Smt Yellamma vs State Of Karnataka Dept Of Housing And ... on 30 August, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Yellamma vs State Of Karnataka Dept Of Housing And ... on 30 August, 2010

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

§i

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE

DATED THIS THE 30*" DAY or AUGUST 

8E!'-'ORE :

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE H.N.NAGAMeH}§N 'ﬁgs,

wnrr ¥'ETITIQN No.38,=_'aod6'(«,:,_A¢3bAj'--    

cgw. WRIT PETITION bNp.3341§Z'2oos ,(.,'LA-}3:3A")~:."'*~~_'"

Writ Petition No.38/;00§__:_
Between : 

1. Smt. Yeilamma, H
W/o Late Rarrjai.ah,e:;.'

Si nce de_ceaVS'e'AdW',..  "  h

  
Aged Iaboutv-55'yearS,
 2 Late Rarﬁaia__.h,.eC.

  A A r~7--V..SAee'r:a,i'aAfi' ---.
 . "3/0 Lafte Ramvaéah C.
'Aged a'ta*Q'ete:'65 years,

 R,K.ed'anda
--- .. VS/0 Late Ramaiah C.
 _ Aged about 59 years,

 Al! are R/at No.17,
7 Shampur viilage,

,.

,-.1

/'



Ix.)

Arabic College Post, '
Bangalore. .. Petitioneiﬁ'-..g

( By Sri G.Gangi Reddy, Advocate)

And 2

1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Housing
& Urban Development,
M.S.Bui|ding,
Banga|ore--56O 001,
Rep.by its Secretary: 

2. Bangalore Development' 2
Authority,   '
T.Chowdaiah~Roa.d,  _,    
Bangalore:36051020,     
Rep.by its Com"rni3s_sio'nje_r.'~.  " _  

3. AddEti'onal_ul;jand':iiixcin iiisitzora  
Offi<L:er,_ .    - '
T.Cho_wdaiah_ Road,'   A

Bangalore DevelopVn1,eizt:Aiithority,
Bangalor'e.--560_O.20;»,_  .. Respondents

i{.S.hllllallvi-!<-arjunaiah, HCGP for R--1, ' and _Sri "r<:,§(rishna, Advocate for R-2 8: 3 ) Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of 'x__the Co~nst;i_tution of India praying to quash Annexures--A and B lljdatie-rjé 22.11.2005.

§____j-q...

K [J WRLT PET;_T__;ON No.8818[2008 :

Between :

1. Venkatappa Since deceased, by LRs:

1(a) S:-inivasa S/o Venkatappa Aged about 40 years, Residing at No.107, Near NTM School, Hebba\;.g,,,,,,,,, Banga|ore--24.

2. Smt.Gangamma W/o Late Ramu @ Ra'rhapp'a.,;* E Aged about 60 years,.. '

3. Smt.Jayam_ma I "

D/o Late Aged '

4. S/ogLa te _ R'a.*.nVu,__@, Ra,r_ﬁ'a,,ppa _' Agedabout 39.years,

5. Lokeshue-..,%M - V' S/;o~Late Ra-mVu"@ Ramappa __about 36 years,

6...V'\;'enka'tesh"'"' --- . -S/o 'Late @ Ramappa ' Aged abo'_=qtA1'33 years, St;nt.V'NagVavenE V " .. VD/o Late Ramy @ Ramappa, _ Aged about 30 years,

8.} Piffappa 7 S/o Muninarayanappa f\.

:~--.A /"

Aged about 40 years,

9. Murthy, S/0 Munénarayanappa Aged about 36 years,

10. Smt.Gowramma, D/o Muninarayanappa Aged about 30 years,

11. L.Krishnappa S/o Lakshmaiah Aged about 58 years,

12. Smt.Jayamma D/0 Lakshmaiah Aged aboutA52 yea'r,S,_l_'--.. A

13. L.Srinivasa"é'}1j:~'h' Since deceased',*_V__b'y«.I;5.;?,is'~:.. _ ' 1 3(a) mt. r :=iya't:+,n~aj+r;n_1a,.,:'' * W/0 Late !-,Srian,iya_s,A'~-.._ Aged ,abovut'48" ye.ar's..

