Karnataka High Court
Sri L A Krishanppa vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2013
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION Nos.28080-28081/2012 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri L.A.Krishnappa,
Age about 62 years,
S/o late Sri Anjanappa,
R/a No.4/159,
"Thande Thai Nilaya",
Laggere Main Road,
Peenya Post,
Bangalore - 560 058.
2. Sri L.K.Padmanab Kumar,
Age about 35 years,
S/o Sri L.A.Krishnappa,
R/a No.4/159,
"Thande Thai Nilaya",
Laggere Main Road,
Peenya Post,
Bangalore - 560 058. ...Petitioners
(By Sri G.Papi Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department,
M.S.Buildings,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
By its Secretary.
2
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
T.Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
Rep. by its Commissioner.
3. The Chief Town Planning Officer/Member,
Town Planning Department,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T.Chowdaiah Road,
Bangalore - 560 020. ... Respondents
(By Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, AGA for R-1,
Sri K.M.Prakash, Advocate for R-2 and R-3)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for the concerned
records and issue appropriate writ. Quash the preliminary
notification dated 30.12.2008, issued under Section 17(1) and
(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 in so far
as the schedule properties are concerned vide Annexure-H
issued by the R-2 and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have called into question the preliminary notification, dated 30.12.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 insofar as the lands pertain to the petitioners.
2. Sri G.Papi Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the preliminary notification is issued about 4½ years ago, there has been no progress whatsoever in the 3 matter of implementing the scheme. He submits that just because no limitation is prescribed for issuing the final notification from the date of issuing the preliminary notification, it does not mean that the authorities can issue the final notification as and when they want. The power, if available to the authorities, has to be exercised within the reasonable time, so submits Sri Papi Reddy. He submits that the objections filed by the petitioners to the preliminary notification have not been considered. He complains that the petitioners are not being permitted to put to use their converted land. He submits that their representation, dated 29.1.2009 (Annexure-J) in this regard has also remained unconsidered.
3. Sri K.M.Prakash, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the delay in issuing the final notification is not intentional. He submits that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed the affidavit accounting for the delay in completing the acquisition proceedings. He submits that the determination of the market value of the land acquired for the formation of Kempegowda layout is by taking into consideration the market value as on the date of passing the award. He 4 submits that all the procedural requirements would be observed in the ongoing acquisition process.
4. Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the issuance of the preliminary notification does not give any firm cause of action to any party. It is only in the form of proposal or intentment.
5. I see considerable force in the submission of Sri Papi Reddy that even if a statute does not prescribe any period of limitation to exercise the power, it has to be exercised within the reasonable time. If the authorities are required for this proposition, they are found in:
i) AIR 1969 SC 1297 - State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and others.
ii) (2007) 8 SCC 705 - Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd. and others.
iii) (2007) 5 SCC 211 - Pune Municipal Corporation. v.
State of Maharashtra and others.
iv) (2010) 8 SCC 467 - Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport and others.
5
v) (1994) 1 SCC 44 - Ram Chand and others v. Union of Indian and others.
vi) (2004) 8 SCC 340 - Situ Sahu and others v. State of Jharkhand and others.
vii) (2008) 14 SCC 774 - Fulchand Munda v. State of Bihar and others.
viii) (2003) 7 SCC 667 - Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K.Suresh Reddy and others.
ix) (2000) 5 SCC 141 - Jai Mangal Oraon v. Mira Nayak and others.
x) (1997) 6 SCC 71 - Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim.
6. However, on the ground of the final notification not being issued within the reasonable time of the issuance of the preliminary notification, I do not propose to allow these petitions. It is quite possible that the respondents may not issue the final notification at all. If, as and when the final notification is issued, the petitioners would get a firm cause of action. All the issues which are raised in these petitions can be considered, if, as and when the final notification is issued and the petitioners challenges the same.
6
7. With theses observations, these petitions are rejected. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD