Karnataka High Court
Sri. G R Ganganna vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.61154 of 2014 (LA-BDA)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS.50948 OF 2016, 14510 OF 2018,
1201 OF 2020, 8235 OF 2021 & 26090 OF 2022
IN WP NO.61154 OF 2014
BETWEEN
SMT. VANITHA M.
W/O LATE MAHALINGESH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO.135, 'BAGLI'
SULIKERI POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU - 560 060.
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PADMANABHA V. MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANANDRAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DR. T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU -560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU -560 001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
3. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DR. T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU -560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R2;
SRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)
/SALAO/115/2005-06 DATED 12.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE FINAL
NOTIFICATION DATED 27.07.2011 BEARING NO.UDD/169/MNX/
2011 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B,
INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER'S NOTIFIED LAND OF 5 ACRES 10
GUNTAS IN SY.NO.23 OF SULIKERE VILLAGE, KENGIERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK IS CONCERNED; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.50948 OF 2016
BETWEEN
SRI. C. BYRAPPA
S/O CHIKKANNA
3
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT MUNESHWARA ESTATE
PEENYA VILLAGE
YASHWANTPUR HOBLI
BENGALURU- 560 058.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU -560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
DR. T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU -560 020
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DR. T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU -560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)
4
/SALAO/115/2005-06 DATED 12.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO THE WRIT
PETITION, AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 27.07.2011
BEARING NO.UDD/169/MNX/2011 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION, INSOFAR AS
IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER'S LAND IN SY.NO.64/1 AND
65/1 NEW NO.65/5 OF KANNAHALLI VILLAGE IS CONCERNED.
IN WP NO.14510 OF 2018
BETWEEN
SRI. K.T. PRASANNA KUMAR
S/O DODDA THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE
SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.C. SUNDARESH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU -560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU -560 020.
5
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU -560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.BDA/COMMR
/DC(LA)/SALAO/80/2006-07 DATED 15.11.2006 PUBLISHED IN
THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 16.11.2006 UNDER SEC.17(1)
AND (3) OF THE BDA ACT AND FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.UDD/169/MNX/2011 BENGALURU DATED 27.07.2011
PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 29.07.2011
UNDER SEC.19(1) OF THE BDA ACT, FOR ACQUISITION OF
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.58/2, NEW NO.58/10,
MEASURING 29 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT KANNALI VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK FROM
THE SCHEME CALLED "FORMATION OF PERIPHERAL RING ROAD
(PRR)" BETWEEN HOSUR ROAD, MYSORE ROAD AND TUMKUR
ROAD (PART-II) AS SCHEME LAPSE UNDER SEC.27 OF THE BDA
ACT AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND H RESPECTIVELY.
6
IN WP NO.1201 OF 2020
BETWEEN
1. SRI. G.R. GANGANNA
S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU -560 060.
2. SRI. G.R. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU -560 060.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU -560 001.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU -560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
7
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU -560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.BDA/COMMR /DC(LA)/SALAO
/115/2005-06 DATED 12.12.2005 ANNEXURE-A ISSUED UNDER
SEC.17(1)(3) AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.UDD/169/MNX/2011 DATED 27.07.2011 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-B CONSEQUENTLY
PASSING THE CONSENT AWARD DATED 23.02.2018 PASSED
UNDER SEC.23 OF THE RFCT IN LARR ACT, 2013, ANNEXURE-C,
INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS LAND; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.8235 OF 2021
BETWEEN
1. SRI. PUTTARAJ
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2. SRI. M. CHENNAKESHAVA
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT
MACHOHALLI VILLAGE
KADABAGERE CROSS
DASANAPURA HOBLI
8
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 037.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU -560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BENGALURU -560 020.
4. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU -560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.BDA/COMMR /DC(LA)/SALAO
/115/2005-06 DATED 12.12.2005 ANNEXURE-F AND THE FINAL
9
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.UDD/169/MNX/2011 DATED
27.07.2011 AT ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS NO.2
AND 3 RESPECTIVELY, IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS LAND
DESCRIBED IN THE NOTIFICATION, CONSEQUENTLY TO
DECLARE THE ACQUISITION OF VAST EXTENT OF LAND FOR
FORMATION OF PERIPHERAL RING ROAD-II TO VITIATES ON
THE GROUND OF MALAFIDES AND OBTAINING ADMINISTRATIVE
SANCTION FROM THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE PROVISION
OF BDA ACT; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.26090 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SRI. V. RAVI KUMAR
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.600, 8TH MAIN ROAD
4TH 'B' CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...PETITIONER
(SRI. UDAY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU -560 001
BENGALURU BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
10
BENGALURU -560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS NOT TO UTILIZE THE LAND NOTIFIED AS PER
THE ANNEXURES - B, C AND D OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE
PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OTHER THAN INDICATED IN THE
NOTIFICATIONS AT ANNEXURE - B BEARING NO.BDA/COMMR
/DC(LA)/SALAO /115/2005-06 DATED 12.12.2005 ANNEXURE-C
BEARING NO. BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/SALO/80/2006-07/
BANGALORE DATED 15.11.2006 AND ANNEXURE-D BEARING
NO. UDD/169/MNX/2011 BANGALORE DATED 27.07.2011; AND
ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
11
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
In these writ petitions, the petitioners are questioning
the Preliminary Notification dated 12.12.2005 and
15.11.2006 as well as Final Notification dated 27.07.2011
issued by the respondent-authorities, sought to acquire the
land in question for the purpose of formation of Peripheral
Ring Road-II, between Hosur Road-Mysore Road and
Tumakur Road (Part II) as per the notification referred to
above as lapsed in terms of Section 24 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2. In W.P.No.61154 of 2014, it is the case of the
petitioner that, the petitioner is the owner of the land
bearing Sy.No.23 of Sulikere Village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore, measuring to an extent of 05 acres, 10 guntas
and the respondent-authorities have issued Preliminary
Notification dated 12.12.2005 and Final Notification dated
12
27.07.2011, sought to acquire the schedule land for the
purpose of formation of Peripheral Ring Road (PPR-II).
3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner
is in actual physical possession of the property and no
award has been passed by the respondent-authorities
pursuant to the impugned notifications and further no
possession has been taken by the respondent-authorities
and accordingly, petitioner has questioned the impugned
notifications.
4. In W.P.No.50948 of 2016, the petitioner claims
to be the owner in possession of land bearing Sy No.64/1 to
an extent of 02 acres, 21 guntas and Sy No.65/1 (New Sy
No.65/5) to an extent of 02 acres, 16 guntas of Kannahalli
Village, Yashwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, has
questioned the validity of Preliminary Notification dated
12.12.2005 and Final Notification dated 27.07.2011 on the
ground that the respondent-BDA cannot utilize the
13
aforementioned lands for the purpose of formation of the
Peripheral Ring Road (PPR-II) and no award has been
passed till date and therefore, it is contended that, the
scheme has been lapsed by virtue of operation of law.
Hence, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
5. In W.P.No.14510 of 2018, it is the case of the
petitioner that, the petitioner is owner in possession of the
land bearing Sy No.58/2 (New Sy No.58/10), measuring 28
guntas situate at Kannahalli Village, Yashwantpura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk and has challenged the Preliminary
Notification dated 15.11.2006 and Final Notification dated
27.07.2011 issued by the respondent-authorities for the
purpose of formation of Peripheral Ring Road (Part II)
between Hosur Road, Mysore Road and Ring Road (Part II).
It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondent-
authorities have not implemented the scheme and no award
has been passed by the respondent-authorities.
Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that the
14
respondent-authorities have abandoned the scheme of
formation of Road.
6. In W.P.No.1201 of 2020, it is the case of the
petitioners that, the petitioners claim to be the owners of
the land bearing Sy No.30 and Sy No.23 of Sulikere Village,
Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 05 acres,
27 guntas and 02 guntas, respectively, along with 'A'
Kharab land. It is further averred in the petition that, the
source of Income for the petitioners is agriculture and
livelihood of the family is based on the cultivation made in
the aforementioned land and accordingly, sought for
quashing the impugned notifications on the ground that, the
petitioners were unaware about the acquisition proceedings
and no award notice has been issued as required under law.
It is contended by the petitioners that, no award has been
passed by the respondent-authorities and accordingly, the
petitioners have questioned the impugned notifications
stating that, the same have become lapsed.
15
7. In W.P.No.8235 of 2021, it is contended by the
petitioners that, the petitioners are the owners of the land
bearing Sy No.134/1, to an extent of 03 acres, 30 guntas;
Sy No.135/1, to an extent of 02 acres, 13 guntas; Sy
No.136/1, to an extent of 05 acres, 15 guntas and Sy
No.137/1 to an extent of 04 acres, 22 guntas, situate at
Machohalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk and the petitioners are challenging the impugned
acquisition proceedings on the ground that the respondent-
authorities have not implemented the scheme as required
under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976
(for short, BDA Act), and accordingly, challenged the
impugned notifications passed by the respondent-
authorities.
8. In W.P.No.26090 of 2022, it is the case of the
petitioner that, petitioner is the absolute owner in
possession of the land bearing Sy No.78 to an extent of 03
16
acres, 22 guntas and an extent of 17 guntas was notified
for acquisition out of total extent of land of the petitioner
situate at Kenchanapura village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk, having purchased the same as per the
registered Sale Deed dated 18.04.2005 (Annexure-A). It is
also stated that, the petitioner is also the owner of the land
bearing Sy Nos.79/1, 79/2, 79/4, 79/5, 79/6 and 79/7 of
Kenchanapura Village, Bangalore South Taluk and the
respondent-authorities have notified 17 guntas of land on
the eastern side of the petition schedule property as per the
impugned notifications and it is contended that,
respondent-authorities are diverting the use of the land for
other purpose despite the land has been acquired for the
purpose of Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) and the same is
contrary to Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is
also contended by the petitioner that the scheme
formulated by the respondent-Bangalore Development
Authority (for short, BDA) and approved by the respondent-
17
State is for formation of Peripheral Ring Road (PPR-II) and
therefore, acquisition proceedings are lapsed on account of
not issuing the award and taking possession in a manner
know to law. Accordingly, sought for interference of this
Court.
9. I have heard Sri. Padmanabha V. Mahale,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned
counsel, Sri. Anandraju, for the petitioner in W.P.No.61154
of 2014; Sri. Vinod Prasad, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner in W.P.No.50948 of 2016; Sri. H.C.
Sundaresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
W.P.No.14510 of 2018; Sri. M. Srinivasa, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.1201 of 2020; Sri.
M. Shivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in W.P.No.8235 of 2021 and Sri. Uday, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel, C.M.
Nagabhushana, appearing for the petitioner in
W.P.No.26090 of 2022; Sri. G.S. Kannur, learned Senior
18
Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri.
Murugesh V. Charati, for the respondent-BDA and Sri.
Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent-State.
10. It is the contention of Sri. Padmanabha V.
Mahale learned Senior Counsel and other learned counsel
representing the writ petitioners that, though the
Preliminary Notifications have been issued on 12.12.2005
and 15.11.2006 followed by Final Notification on
27.07.2011, however, no award has been passed till date
and therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings requires to
be quashed. It is also contended by the learned counsel
representing the petitioners that, the respondent-
authorities have not taken possession of the land in
question nor compensation has been deposited before the
Civil Court and that apart, the land in question is not vested
with the respondent-BDA and therefore, the entire
acquisition proceedings is contrary to Section 36(3) of the
19
BDA Act and therefore, they sought for interference of this
Court.
11. It is further contended by the learned counsel
representing the petitioners that, the acquisition
proceedings has been abandoned by the respondent-BDA
and further, the respondent-BDA has not completed the
project for which the land in question is said to have been
acquired as per the notifications referred to above and
therefore, the acquisition proceedings has become lapsed
under Section 27 of the BDA Act. In addition to this, it is
the contention of Sri. H.C. Sundaresh that, the respondent-
authorities have acquired the land more than the requisite
land, for the purpose of construction of ring road and
therefore, he argued on feasibility of the land in question.
12. Sri. M. Shivaprakash, learned counsel further
argued that, the petitioners in W.P.No.8235 of 2021 have
20
constructed industrial unit in their schedule property.
Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
13. Sri. C.M. Nagabhushana and Sri. Uday, learned
counsels appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.26090 of
2022, contended that, the petitioner intends to form private
layout and thereby, respondent-BDA had issued the layout
plan, work order and commencement certificate as per
Annexure-E series to the writ petition and therefore, it is
contended that, the respondent-BDA has abandoned the
land from the acquisition proceedings and accordingly,
sought for interference of this Court.
14. In order to buttress their arguments, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to the
Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.7848 of 2021 disposed of
on 17.04.2021 and contended that, the very same
Preliminary Notification dated 12.12.2005 passed by the
respondent-authorities has been quashed by this Court in
21
respect of the subject land in the above writ petition, which
came to be confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.215
of 2022 disposed of on 19.10.2022. The said Judgment of
this Court is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SLP (Civil) Dairy No.12708 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 and
accordingly, sought for allowing these writ petitions.
15. Per contra, Sri. G.S. Kannur, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri.
Murugesh V. Charati, for the respondent-BDA submitted
that, the writ petitions have to be dismissed on the sole
ground of delay and laches as the petitions have been filed
beyond three years. It is further contended that, award
notices have been already issued in favour of some of the
owners of the lands in question, however, concedes that
award has not yet been passed. It is also contended by the
learned Senior Counsel that possession mahazar has been
drawn and handed over to Engineering Section. It is
further contended by learned Senior Counsel that, Hon'ble
22
Supreme Court in the case of BDA and Another Vs. State
of Karnataka and Others in C.A. No.7661-7663 of 2018
(Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout case) decided on 20.01.2022
upheld the acquisition proceedings for the purpose of
formation of peripheral road. It is contended by the learned
Senior Counsel that, as per Section 69(2) of the Karnataka
Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, in the matter of
construction of road, proceedings will not be lapsed and the
said aspect has been considered by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.A.No.2679 of 2018, decided on 10.03.2021.
It is the categorical submission of the learned Senior
Counsel that the land of the petitioners would form part of
the scheme and a road passes through the property of the
petitioners which is a connecting road. It is submitted by
the learned Senior Counsel that, an extent of 2716 acres,
10 guntas of land has been acquired for the purpose of
formation of Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II), a road which
connects from Hosur road to Mysuru Road and Tumakuru
23
Road in the outskirts of Bengaluru City and the entire
scheme has been approved under 18(3) of BDA Act and as
large extent of land has been acquired for the purpose of
ring road. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent-BDA that, it cannot be
accepted to say that the acquisition proceedings has
become lapsed in respect of land belonging to the
petitioners.
16. It is also contended by the learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent-BDA that the major arterial
road is for 10.35 Kms, out of the said extent, an extent of
8.53 Kms of road, has already been formed by the
respondent-BDA and remaining 1.8 Kms is pending for
formation of the road in view of the litigation. It is also
submitted that the major arterial road is part of Master Plan
road which passes through the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda
Layout and connects the various parts of Bengaluru and
accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
24
17. Nextly, Sri. G.S. Kannur, learned Senior Counsel
submitted that, the Government of Karnataka has approved
scheme for allotment of developed sites in the form of
compensation in the ratio of 50:50, taking into
consideration the grievance of the petitioners and other
land losers, despite the fact that BDA prescribes 40:60
compensation insofar as other acquisition proceedings are
concerned. It is also contended by the learned Senior
Counsel that, the contention raised by the petitioners that
excess land is being notified by the respondent -BDA is
incorrect as substantial land is being required for providing
other allied services like transportation, parking of heavy
transport vehicles, truck terminals, BMTC depots in the area
notified etc., and therefore, taking into such consideration
during the deliberations held at the high level officers of the
respondent-BDA and the Government, the respondent-BDA
was compelled to issue the impugned notifications.
25
18. It is also contended by the learned Senior
Counsel that as the land is being acquired for the purpose
of formation of road for general public and taking into
consideration the interest of the public at large, the
interference of this Court is very limited to quash the
impugned notifications at this stage and further the
contentions with regard to lapse of the scheme under
Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 is not applicable to the case on
hand. It is also emphasised that the petitioners have made
an attempt before the Government to delete the land in
question from the acquisition proceedings under Section 48
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and they have failed in
their efforts and as such, filed the present writ petitions to
stop the scheme in respect of the Peripheral Ring Road
(Part-II), which has been substantially implemented by the
respondent-BDA. In this regard, he refers to the Judgment
26
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.1614-
1616 of 2019 in C.A. No.7661-7663 of 2018 dated
25.11.2021 and argued that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at
paragraph 10 has made an observation relating to
completion of Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) at the earliest
to enable the respondent-BDA to complete the scheme at
the earliest.
19. Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State
argued on the similar lines with the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent-BDA.
20. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that, the respondent-authorities have issued the
Preliminary Notification and Final Notification dated
12.12.2005 and 15.11.2006 and 29.07.2011, under Section
17 and Section 19 of the BDA Act, sought to acquire an
27
extent of 1862 acres, 10 guntas and 854 acres of land for
the purpose of formation of Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II)
as major arterial road. It is also not in dispute that, State
Government has accorded sanction under Section 18(3) of
the BDA Act on 23.04.2007. It is also not in dispute that, an
extent of 321 acres, 10 guntas, was notified under Section
19 of the BDA Act, on 27.07.2011, connecting the road
from Magadi and Mysore Road. It is also to be noted that
respondent-authorities have issued award to an extent of
290 acres 08 guntas of land out of 301 acres 23 guntas of
land available in the notified survey numbers. No award is
passed in respect of the land in which, the interim stay has
been granted by this Court to an extent of 7 acres 15
guntas in Kambipura village and 04 acres in Sulikere
village. It is the case of the respondent-authorities that, the
respondent-authorities had taken possession in respect of
the 290 acres 08 guntas of land to complete the scheme of
forming Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II). Though learned
28
Senior Counsel, Sri. Padmanabha V. Mahale and other
counsels representing the petitioners contended that
respondent-BDA has not completed the project and no
award is passed in respect of t he subject land, and further,
learned counsel, Sri. M. Shivaprakash and M. Srinivasa,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that,
there is change in alignment of road by the respondent-
authorities, I am of the opinion that, this aspect relating to
feasibility of the land cannot be interfered with under Article
226 of Constitution of India. It is also to be noted from the
order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority
and Another vs. State of Karnataka and others in Misc.
Application No.1614-1616 of 2019 in CA No.7661-7663 of
2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically directed the
respondent-BDA to pass awards and take possession of the
lands notified for Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) Scheme
and the State Government was directed to take possession
29
of the notified land for the purpose of completion of
Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) in favour of respondent-
BDA. It is also pertinent to mentionhere that, Hon'ble
Supreme Court categorically observed that, there is no
progress made except notifying the lands for acquisition by
the respondent-authorities to complete the scheme of
Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II). In this regard, it is relevant
to refer to the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court at paragraph Nos. 12 to 15 which reads under:
"12. A peripheral ring road (PRR) was proposed
encircling the Bangalore City for a length of 116 km
vide Letter No.BDA/Vi.A.BhuSwaA/C4/PR/619/2006-07
dated 27.11.2006 by the BDA. A true translated copy
of BDA letter dated 27.11.2006 is produced herewith
marked as Annexure 3. The scheme was sanctioned by
the Government of Karnataka vide Government order
No. UDD 399 MNX 2006 Bangalore dated 23.04.2007.
A true copy of the Government order dated
23.04.2007, is produced herewith marked as Annexure
4. Peripheral Ring Road is to provide connectivity to
various destinations in all directions for onward traffic
without entering the city of Bengaluru and thus
minimising the congestion on the outer ring road and
30
internal roads of the city roads. Part of this PRR
commencing from Tumkur Road NH44 (old NH4) near
Madanayakanahalli and ending on Hosur Road NH48
(old NH7) near Huskur passing in the eastern side of
City was called as PRR Part-1. The remaining part on
the western side of the city as PRR Part-2. Concentric
to PRR part as Part-2, as part of Bangalore-Mysore
Infrastructure Corridor, connecting roads were formed
by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (NICE)
connecting Hosur road (NH 44) to Mysore road and
Tumakuru road (NH 44) to Mysore road. In view of
this, PRR Part-2 has not progressed further (except for
the portion from Mysore road to Magadi road which is
now passing through Nadaprabhu Kempegowda
Layout), though Preliminary Notification was issued for
PRR Part-2 also.
13. 1st Preliminary Notification was done to an extent
of 1962 Acre 26 Gun Guntas in Preliminary Notification
No: BDA/Commr/DC(LA)/ SALAO/ 79/2005- 06/
Bangalore dated 23.09.2005 for PRR Part-1. 2nd
Preliminary Notification was done to an extent of 989
Acre 32.25 Guntas vide Notification No: BDA/ Commr/
DC(LA)/ SALAO/ 79/ 2006-07 Bangalore dated:
15.11.2006 for PRR Part-1. Final Notification for PRR
Part-1 was done for an extent of 1810 Acre 18.5
Guntas vide order No. UDD 399 MNX 2006 Bangalore
dated 29.06.2007. Additional Preliminary Notification
31
was done for Toll Plaza, Missing Links to an extent of
372 Acre 26 Guntas wide order No. BDA/ Commr/
DC(LA)/ SALAO/ 37/2010-11 Bangalore dated
16.08.2010 in PRR part-1.
14. Out of 1810 Acre 18.5 Guntas, awards have been
framed for 948 acres and awards have been approved
for 569 acres and 16.5 guntas and compensation is
paid in 3 (three) cases only as per the provisions of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the months of June
and July 2011 ie., (1) Kachamarnahalli Village Sy
No.100 extent of 1 Acre 28 Guntas, award passed for
Rs.21,27,608/-. (2) Aduru village Sy No.25/6 extent of
0-28 Guntas, award passed for Rs.8,15,782/- (3)
Aduru village Sy No.32/10 extent of 1 Acre 5 Guntas,
award passed for Rs. 11,78,552/-. Thus, an extent of
only 3 acres 21 guntas has been taken possession of
and handed over to the engineering division.
H LITIGATIONS/PERIPHERAL RING ROAD
15. Several Writ Petitions had been filed before the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the
acquisition proceedings. Smt. A.Gowramma and two
others had challenged the Preliminary Notification
dated 16/08/2010 issued under Section 17(1) of the
BDA Act 1976 in Writ Petition Nos.21920 to
21922/2011. The above writ petitions were allowed in
32
entirety by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on
8/9/2011 by quashing the notifications in its entirety
pertaining to the scheme of PRR. The relevant portion
of the order is in paragraph 36 at page 32 of the order
dated 8/9/2011 and is reproduced below.
"Therefore, these writ petitions are allowed.
All the notifications in its entirety pertaining to
the scheme of 'peripheral ring road' are hereby
quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. Rule
made absolute".
While allowing the writ petitions, the Hon'ble High court
of Karnataka had ordered for a detailed scrutiny and
investigating investigation agency by the with regard
competent to the implementation of the project by
increasing large amount of public funds, A direction
had been given to send a copy of this order to
Lokayukta."
21. It is also to be noted that, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in respect of the petitions relating to Dr. K. Shivaram
Karath Layout, considered the status report filed by the
respondent-BDA in relation to Peripheral Ring Road (PRR)
and paragraph 12 reads as under;
33
"12. A peripheral ring road (PRR) was proposed
encircling the Bangalore City for a length of 116 km
vide Letter No.BDA/Vi.A.BhuSwaA/C4/PR/619/2006-07
dated 27.11.2006 by the BDA. A true translated copy
of BDA letter dated 27.11.2006 is produced herewith
marked as Annexure 3. The scheme was sanctioned by
the Government of Karnataka vide Government order
No. UDD 399 MNX 2006 Bangalore dated 23.04.2007.
A true copy of the Government order dated
23.04.2007, is produced herewith marked as Annexure
4. Peripheral Ring Road is to provide connectivity to
various destinations in all directions for onward traffic
without entering the city of Bengaluru and thus
minimising the congestion on the outer ring road and
internal roads of the city roads. Part of this PRR
commencing from Tumkur Road NH44 (old NH4) near
Madanayakanahalli and ending on Hosur Road NH48
(old NH7) near Huskur passing in the eastern side of
City was called as PRR Part-1. The remaining part on
the western side of the city as PRR Part-2. Concentric
to PRR part as Part-2, as part of Bangalore-Mysore
Infrastructure Corridor, connecting roads were formed
by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (NICE)
connecting Hosur road (NH 44) to Mysore road and
Tumakuru road (NH 44) to Mysore road. In view of
this, PRR Part-2 has not progressed further (except for
the portion from Mysore road to Magadi road which is
34
now passing through Nadaprabhu Kempegowda
Layout), though Preliminary Notification was issued for
PRR Part-2 also."
22. It is also relevant to mentionhere that the
observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its
order dated 25.11.2021 in Misc. Application No. 1614-1616
of 2019 in CA No.7661-7663 of 2018 at paragraphs 10 and
11 has held as under:
"PERIPHERAL RING ROAD (PRR)
10. On 26.10.2021, this Court had directed the State
Government to file an affidavit clarifying its stand in
relation to the PRR. In response to this order, the State
Government has filed an affidavit dated 09.11.2021,
the relevant portion of which is as under:
"AFFIDAVIT OF STATUS REPORT ON BEHALF OF STATE
OF KARNATAKA REGARDING PERIPHERAL RING ROAD
IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021
I, RAKESH SINGH, S/o Bharat Prasad Singh, aged
57 years, working as Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka, Urban Development
Department, Bengaluru, Karnataka State, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under:
35
1. I am working Additional as Government of
Karnataka, Chief Secretary, Urban Development
Department, the records Bengaluru and I am aware of
the facts from placed before me.
PROJECT NECESSITY
2. At the outset it as Ring Road the City needs the
Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) more thanaluru in view of
the phenomenal growth of the directions. city in The
geographical extent of the city has grown to 2196 sq.
kms. The vehicle count as of 2019 was over 80 lakhs.
Bengaluru being the capital city, thousands of vehicles
come in every day from various parts of the state as
well as outside the state. There is enormous pressure
on city roads and public transport system is
overstressed. The PRR will greatly reduce the stress
and congestion in the city roads. The Government is
very keen to facilitate the early execution of the PRR.
FUNDING
3. As per Government Order dated 03.10.2019, the
cost of acquisition was stated as Rs.8,100.00 crores
and cost of Road making was stated as 3850 crores.
Subsequent to GO dated 03.10.2019, the Bangalore
Development Authority submitted that the land
acquisition cost is calculated by adopting Right to Fair
Compensation Act with a multiplication factor of 1.5 for
36
lands outside BBMP area and a factor of one within
BBMP, over that, Solatium of 100% and additionally
interest at 12% per annum from the date of
Preliminary Notification till the date of award. The cost
of acquisition has been estimated as Rs.15,475.00
crore as on December 2020 as per 2013 Act. (The cost
will increase upwardly due to the interest component).
The cost of construction is estimated to be Rs.5,616
crore. Thus, the total cost as at end of December 2020
is Rs.21,091 crores.
4. In view of the steep revision of the cost of project,
the earlier proposals and decisions require
reconsideration and new ways to finance may have to
be worked out. Due to two years of Covid related
shutdowns and Covid related relief measures, the
Government finances are also under stress. The
Bangalore Development Authority has now proposed to
implement the PRR project fully funded (cost of land
acquisition and construction maintenance and
operation) by the concessionaire under PPP-DBFOT
(Public Private Partnership Design, Build, Finance,
Operate and Transfer) mode. It has proposed to call for
Global tenders finalise to the concessionaire offering
lowest concession period. It has also proposed to
mergre the Special Purpose Vehicle with KUIDFCL
(Karnataka Infrastructure Development & Finances
Corporation Ltd.) as it will have no role this process.
37
These are under consideration before the Government
and roposals placed before the next Cabinet meeting.
5. The PPP route through global tenders will be first
explored and concluded in a short the time as possible.
If there be no effective bidder, then Government will
consider viability gap funding. The Bangalore
Development Authority may also raise funds from
auction route and other possible avenues.
6. The Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) was registered as
a company in the name of BENGALURU PRR
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED. It held its
meeting on 7th October, 2021. In this meeting it was
decided to merge this company with KUIDFCL
(Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development &
Finance Corporation Ltd.). The Govt. of Karnataka also
has sought opinion for the merger of the Company. It
is recorded in the said meeting that 1% share of the
company has to be transferred to KUIDFCL and become
its subsidiary. PPP mode. The PRR project will be done
on PPP mode.
LAND ACQUISITION
7. The Bangalore Development Authority has sought
the State Government's approval to notify additional
lands to implement the PRR project. This approval was
held up in view of the observation of the High Court
38
that additional lands for toll plaza may be acquired
after the completion of the PRR. Now, the approval will
be issued immediately in view of the directions of this
Hon'ble Court dated 26/10/2021 directing the
Bangalore Development Authority to notify these lands
immediately.
8. In respect of Government lands required for the PRR
project, 216 acres and 18 guntas of Government lands
were notified by BDA vide Final Notification dated
29/6/2007. Out of this, Joint Measurement of the land
required for the carriage way of the PRR has been done
by the Revenue Department and BDA and it has been
found that an extent of 141 acres and 34% guntas of
Government land required for the carriageway of the
PRR can be transferred by the Revenue Department to
BDA. The transfer process is underway and Revenue
Department will deliver possession of 141 acres and
34% guntas of Government land required for the
carriageway of the PRR to BDA within eight weeks. The
Urban Development Department is coordinating with
the Revenue Department for completing the transfer
process within this timeline. Joint measurement of the
remaining areas will be undertaken and completed as
early as possible
DEPONENT"
39
11. BDA and the State Government, as the case may
be, are directed to acquire the lands for the formation
of PRR in accordance with law and proceed to
implement the PRR Project as indicated in this
affidavit."
23. It is also relevant to extract the observation
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated
20.01.2022 in Civil Appeal No.7661-63 of 2016 reported in
2022 SCC online SC 69 paragraphs 1, 5, 7, 13, 21 to 24
reads as under:
"1. A peripheral ring road (for short 'PRR) encircling
Bangalore City for the length of 116 Kms, was
proposed vide Letter dated 27.11.2006 by the
Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short) to
the State Government. The scheme was sanctioned by
the Government of Karnataka vide UDD 399 MNX 2006
Bangalore dated 23.04.2007. This PRR is to provide
connectivity to various destinations in all the directions
for onward traffic without entering the city of Bangalore
and thus minimising the congestion on the outer ring
road as well as on the internal roads of the city. The
affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary before
40
this Court dated 09.11.2021 highlights the importance
of construction of PRR as under:
"PROJECT NECESSITY
2. At the outset it is submitted that the Bengaluru City
needs the Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) more than ever
in view of the phenomenal growth of the city in all
directions. The geographical extent of the city has
grown to 2196 sq.kms. The vehicle count as of 2019
was over 80 lakhs. Bengaluru being the capital city,
thousands of vehicles come in every day from various
parts of the state as well as outside the state. There is
enormous pressure on city roads the public transport
system is overstressed. The PRR will greatly reduce the
stress and congestion in the city roads. The
Government is very keen to facilitate the early
execution of the PRR"
****
5. BDA has filed the above application contending that
the direction in the above cases has totally upset the
budget calculation of the project. It is further
contended that the High Court has failed to refer and to
consider the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court
in Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA . It is also
contended that Section 36 of the BDA Act clearly
mandates legislation by incorporation. BDA has filed
this application seeking mainly the following relief:
41
"Hold that the 2013 Act is not applicable to the BDA Act
and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
22-7-2014 in Sudhakar Hegdev. State of
Karnataka and connected matters is per in-curium,
otiose and unenforceable."
****
7. The BDA Act was enacted by the legislature of the
State of Karnataka to provide for the establishment of
a development authority for the development of city of
Bangalore and the areas adjacent thereto and for
matters connected therewith. The Objects and Reasons
for enacting the Bangalore Development Authority Act,
1976 are as under:
"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
KARNATAKA ACT, NO. 12 of 1976
Karnataka Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 5-2-1976
At the conference of the Ministers for Housing and
Urban Development held at Delhi in November, 1971, it
was agreed that a common Authority for the
development of metropolitan cities should be set up.
Bangalore City with its population (as per last census)
is a Metropolitan City. Different Authorities like the City
of Bangalore Municipal Corporation, the City
Improvement Trust Board, the Karnataka Industrial
Area Development Board, the Housing Board and the
42
Bangalore City Planning Authority are exercising
jurisdiction over the area. Some of the functions of
these bodies like development, planning, etc. are
overlapping creating thereby avoidable confusion,
besides hampering co-ordinated development. It is,
therefore, considered necessary to set up a single
authority like the Delhi Development Authority for the
city areas adjacent to it which in course of time will
become part of the city.
For the speedy implementation of the above said
objects as also the 20-point programme and for
establishing a coordinating Central Authority, urgent
action was called for. Moreover, the haphazard and
irregular growth would continue unless checked by the
Development Authority and it may not be possible to
rectify or correct mistakes in the future.
It was therefore necessary to issue the measure in the
form of an Ordinance.
The Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance."
****
13. Incorporation of an earlier Act into the later Act is a
legislative device for the sake of convenience in order
to avoid verbatim reproduction of the provisions of the
earlier Act into the later Act. Once the incorporation is
made, the provisions of incorporated statute become
43
an integral part of the statute in which it is transferred
and thereafter there is no need to refer to the statute
from which incorporation is made and any subsequent
amendment made in it has no effect on the
incorporating statute. (See C.N.
Paramasivam v. Sunrise Plaza.)
****
21. Recently, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High
Court in L. Ramareddy v. State of Karnataka has
considered identical questions in great detail and has
concluded as under : (SCC OnLine Kar para 49)
"49. In the circumstances, it is concluded and held that
Section 24 does not take within its scope nor does it
apply to acquisitions which have been initiated under
the provisions of any other enactment particularly,
State enactment, such as, the BDA Act. The said
section is restricted to only those acquisitions which
have been initiated under the provisions of the LA Act,
1894 only. Subject to compliance with the conditions
mentioned under sub-section (2) of Section 24, the
landowner would be entitled to the deeming provision
regarding lapse of acquisition and not otherwise."
22. We are in complete agreement with this judgment
of the High Court.
44
23. We may also notice here that the learned Single
Judge of the High Court has not followed the judgment
in Offshore Holdings wherein it was clearly held that
the provisions of the LA Act are applicable to the BDA
Act by incorporation.