13(:p,;:j' Manju @ -A!9_1V'avr'ajuri1ath _ - Late L.Sr':"a'*ui'rv'as, Aged .EiJb'OVUt 30 years, %13(*T¢r),«x s';\;ie,n11kt§:esh, ' VS/Q .L'a§_eL.SrEnivas, Ag--.ed'about 27 years, .,i%y:3(:1) vajra, 'S/o Late L.Srini\/as, Agedabout 24 years, A "All are residing at X No.37, Shampura Main Road Laxmaiah Layout, K.G.Hai|i Bangalore-56O 045.

14. Smt.I-iemavathi, W/o Kempanna, Aged about 41 years,

15.Naveen Kumar, S/o Late Kempanna Aged about 21 years,

16.Smt.Asha . .

D/o Late Kempanna"» __ Aged about 19 years, _ Nos.1 to 12van_d1'14 1:0 1,6...are«.resi'd.ing,.fat Shampura2,Ii|!ajg_e~, » _ Arabic C€o|!e_g'e,PVo's1:,. V Banga%l_ore~e.5E€}A:.;Q45,' " .. Petitioners ( By-,_Sri._ H Murthy, Advocate ) And :

* Karna'tai<--a--,« "

' «Departmentof Housing & 'Urbani Deyeiopment, A ._ M'_.S.Bui'§d_inag,"

Ba'ngaio'reI-_ 5'60 00 1, R"e;3.b«_y its'''VSecretary.

'4 ,B_ang'a!:ore Development " .,Au"t_hority, T.C'howdaiah Road, Bangalore-560 020.

" Rep.by its Commissioner.

2&1 J. 6

3. Additional Land Acquisition Officer, T.Chowdaiah Road, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore--560 020. .. Respon.d~e_n't.s'~».Vv (By Sri K.S.Ma||ikarjunaiah, HCGP for R--1, -- and M/s.S.Rangaswamy & Assts. for _ ' This Writ Petition is filed under"Articies51L22'6 "&':2'27"of. the Constitution of India pra\/i_n"g, to quash. the a«wa--rds*'under' certified copy of the Annexuresias indic;a~ted~in Annexures--B and 'C' dated 22.11.2005 pas_s.ed*»by'n.the respoyndvents issued by the respondent No.3'__."~._ 'A .. . These Writ Petitions iconiiiinigjfion"fori~'.ljivea~ring this day, the Court made the4_fo?l__owing ' . ' I .. InAW_r'i'tPetiiton,'A'ii»o;3:8'/'2'006, petitioners have prayed for a writ. in iii"!-E-'3" "riatu"re of certiorari to quash Annexures-'A' 0 f B7aii:j; iniwrit Petition No.8818/2008 to quash Annexures- 22.11.2005 determining the compensation paya_b|eV___vto petitioners in respect of the lands acquired.

2. 'git is not in dispute that the land in Survey No.40/5 A 5i."andi"S_.urvey No.40/6, situated at Nagawar village, Bangalore am...

North Taiuk, originaiiy beiongs to the petitioners. The respondent--E5angaiore Development Authority (BDA) issued a preiiminary notification on 29.5.1978 proposing to acquire the lands in question. On 28.2.1985, a finai riotifi_:ca_tion came to be issued. During the interregnum pE'ii:;i.i9Ci'>f§1§'i9tW-53.é'i'1V the preiiminary notification in thef)/e_ar notification in the year 1986, v'».the:"'ii.irban_"-~'LandVf'Ceiii.i_ng authorities initiated proceediings__agai'n.st theii',p'etitione.;95 on 7.5.1984 issued notifi_cati:on.._V_ spec-iffy_i_ngvV.% that the petitioners are owningVg"'~tt'ieA of ceiiing iimit. Thereafter, the i'es;>oncientsj('possession of the iands petitioners on 23.1.1986 under the Urba'n"ii.and 'Ceiiing .an'd'R.'egu|ation Act, 1976 (hereinafter refe"ri_;_'edii.to Act' for short). The petitioners thevnotification issued under Section 10(3) of ULC Karnataka Appeilate Tribunai in Appeal . No.5'/199:7.'v""'The Appeiiate Triiounai aliowed the appeai and Nu7.'Au":.:set.iia_sici'ethe notification issued under Section 10(3) of ULC A-ct'a'nd deciared that the petitioners are not owning the ianci A '''in excess of the ceiiing iimits specified under the ULC Act. ,--..

/..

This order of Karnataka Appeilate Tribunal in Appeai No.5/1997 had become finai.

