Karnataka High Court
M.V. Lalithammanni vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.11155 OF 2016 (LA-UDA)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.334 OF 2016
IN WP NO.11155 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
LATE M.C. LEELA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1(a). SHRI. SUNIL URS
S/O LATE B.C. MALARAGE URS
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
OCCUPATION PRIVATE SERVICE
RESIDING AT NO.3 LEELA
5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD
NEAR JAYAMAHAL PARK
JAYAMAHAL EXTENTION
BENSON TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 046.
1(b). SHRI. ANIL URS
S/O LATE B.C. MALARAJE URS
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
OCCUPATION
RESIDING AT NO.45/6
LEELADRI MAHAL APARTMENTS
C-409, NANDI DURGA ROAD
NEAR SHARDA MATT
JAYAMAHAL EXTENTION
BENGALURU NORTH, BENSON TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 046.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
MYSURU - 570 009.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MYSURU - 570 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.Ka.Bhu.SWA- Pra.Bhu.Swa.169/91-92 PUBLISHED ON 30.01.1992 (ANNEXURE-G) AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.:Na.A.E.26.MIB.98 DATED 09.3.1998 (ANNEXURE-H) INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO LANDS IN QUESRION ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.334 OF 2016 BETWEEN
1. M.V. LALITHAMMANNI SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1(a). SHRI. VINOO URS S/O LATE B.P. MALLARAGE URS 3 AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.921 KANTHRAJ URS ROAD LAKSHMIPURA MYSURU - 570 004.
1(b). SHRI. MANOO URS S/O LATE B.P. MALLARAJE URS AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS BOTH PETITIONERS 1(a) & 1(b) ARE RESIDING AT NO.921 KANTHRAJ URS ROAD LAKSHMIPURA MYSURU - 570 004.
2. SUSHEELAMMANNI SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
2(a). SHRI. M.K. SUMANTH URS S/O LATE SHRI KRISHNE URS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE 2(b). SHRI. M.K. JAYANTH URS S/O LATE SHRI KRISHNE URS AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE BOTH R2(a) & R2(b) ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.301 SOUMYA APARTMENTS NO.84, 4TH MAIN MALLAESHWARAM BENGALURU -560 003.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) 4 AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER MYSURU - 570 009.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSURU - 570 009.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.Ka.Bhu.SWA- Pra.Bhu.Swa.169/91-92 PUBLISHED ON 30.01.1992 (ANNEXURE-C) AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.:Na.A.E.26.MIB.98 DATED 09.03.1998 (ANNEXURE-D) INSOFAR RELATES TO LANDS IN QUESTION ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH 5 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) In these writ petitions, the petitioners are assailing the Preliminary Notification dated 30.01.1992 and Final Notification dated 09.03.1998 issued by the respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short, MUDA) in respect of the land in question inter- alia sought for declaration that the acquisition of land in question has become lapsed, and further sought for alternative prayer to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to allot 50% of developed land (both residential and commercial) in the sites formed / developed in the land of the petitioners.
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the case as averred in the writ petitions are that, the petitioners claim to be the owners of the subject land and are in possession of the land in question. Petitioners have made plantation of Arecanut, coconut trees and fully 6 grown grass field for dairy forming. The land in question comes within the reserved area/green belt, which is reserved for agriculture purpose only and as such, challenged the acquisition proceedings.
3. It is stated in the writ petitions that, the respondent-authorities have issued Preliminary Notification dated 30.01.1992 under Section 17(1) of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') proposed to acquire several lands including the land belonging to the petitioners herein for the purpose of formation of Nachanahalli III Stage Extension at Mysore. The respondent-authorities have issued Final Notification dated 09.03.1998 under Section 19(1) and (2) of the Act. It is stated in the writ petitions that, the petitioners have challenged the aforementioned notifications in W.P.No.30059-61 of 2000 connected with W.P.No.14086 of 2001 before this court on the ground that the acquisition proceedings have been 7 initiated by the respondent-authorities without prior approval of the State Government as required under Section 15(b) of the Act and this Court, by order dated 18.02.2003 dismissed the writ petitions. It is further stated in the writ petitions that, though the subject land sought to be acquired by the respondent- authorities for the purpose of public utility, however, neither possession of the land in question has been taken nor compensation is paid to the petitioners and further it is contended that, the respondent-authorities have not formed layouts as per the notifications referred to above including in schedule lands. It is also stated in the writ petitions that, the petitioners have approached the respondent-authorities to furnish the Approved Development Plan and the respondents issued Endorsement dated 07.10.2015 stating that, there is no sanctioned plan in respect of the subject land. It is also contended by the petitioners that, the possession certificates produced at Annexure-G series 8 by the respondent-MUDA in W.P.No.334 of 2016 are fake and not signed by any witness and no possession of the land in question has been taken by the respondent-authorities and accordingly, presented these writ petitions, challenging acquisition proceedings on the ground that acquisition proceedings has lapsed on account of not taking possession of the land in question. The petitioners have also sought for alternative prayer that, in the event, this Court declined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings, in such an event, the respondent-authorities be directed to allot developed area in the ratio of 50:50 in terms of the Resolution dated 04.06.2022 issued by the respondent- MUDA, under similar circumstances and as such, filed these writ petitions.
4. I have heard Sri. G.A. Srikante Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. T.P. 9 Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
5. Sri. G.A. Srikante Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised following two principal submissions; (i) The land in question is not vested with the respondent-State from 09.03.1998 till the date of filing of the petition and possession of the land in question has not been taken by the respondent- MUDA and accordingly acquisition proceedings become lapsed. (ii) Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners in so far as challenging acquisition proceedings, it is contended that, the petitioners are ready to deliver/ surrender possession of the land to the respondent-MUDA provided that the respondent- MUDA assures the petitioners to give developed land in lieu of compensation in the ratio of 50:50 as in identical circumstances the respondent- MUDA, has taken decision in the matter.
10
6. Sri. G A Srikante Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that, though the land in question has been acquired as per the impugned notifications, the possession of the land in question is with the petitioners, wherein, Arecanut, coconut trees and grass field for dairy forming is situate in the land in question and accordingly, submitted that, as the respondent-MUDA has not implemented the Scheme substantially and as such, sought for quashing the impugned notifications in respect of the land in question. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to the possession certificates produced at Annexure-G series by the respondent-MUDA in W.P.Nos.334-35 of 2016 that the respondent-MUDA has created the documents of taking possession and the said Annexure-G series is self explanatory as, no witness has signed the documents to endorse the fact of taking possession of the land in question by the respondent-MUDA and 11 therefore, he contended that, the respondent- authorities have abandoned the scheme insofar as land in question is concerned. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court on the ground that the acquisition proceedings are incomplete and at no point of time, the land is vested with the State and therefore, places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Meenakshi Thimmaiah and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in ILR 2010 KAR 62 and argued that, the land in question is not vested with the State Government for more than 26 years and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahallad Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 386, and invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 11 of the judgment and contended 12 that, the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banda Development Authority vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 and contended that, the procedure contemplated with regard to taking possession has not been followed by the respondent- MUDA and accordingly, sought for quashing of the impugned notifications. Referring to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in SLAO and Others vs. K.B. Lingaraju and Others in W.A.No.6819 of 2017, disposed of on 28.09.2022 it is argued by Sri. G.A.Srikante gowda that, the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed for not taking possession of the land in question.
8. Nextly, it is contended by Sri. G.A. Srikante Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, in the event of this court comes to the conclusion 13 that, the impugned notifications cannot be quashed at this length of time, under such circumstances, placing reliance on the Resolution dated 04.06.2022, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, in respect of land bearing Sy No.108, measuring 03 acres, 14 guntas acquired in the very same layout, wherein the respondent-MUDA had taken decision to allot developed land to an extent of 50:50 to the farmers in lieu of the compensation and therefore, same benefit be extended to the petitioners in the present petitions. In this regard, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites in Lieu of Compensation for the Land Acquired) Amendment Rules, 2015 and submitted that, the land owners/farmers are entitled for developed sites and therefore, he sought for necessary orders be passed accordingly. It is the categorical submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, 14 seeking developed sites in the ratio of 50:50 is without prejudice to challenging made to the acquisition proceedings.
9. Per contra, Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3- MUDA submitted that, the petitioners have challenged the impugned acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.30059-61 of 2000 and connected writ petitions and the said writ petitions came to be dismissed by this Court on 18.02.2003 (Annexure-R1) and thereafter, the petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in W.A.No.3779 of 2003 (Annexure-R2) and the said appeal came to be dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 12.04.2010 and after lapse of six years, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions, urging the same grounds and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
15
10. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MUDA that, the possession of the land in question has been taken and identification to distribute to sites has been made as per the internal correspondence, by letter dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-R18 in W.P.No.11155 of 2016) and therefore, contended that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 by referring to Award dated 18.08.1999 (Annexure-R3) that the Award is passed and thereafter, compensation is deposited on 15.05.2002 (Annexures-R4 to R11) and as such he submitted that, at this juncture, petitioners cannot seek for quashing of the impugned notifications. He also submitted that the notification was published in the Official Gazette on 20.09.2001 (Annexure-R12 in W.P.No.11155 of 2016) under Section 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, evidencing of taking possession 16 of the land in question and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
11. In order to buttress his arguments learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that, this Court should keep larger interest of the public while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and therefore, referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (1997) 1 SCC
134. It is also contended by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the writ petitions be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. To support this contention, he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another vs. Shah Hyder Beig and Others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 48. By referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishnamurthy vs. Bangalore Development 17 Authority reported in ILR 1996 KAR 1258, learned counsel submitted that, the Scheme will not lapse for having not taken possession for few lands and if the Scheme is implemented substantially that itself is sufficient for upholding the acquisition proceedings and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 by referring to the judgment of this court in the case of Mysore Urban Development Authority and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.A.No.440 of 2008 disposed of on 30.10.2008, wherein, the same notification is upheld by this Court holding that, when ones the Land Acquisition Officer appointed by the MUDA, has been authorized for the purpose of acquisition, no separate authorization is necessary for taking possession of the land pursuant to the Final Notification. Accordingly, he sought to justify the 18 impugned notifications issued by the respondent- authorities.
12. Insofar as alternative prayer sought for by the petitioners is concerned, Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 contended that, it is open for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take decision in the matter and as the respondent-authorities have already taken possession of the land in question and therefore, no interference is called for in these writ petitions.
13. Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State has argued on the similar lines as that of learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
14. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the respondent-authorities have passed Preliminary Notification dated 30.01.1992 and sought 19 to acquire several lands including the land belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of formation of Nachanahalli III Stage Extension, under Section 17(1) of the Act, followed by issuance of Final Notification dated 09.03.1998 under Section 19(1) of the Act. The controversy is that as respondents contended that the possession of the land in question has been taken and the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is issued, no interference is called for in this petitions. Perusal of the writ papers would indicate that, the possession certificates issued by the respondent-MUDA would indicate that, the Revenue Inspector of respondent-MUDA had taken possession of the land in question and it is evident from Annexure-G series in W.P.No.334-335 of 2016 that, the possession certificate is in cyclostyle/ printed form stating that, the possession taken on 08.12.2000.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is justified in arguing that no witness nor any person 20 other than the Revenue Inspector of the respondent- MUDA is a signatory to the said documents. It is also forthcoming from the Endorsement dated 07.10.2015 issued by the respondent-MUDA that, the layout plan is not approved by the competent authority in respect of the land in question at the time of issuing the impugned notifications. The petitioners have produced several photographs evidencing that Arecanut, coconut trees situate in the land in question and dairy forming is being carried out in the land in question by the petitioners. Though the respondent Nos.2 and 3 at Annexure-R3 dated 18.08.1999 stated that the Award has been passed and possession has been taken under Section 16 (2) of Land Acquisition Act, and same is notified in Official Gazette 20.09.2001 as per Annexure- R12 in W.P.No.11155 of 2016, however, the perusal of the deposit of compensation before the Civil Court as per Annexure-R8 to 11 (in W.P.No.11155 of 2016) shows that, the compensation was deposited on 21 15.05.2002. It is pertinent to mentionhere that, though the Preliminary Notification is issued during the year 1992 compensation was deposited during the year 2002 after lapse of 10 years and that apart, internal correspondence letter dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure- R18 in W.P.No.11155 of 2016) produced by the respondent-MUDA demonstrates that, the respondent- MUDA has taken decision to bifurcate the sites in the land in question and further no allotment has been made to any of the respective allottees in respect of the subject land and even according to respondent- MUDA that, land in question is barren land and no steps have been taken for more than 40 years .
16. Perusal of the Annexure-F in W.P.No.334 of 2016, makes it clear that, the approval is yet to be made by the competent authority. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the 22 land in question is vacant and same is in possession of the petitioners.
17. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised plea that the petitioners have challenged the impugned notifications in W.P.No. 30059-61 of 2000 and connected writ petitions which came to be dismissed on 18.02.2003 (Annexure-R1), on careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that, the petitioners have challenged the very same Preliminary Notification and Final Notification in the in respect of the said land on the ground that the respondent-MUDA has not secured prior approval of the State Government under Section 15(b) of the Act, as well as no prior sanction was accorded by the Government to formulate the Scheme as required under Section 18 of the Act. It is not in dispute that, the writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground that, the Final Notification is issued within the reasonable period and same was questioned in WA 23 No.3779 of 2003 and the said writ appeal was withdrawn as per order dated 12.04.2010 (Annexure- R2). No doubt the acquisition proceedings has been upheld insofar as land in question on the aforementioned grounds, however, the award was not questioned nor taking possession of the land was subject matter in the aforementioned writ petitions and that apart, the petitioners have not suppressed the said facts before this Court. It is also forthcoming from perusal of Endorsement dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure-F in W.P.No.334 of 2016) that the Layout Plan in respect of the subject land has not been approved by the competent authority, and therefore, submission made by learned counsel appearing for petitioners with regard to the fact that the possession of the land in question has not been taken as on the date of filing of writ petitions is to be accepted.
18. At this juncture, it is relevant to consider the Judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. A. 24 Parthasarathy and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 2017 KAR 3489, wherein, paragraph 10 of the Judgment reads as follows:
"10. The facts in the case before the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra) were different from the facts of the present case and as such, the ratio laid down in the said judgment would not be applicable to these cases. Possession of land so notified for acquisition has to be taken in a proper and valid manner. The findings recorded by the Learned Single Judge, that there was no independent witness which had signed the mahazar, nor the names and addresses to show the identity of the alleged witnesses was given, would be sufficient to show that the 'mahazar' was not prepared in a valid and legal manner. The same was done in a mechanical manner on a cyclostyle form, and the Learned Single Judge has rightly held that 'it is hard to give any credence to such mahazar'. Learned Counsel for respondents has also not denied the fact that no notice was ever given to the appellants for handing over possession and straight away the 'mahazar' had been prepared, the authenticity of which is extremely doubtful.25
19. It is also to be noted that, perusal of the mahazar made by the respondent - authorities as well as having arrived at the conclusion that, no possession of the land in question has been taken, it is relevant to mention the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Bangalore Development Authority vs. Srinivasamurthy in Writ Appeal No.435/2017 connected with Writ Appeal No.595/2016 disposed of on 03.01.2020 paragraphs 9 to 13 reads as under:
"9. The Learned Single Judge also delved upon the question as to whether the lapsing of the Scheme would result in lapsing of the acquisition. To this, the Learned Single Judge deciphered the mahazar under which the possession of the land in question was taken. The Learned Single Judge found that the mahazar was just like the many mahazars that were drawn by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which were cyclostyled forms where some of the blanks were either filled or not filled and the parentage of the persons shown as witnesses and their addresses were not found in the mahazar. The signature of the owner was also not found on the mahazar. The Learned Single Judge therefore, held that the document under which the possession of the 26 property was taken was nebulous and held that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot establish the taking over of possession of the land in question. The Learned Single Judge therefore held as under:
"There is no hesitation in this case as well to negate the document, which seeks to establish the taking over of possession. The mere recording of taking over of possession of land by itself would not satisfy this Court unless it was also capable of being established if the parties were called upon to tender evidence."
10. On the basis of such nebulous documents, it would not be possible for the Bengaluru Development Authority to proceed further in that direction Therefore, it cannot be said that the possession of the land has been taken. The Learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the lapsing of the Scheme would also result in lapsing of the acquisition insofar as the land of the petitioner is concerned. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are in appeal before this Court.
11. Curiously, the respondent No. 1, who was the author of the final notification and the authority which approved the Scheme, is not in appeal before us.
12. Acquisition of land, be it for any infrastructure project or for any industrial use or for drawing development schemes as the metropolis grows, has 27 churned up enormous litigation. The primary reason running common through all such litigation is the selective discrimination of land and land owners by the State and statutory bodies while identifying lands for acquisition. Though it is now trite that a land owner cannot approach the Court seeking the perpetuation of such discrimination as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment rendered in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [(2010) 7 SCC 129.] ,. Para No. 143 of the said judgment reads as under:
"143. We are conscious of the fact that when a person subjected to blatant discrimination, approaches a court seeking equal treatment, he expects relief similar to what others have been granted. All that he is interested is getting relief for himself, as others. He is not interested in getting the relief illegally granted to others, quashed. Nor is he interested in knowing whether others were granted relief legally or about the distinction between positive equality and negative equality. In fact he will be reluctant to approach courts for quashing the relief granted to others on the ground that it is illegal, as he does not want to incur the wrath of those who have benefited from the wrong action. As a result, in most cases those who benefit by the illegal grants/actions by authorities, get away with the benefit, while others who are not fortunate to have 28 "connections" or "money power" suffer. But these are not the grounds for courts to enforce negative equality and perpetuate the illegality."
Yet we cannot lose sight of the feet that this Court is an Arbiter between a citizen and the mighty State and Courts can not shut its eyes to a palpable colourable exercise of power.
13. In so far as the present case is concerned, the respondent No. 1 sanctioned a Scheme for formation of Banashankari V Stage Layout to be formed in 1458 Acres 21 guntas of land in Uttarahalli, Marasandra, Vaddarapalya, Doddakallasandra, Yelachenahalli, Channasandra, Bikasipura, Vasanthapura, Konanakunte of Uttarahalli Hobli and Halagevaderahalli of Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Following the sanction of such Scheme under Section 18 of the BDA Act, a final notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act was issued on 16.09.1997, which was published in the Gazette on 17.09.1997. In so far as Uttarahalli Village is concerned, 500 Acres 06 guntas was notified including the land of the petitioner. It is stated that the award in respect of the land ofthe petitioner was passed on 31.12.1999 and the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued on 31.12.1999 and since the petitioner was not residing in the village, the notice under Section 12(2) was pasted on the outer door of the house on 31.12.1999. The respondent No. 2 has produced 29 Annexure 'R3' (page No. 162) which discloses that the same was issued on 31.12.1999 requiring the Executive Engineer (Assistant Executive Engineer) of respondent No. 2 to be present at the spot on 06.01.2000 to take over possession of the land. Curiously, in the mahazar (Annexure 'R4') drawn evidencing the taking over of possession, it is found that the Executive Engineer was not present on 06.01.2000 at the spot. The mahazar shows that the Executive Engineer took possession of the land on 07.01.2000. This means that the Executive Engineer was not present on 06.01.2000 and there is no corresponding intimation by the revenue officials of respondent No. 2 to the Engineering section to be present at the spot on 07.01.2000 to take possession. It therefore belies the contention of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that possession was taken over on 06.01.2000 and handed over to the Engineering Section. It is found in the mahazar that there existed a house on the land. However, it is not known whether the house was taken over and/or demolished. In addition, the notice under Section 12(2) of the BDA Act discloses that the land acquired was garden land. The petitioner has claimed that there are mango trees existing on the property which are more than 25 to 30 years. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has found that the entire land is vacant. This apart, the owner was not present and the details of the witnesses is not forthcoming from 30 the mahazar. There are blanks in the mahazar making it difficult to accept the sanity of this document. The Apex Court has held in a catena of decisions, the mode and manner of taking possession and the latest in the long line of judgments is in the case of N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AIR 2018 SC 763] ,."
20. Having taken note of the observation made by Division Bench of this Court as stated above and this Court, by order dated 06.10.2016 had directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the land in question is concerned, I am of the view that, the respondent - authorities have not taken possession of the land in question in a manner known to law and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is the submission of Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, by referring to the judgment passed in Ramniklal (supra) that the larger interest of the public is to be considered while 31 exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, I feel that, as the petitioners have sought for alternative prayer, seeking allotment of Sites in the ratio of 50:50 in terms of the Resolution dated 04.06.2022, wherein, the respondent- MUDA had taken decision under the similar circumstances and as the possession of the land in question is not taken as it is evident from the internal correspondence, by Letter dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-R18 in W.P.No.11155 of 2016) that the sites have not been notified and distributed to the respective allottees by the respondent-authorities by developing the sites by the respondent-MUDA and as such, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 be directed to allot developed sites in the ratio of 50:50 to the petitioners, taking into consideration the Resolution dated 04.06.2022, passed by thereunder within the time frame of two months from the receipt of this order, to 32 the petitioners in the subject land itself, without quashing the impugned notifications issued for acquisition of the subject land. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the observation made above.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE SB