Karnataka High Court
Sri V Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION NOs.1377 AND 1382 OF 2016(LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. V. VENKATESH
S/O LATE VASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
2. SMT. MANJULA,
W/O, LATE DAYANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.4, GURAPPANAPALYA MAIN ROAD,
IST CROSS, GURAPPANAPALYA
BENGALURU - 560 029.
3. SMT. SHAKUNTALA
D/O. LATE VASAPPA
W/O. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.100
OPP.GOVT SCHOOL
SIDDARAMAPPA COMPOUND
A. NARAYANAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 016.
4. SRI. V. GANESH
S/O. LATE VASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.4
GURAPPANAPALYA MAIN ROAD
1ST CROSS, GURAPPANAPALYA
BENGALURU - 560 029.
-2-
5. SMT. V. RENUKA
D/O .LATE VASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/A THOTHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
6. SMT. V. RANI,
D/O. LATE VASAPPA
W/O. G. PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.223
SINGARABOVI DODDI
VINAYAKANAGARA
RAMANAGARA TOWN-571 511,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. VIJAYASHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. N. K.
RAMESH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV. FOR R2
SMT.SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE ACQUSITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY
THE RESPONDENTS PURUSANT TO THE PRELIMINARY
NOTIFICATION DTD:17.11.1988 PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
GAZETTE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17(1) & (3) OF THE
-3-
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976
(ANNEXURE-N) AND DECLARATION ISSUED ON 22.7.1991
UNDER SECTION 19(1) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 (ANNEXURE-P) IN RESPECT OF THE
PETITIONER SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE
PETITIONERS HAS LAPSED AND THEREBY THE RESPONDENTS
HAVE LOST THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE THE PETITION SCHEDULE
PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS AND
CONSQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIFORARI QUASHING
THE SAID NTOIFICATIONS DTD:7.11.1988 & 22.7.1991
(ANNEXURE0N & P) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITION SCHEDULE
PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Shri.S. Vijaya Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri.Narendra Gowda, appearing for the Bangalore Development Authority. The learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the first respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have joined in filing this common writ petition as they have a common interest. It is claimed that the land bearing -4- Survey No.2 measuring 4 acres 19 guntas situated at Raghuvanapalya Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, belonged to the petitioners' great grandfather, namely, R. Pillappa who had acquired the same under a grant order dated 16.6.1990. Pillappa is said to have sold an extent of 2 acres 19 guntas of land in favour of one Gurappa under a registered sale deed of the year 1996 and had retained 2 acres of land. After the death of Pillappa, his widow Lakshmamma had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.778/68 seeking a declaration in respect of the said extent of land on the file of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and after contest, it was decreed in favour of Lakshmamma by judgment and decree of the year 1973. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree one Avalakondappa had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.68/1973. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter was said to have been compromised in the year 1976. In terms of the compromise, Lakshmamma, the widow of Pillappa -5- received an extent of one acre of land in new survey No.2/4 (old No.2) of Raghavanapalya village and the revenue records stood reflected in her favour in respect of the said extent of land. Thereafter, Venkatamma, daughter of R. Pillappa had inherited the property and she was holding the same till she died intestate on 26.4.2000, leaving behind her daughter Sarojamma. The revenue entries were made in favour of Sarojamma who succeeded to the petition property. Sarojamma in turn is said to have died on 10.5.2014 leaving behind the petitioners as her legal representatives. The petitioners 1 and 3 to 6 are children of Sarojamma and petitioner No.2 is said to be the daughter-in-law of Sarojamma whose husband is said to have died prematurely. The petitioners claim that they have a mango grove and coconut plantation apart from other miscellaneous trees in the land in question.
3. It transpires that the Bangalore Development Authority had issued a preliminary -6- notification dated 17.11.1998 under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 proposing to acquire this land apart from other lands in Konanakunte village, Raghuvanapalya village, Alahalli village, Thippasandra village, Vajarahalli village, Raghyvanapalya village and Doddakallasandra village of Uttarahalli Hobli and Arakere and Hulimavu village of Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for formation of Jayaprakashnarayan Nagar 9th Stage, totally proposing to acquire an extent of 1333.34 guntas including the land comprised in Survey No.2 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas of Raghuvanapalya village. The final notification was issued on 22.7.1991 whereby the total extent was reduced to 1111 acres 36¾ guntas including the land of the petitioners. This was challenged and the final notification was said to have been quashed in the earlier round as to there being absence of sanction in W.P.Nos.3054 and 3055/1992. Thereafter, a fresh notification having been issued and though the -7- proceedings are said to have taken forward, insofar as the petitioner's land are concerned admittedly possession has never been taken. This is also evidenced from the statement of objections. Therefore, the present petition is filed seeking a declaration that the scheme under which the lands were proposed to be acquired is deemed to have been lapsed. In that, the scheme having not been substantially implemented within five years from the date of issuance of the final notification, the acquisition itself has lapsed.
4. Though this Court has opined that such a declaration being sought after long lapse of time would be barred by delay and laches in terms of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Krishnamurthy(since deceased) by L.Rs. and others .vs. Bangalore Development Authority [1996(3) Kar.L.J. 506], this petition is also sought to be filed on an additional ground that with the coming into force of the The Right -8- to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(hereinafter referred to as "2013 Act" for brevity), the physical possession of the land not having been taken admittedly, the very acquisition would lapse in terms of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act and therefore, the learned Senior Advocate would draw attention to the admission made in the statement of objections as well as the sketch drawn indicating that the surrounding lands have either been dropped from the acquisition proceedings or having been put in possession of third parties, it would isolate the land in question which would be totally impossible for the BDA to integrate the land of the petitioners in the formation of layout. Therefore, it is sought to be declared that the acquisition itself has been lapsed.
5. Learned counsel for the BDA would seek time to ascertain as to the correctness or otherwise of Annexure-E which is the sketch indicating location of -9- the land. There is no reason to suspect the veracity of the said documents. Consequently, it is in line with the statement of objections of the BDA that physical possession had not been taken since it is built up and there was resistance for taking possession. If this be so, it would appear that the acquisition of the land has lapsed on account of non-execution of scheme.
Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. It is declared that the acquisition in respect of the petitioner's land has lapsed.
SD/-
JUDGE *alb/-