3. On the strength of order of KAT in appeal No.5/1997, the petitioners requested the respondents to deiiver back the possession of lands in questionf'«'.s.inee:_.t_he lands are developed and aliotted to Transmission Corporation Limited,:=they..refu'sed._to- d'e'iivv__er.e1the A possession. Aggrieved by this, the"r.petition.e'rsVVA:

this Court in Writ Petition No.4'V7'7.x99,{V2OO"1'.' fthle respondent- BDA filed a memo stati'ﬁg_ that;t.he.y-twofold pass an award under §;a'n'd andhithat the compensation would be paidV"'to"t.he peta'ti1ohier.s';r-Recordmg the memo filed by the respoVndentf-B|DV_A,.Vt§:is7Cso'u"rt vide its order dated 19.8.2005 "'«.._disp:o:se§1.e,:ofi.thexW'r'it""Petition E\io.47799/2001, directing the "pass an award within a time frame. After disposai Petition No.47799/2001, the petitioners filed %f'-..«._"r..,ciaim 'apfpiications and the Land Acquisition Officer issued 'T"rrot>i<":'e«s and after hearing some of the petitioners, passed the irtipugned award at Annexures~'A' and 'B' in Writ Petition 2--.., e-J ﬂu No.38/2006 and Annexures--'B' and 'C' in Writ Petition No.8818_/2008. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned awards are before this Court in t.hes;e..V_writ petitions.

4. Heard the arguments of ,b'oth"s.ide.s a.;n'diV'p.e_rVuse«d the 0 T entire material.

5. Sri G.Gangi Reddv,'--I.,earned."cou'nse:iv_.aippveariijng for the petitioners first|y.conte.n'dea_:" that, vviitiiioutj providing opportunity to the petit4ion_e'rs',r-thé rt-iSV:i)ii:..n'd~ents have passed the impugned_.va.vv;ai<ds ai'nd':th.i2r'efo.%'e,_Vtiiaeyvvivare iiable to be set aside. __d-eel'ine--«»..t'ow. ~ti-ngis contention of the learned counsel féorithe p'eti'tione'rs.'V. It is seen' from the record that afte»r_§di'sposal oi?._V\/ii/rit Petition No.4"/799/2001, the petitioners ciai.rn.V:ravpplications on 9.9.2005 before the Land Acqiupipsiti'oin~v_..v._'Otf'i'cer. The Land Acquisition Officer served V _ notiice tizéi petitioners to appear before him on 3.10.2005.

,::PetiitionVé'r Nos.2 and 3 appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and requested him to pass an award at the rate of '"R"s.3 crores per acre. This undisputed material on record w / 10 would manifestly make it clear that petitioners had opportunity before the Land Acquisition Officer.

6. Secondiy, it is contended that the revspo..nd.ents ought to have awarded the compensation o..o;Tth"e.'fisnfaf-rlcety vaiue in the year 2005, when th.i_s"VC'ourt--"d'i'spofse'd: of Petition No.47799/2001 or in theV'»i:4aIteirent§ti§ie_; ieeseseem the date of dispossession in "the year'1986:."AAv.ai._i.a.cVVprder consider this Contention ofi-iieai<.nved""co.uVnsei? for the petitioners, it is necessary'--.gtd.»';e$&trVacti--.,the memo dated 19.8.2001 filed gb-y_ the,'resp:ond'er'it5t'$.f3A;:l3.vefore this Court in Writ Peti't'i"one..Nio.4§?§'99}2.001 same reads as under :

resgporidetit, BDA submits that in View ..«}goVfi*~the facts: and circumstances of the above the respondent, Bangalore Deveiopment A'V'eA:utho§iity"decided to pass award in respect of V'"'étand'.V~"cﬁi'ri:5'duestion with interest at the present ra*te.'"Copy of the letter dated 18.8.2005 issued byfthe Additionai Land Acquisition Officer of if .r;E3anga|ore Development Authority in this regard 11 is enclosed herein for the kind perusal of this Hon'bie Court in the above case."

With this memo, the respondent~BDA prodt:___ced a communication received by the advocate from the 18.8.2005 and the same reads as under: " it u' " aoazsam ease" @239 Vzaajigté r%.OaoTi)Cli)§ V/s smog oézgcjtéiggioi aio. 40/5, 40/55 it i M ii i % wéfws "&*mao_d 17.5'}20,05..5§ ' .'rdowo63r%cdo§, zﬁorist/ado J§5°c'§.@f'ZC)%9, ioariaiad riaaiJz:'> ;a"o:'~': 40/ad zsaaomja o"€3E.;?r'§3it'"&€5C5 iiiii '$03 2ai::éa3.c'§ asixgszicro ziaasdci aoajgéaifmpe 567 coooamaaé; 84, 28.2.85 C5051) eaoéab eaéjizuazéré' .. ﬁgietﬁeaciaﬂcﬁ'.

