Karnataka High Court
M/S Trinity Village Plot Owners ... vs State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos. 32120-32121 AND
32371-32376 OF 2013 AND
3481 - 3558 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. M/s. Trinity Village Plot Owners
Association,
Resident of Trinity Enclave,
Hennur Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 043,
Represented by its Secretary,
M. Srinivas.
2. M/s. Sree Village Plot Owners Association,
O/o, 550/7, 1st Floor,
3rd Main, II Block,
R.T.Nagar, Bangalore - 560 032,
Represented by its Secretary,
M. Srinivas.
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. K.H. Somashekhar, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Urban Development Department,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park (West),
Bangalore - 560 020.
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. G. Lakshmeesh Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for the records from the
respondents for the purpose of consideration of representations
of the petitioners vide Annexures-A to D respectively and direct
the respondents to consider the representations of the
petitioners dated 2.4.2013, 18.4.2013 and legal notice dated
2.4.2013 vide Annexure-A to D respectively for deletion of
lands in question.
3
These Writ Petitions coming on for Further Orders this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
The present petitions coming on for orders are considered for final disposal.
2. The present petitions are filed in the following circumstances:-
The first petitioner is said to be an association of plot owners. The members of this association are said to have purchased house sites formed in lands bearing Survey Nos.26/1 measuring 1acre 12 guntas, 26/2 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas, 26/3 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas, 26/4 measuring 28½ guntas, 26/5 measuring 7 guntas, 275 measuring 29 guntas, 36/1 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas and 36/2 measuring 36 guntas of K.Narayanapura village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The particulars of the site numbers and the respective plot owners are also furnished.4
Similarly, the second petitioner also claims to have consists of members, whose particulars are furnished and they are aggrieved by the preliminary and final notifications issued by the State under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act', for brevity). These notifications were subject matter of challenge in various writ petitions namely, WP 51015-16/2004 and connected matters. The notifications are said to have been quashed by orders in those petitions dated 15.4.2005, against which, appeals having been filed, the order of the Single Judge was set aside by judgment dated 25.11.2005. However, certain directions had been issued to the respondent- BDA as follows:-
"i) All the petitioners who are the land owners who are seeking dropping ofthe acquisition proceedings in so far as their respective lands are concerned, on the ground that;
a.Their lands are situated within green belt area b.They are totally built up;5
c.Properties wherein there are buildings constructed by charitable, educational and/or religious institutions;
d.Nursery lands;
e.Who have set up factories;
f.Their lands are similar to the lands which are adjoining their lands but not notified for acquisition at all, are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing document to substantiate their contentions within one month from the date of this order.
ii) It is made clear that the BDA shall consider such request keeping in mind the status of the land as on the date of preliminary notification and to exclude any developments, improvements, constructions put up subsequent to the preliminary notification and then decide whether their cases are similar to that of the land owners whose lands, are notified for acquisition, notified and whose objections were upheld and no final notification is issued.
iii) In the event the BDA comes to the conclusion that the lands of those persons are similarly placed, then to exclude those lands from acquisition.
iv) Petitioners who are interested in availing this benefit shall make appropriate application within 30 days 6 from the date of this order and thereafter the BDA shall give notice to those persons, hear them and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.
v) Till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the BDA and the applications filed by the petitioners either for allotment of site or for denotifying or exemption sought for are considered their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished. After consideration of the applications, in the light of the aforesaid directions, if the lands are not excluded then the BDA is at liberty to proceed with the acquisition." Though the orders passed by the Division Bench had been the subject matter of challenge in a Special Leave Petition in SLP 5410/2006 and connected matters, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed and it is thereafter that the petitioners and several others are said to have filed representations as per Annexures - A,B,C and D and also issued a legal notice to consider their representations. The grievance of the petitioners that though such representations have been made, the 7 respondents have remained mute and have not passed appropriate orders. Therefore, the present petitions.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondents has entered appearance and would state that admittedly, there is a notice issued to the petitioners as per Annexures -E and F calling upon the petitioners to furnish certain particulars, which is yet to be forwarded by the petitioners and therefore, the allegation that the respondents have failed to consider their representations cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel submits that the petitions may be dismissed as premature since it is for the petitioners to supply the information called for and the respondents would be in a position to consider the same appropriately.
4. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioners would do well to submit the additional information now called for by the respondents and the respondents shall thereupon 8 consider the representation of the petitioners, after affording a hearing, if necessary and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. It is also necessary to keep in view that the respondent - BDA is required to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the view expressed in a celebrated case, popularly known as 'Bondu Ramaswamy's case' (Bondu Ramaswamy and others vs. The Bangalore Development Authority, (2010) 7 SCC 129) and the BDA shall also keep in view an earlier resolution dated 23.11.2010, passed in similar circumstances pertaining to revenue sites.
The petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv