEEDINGS
OF LAND ACQUISITION IN CASE NO.R173/2003-04 IN RESPECT OF
SY.NO.91 OF RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALORE(EAST) AT ANNEX-G AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 35344 of 2017
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Call for the entire records from the 2nd Respondent BDA pertaining to the proceedings of Land Acquisition in Case No. R173/2003-04 in respect of Sy.No.91 of Rachenahalli Village, KR Puram Hobli, Bangalore (East) at Annexure-G;
b. Issue a writ of Mandamus in the nature of direction to the Respondents to grant developed residental sital area in Arkavathi Layout to an extent of 9583 sq. ft per acre for 4 acres 14 guntas of land in respect of Sy.No.91 of Rachenahalli Village, KR Puram Hobli, Bangalore (East) in accordance with Government Order bearing No.NA.AA EE 170 BEM SWA 2011, dated 18.3.2011 (Annexure-N) to the petitioners;
c. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the impugned order dated 25.2.1991 bearing case No. ULC(6)292/85-86 in respect of Sy.No.91 of Rachenahalli Village, KR Puram Hobli, Bangalore (East) (Annexure-C) issued by the Respondent No.3 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto a abated under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
d. Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of equity and justice.
2. By order dated 25.01.2023, the learned AGA was directed to obtain instructions as regards possession of the land being taken from the petitioner. -4- WP No. 35344 of 2017
3. In pursuance thereof, the learned AGA has secured the records today and submits that there is no particular document which evidences the physical possession having been taken from the petitioner in terms of Section 10 (5) and 10 (6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
4. The land being acquired on behalf of BDA for the purpose of formation of Arkavathy Layout, the land is now in the possession of BDA as regards which compensation is liable to be paid.
5. Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for BDA submits that upon possession being taken over, sites having been formed, allotment made and the allottees have been put in possession thereafter.
6. Be that as it may, the issue in the present matter is as regards the applicability of the Urban Land Ceiling Act insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The land though in excess not having been taken possession -5- WP No. 35344 of 2017 of in terms Section 10 (5) and 10 (6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the repeal of the said Act comes into play and would enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Such being the case, it cannot be said that the land is a government land as per the notification of acquisition issued in respect thereof.
7. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation is liable to be paid. BDA is directed to make payment of necessary compensation to the petitioner in terms of the award dated 01.07.2004. At this stage Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there are also rival claims. If that be so, necessary procedure under Land Acquisition Act in relation thereto would have to be followed and upon determination of the rights of the parties, compensation would have to be paid to the succeeding party.
-6-WP No. 35344 of 2017
8. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER
a) The Writ Petition is allowed.
b) The order dated 25.02.1991 bearing Case No.ULC (6) 292/85-86 in respect of Sy.No.91 of Rachenahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore is hereby quashed. All further proceedings are hereby quashed. Any action taken in pursuance of said order dated 25.02.1991 including entries made in the revenue records is set aside.
c) Necessary enquiry to be carried out under Section 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter compensation to be paid to the successful party.
d) Needless to say that if succeeding party were to seek for developed land in terms of 60 x 40 Scheme of the BDA, he would be so entitled.
Sd/-
JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 111