/'\ ii...

11. 13 Acquisition Act. Before passing an award, a notice shall be issued to the petitioners Calling upon them to file their statements in order to claim compensation. If the award passed by the Bangalore Development Authority is not satisﬁed by the petitioners, they are entitled to reference under Section 18 of the";---- Acquisition Act. Petitioners are also.-erit.iti'ed"'to'--_ submit their claim petition T from today. A direction is a'ls2o>:'-issueo"'V_:_'r.Q'~.. Bangalore Development. LA~uthori'ty__ to 1 an award within two weeks date filing of the claim petition 'fp'y. the"peiirioneisf%"

8:'.--__ As and the communication piaced before this Court . Petition |\£o.47799/2001, the respogndeints ag'i'e_edV'to pass an award as per the provisions of _t.an_t£t;AcoA'uisition Act and to pay current interest from the Al:cC'ordingEy, in terms of memo, the impugned A _ awards aVte'vp':assed. Since the petitioners have accepted this .:me.nno, they are now not ehtitied to contend that they are to .' bevicolmpensated by taking into consideration the market I\/ 13 I4 value in the Yhar 2605 or in the year 1986. Therefore, the writ petitions are iiable to be rejected.

9. It is not in dispute that in the year_4..1,V'V,'-'i'Z.7;S,..V_ the preliminary notification came to be issued acquire the lands in question and other la--i"1ds-.:if...1ﬁ*~.j;h.,3 .y._:éa1«.fu*~--.AV 1985, the final notification is issued. :1-The 4Supprr'e'm'e"VCo'u~iét_cin the case of CHANDRA BANS? s.;NGH'-&"'orH£ks1 veg;-..'sr'.air:;-ft» or-' BIHAR & OTHERS (AIR 1__§8{1_ s_C 1ir'6;r:),; held that the compensation is to be tlt2i_evv'mvaLi'~l<.:e't.3/alue prevalent on the date of preliminary.-not.ifiVcatito'n_ a«ndVp:no't".from the date of actual :'ta%l¥{i'n'g.:':iv-of '""'i'n"the impugned award, the compensation' is,by taking into consideration the market value of the p'iiop'erty that was prevailing in the year "'«..19}"S"':'vt<i_her.~.i_prelim'i'ri'a'ry notification was issued. Therefore, __tn'e_"pet'i't.ionersfare not entitled for compensation on the market prevailing' in the year 1986 when the '*.,posseS3io'in was taken or in the year 2005 when this Court igiestpltsigaed of Writ Petition No.47799/2001. /\.

fw E4

10. Lastly it is contended that the respondents though issued preiiminary notification in the year 1978, they have taken possession of the iands in question from the petitioners under the ULC Act. Therefore, it is contend.e.d4'_A» respondents have to pay compensation t_o__th~.e. p¢tiiti¢net+; under the provisions of ULC is prevailing on the date of taking possession in,'.t.hev"yeari*:i986;cg Even if proceedings are not iniitiiated und'e~r_tiieV-ZULC Act, then the respondents are en:ti~tii_ed _«tso"'V_pr-ojgeiéd.gtundevristthye provision of Land Acquisition Act. In 't'he__'petitioners are to be compensated":'«;gn'derithe provivs:ions~.o_f.Vfthe Land Acquisition Act alone -'provisions of ULC Act. The proceedings Act will not nuilify the proceedings ini't~iate'd under the Land Acquisition Act in the .pThgerefore, the contention of the petitioners that th_e'y.___are:""',gntiVt;3'e'd for compensation on the market value is _ prevaiiiri..g'ir'i"'the year 1986 when possession of the lands was ,"tak.e_n over, cannot be accepted. :~.?~ / 15 For the reasons stated above, I find no justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned awards. However, petitioners are entitled to seek reference under Secti_:o-n'_i'i._8 of the Land Acquisition act if they are not compensation awarded under thejm_pugn'ed"*a:w3rds;'. right of seeking reference is a|sov';reser'ved«'=by~this''VCoLiitjto . the petitioners while 'd_ispVosin"g~. of Iietition' NO.47799/2001.

Accordingly, the twist}; [ pe--titi%o'ijs" "are o:he.areby dismissed. ._}__n,fbk/ ~a I6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court