24. In view of the above, the learned Judge of the High
Court in Sudhakar Hegde was not justified in holding
that the provisions of the LA Act that are made
applicable to the BDA Act are in the nature of
legislation by reference. The learned Judge has also
erred in holding that in view of the repeal of the LA Act
by coming into force of the 2013 Act, the
corresponding provisions of the 2013 Act would
regulate acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and
that this would include determination of compensation
in accordance with the 2013 Act. It is hereby clarified
that since the LA Act has been incorporated into the
BDA Act so far as they are applicable, the provisions of
the 2013 Act are not applicable for the acquisitions
made under the BDA Act. Therefore, the judgment of
the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Sudhakar
Hegde and other connected matters is hereby
overruled."
24. Having taken note of the factual aspects on
record, as well as the observation made by the Hon'ble
45
Supreme Court with a clear indication to complete the
entire project, at the earliest, to facilitate the public at
large, in Bangalore, I am of the view that, no interference is
called for in respect of nullifying the acquisition
proceedings. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ramaniklal N. Butta and
Another vs. State of Maharastra and Others reported
in AIR 1997 SC 1236, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court at
paragraph 10 held as follows:
"10. Before parting with this case, we think it
necessary to make a few observations relevant to land
acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched
upon an ambitious programme of all-round economic
advancement to make our economy competitive in the
world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct
investment to the maximum extent. We propose to
compete with China economically. We wish to attain
the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian
countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g., South
Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however,
recognised on all hands that the infrastructure
necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is
woefully lacking in our country. The means of
46
transportation, power and communications are in dire
need of substantial improvement, expansion and
modernisation. These things very often call for
acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is,
however, natural that in most of these cases, the
persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings
in courts. These challenges are generally in the shape
of writ petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably, stay of
acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by
way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may
have been the practices in the past, a time has come
where the courts should keep the larger public interest
in mind while exercising their power of granting
stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is
discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of
interests of justice and not merely on the making out
of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition
for public purposes, the interests of justice and the
public interest coalesce. They are very often one and
the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or
other similar orders, more particularly of an
interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The
courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the
private interest while exercising the power under
Article 226 -- indeed any of their discretionary powers.
It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in
case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on
47
account of non-compliance with some legal
requirement that the persons interested shall also be
entitled to a particular amount of damages to be
awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain
percentage of compensation payable. There are many
ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a
wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the
only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter
of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is
neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and
trust that these considerations will be duly borne in
mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to
acquisition proceedings."
25. It is also to be noted that, this Court, vide order
dated 02.12.2024 directed the respondent-BDA to file
necessary particulars as well as status relating to project is
concerned and as such, the Commissioner of Bangalore
Development Authority, has filed affidavit dated 07.12.2024
and stated that, the total length of the road to be
constructed by the respondent-BDA is to an extent of 10.35
kms, out of which, the respondent-BDA has already laid
road to an extent of 8.35 kms and the remaining length of
48
the road to be formed is only to an extent of 1.82 kms and
therefore, I am of the view that, as the respondent-BDA
has laid road in Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) for more
than 80% of the project and as such, taking into
consideration the difficulties arises in respect of the
construction of metro station, service road to enable the
nearby habitants to reach main roads as well as taking
necessary precaution of the safety of the vehicles and
public in general, I am of the view that, no interference be
called for in respect of the quashing the impugned
notifications issued by the respondent-authorities for the
purpose of formation of Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) and
therefore, contention raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners that the respondent-BDA has
deviated from the original plan as well as excess land is
being acquired cannot be accepted.
26. In respect of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, with regard
49
to delay in passing award as well as in some writ petitions,
award has not been passed, I am of the view that, the
respondent-BDA shall take necessary steps to pass award
insofar the land utilized for the said project at the earliest
and to pay the compensation to the land losers, taking into
consideration Article 300A of Constitution of India. It is also
to be noted that, since the respondent-authorities had
taken report of technical and traffic of vehicles from the
competent authorities (Transport Department) before
marking the road, as it is evident from the large number of
photographs annexed along with the affidavit dated
07.12.2024, I am of the view that, there is acceptable
substance in the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA, with regard to
change in alignment of the Road. It is also to be noted that,
while acquiring the land for the purpose of construction of
the road, acquisition of the land is to be made for other
incidental purpose including providing facilities for the truck
50
terminals, fuel station, sky walk, bus depots and other
general facilities etc., to be used by the pedestrians, since,
the road is being laying outskirts of the Bangalore City, and
that apart, the internal transport facility to the
commuters/passengers traveling inter-city as well as
connecting intra-city and as such, if such facilities have to
be provided by the respondent-authorities under such
conditions there would be chances of minimum change of
alignment which could be ignored by taking into
consideration the larger interest of the public, which cannot
be faulted for which land is required for the respondent-
authorities. It is also to be noted that, in W.P.No.26090 of
2022, it is argued that, a private layout has been formed
and work order has been issued by the respondent-BDA as
per Annexure-E1 to the writ petition. It is pertinent to
mention here that, action of the respondent-BDA, issuing
such work order during the year 2015 knowing fully well
that the impugned notifications are issued for the purpose
51
of formation of Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) is deprecated
and such action of the officers of the respondent-BDA,
issuing work order cannot be accepted under the
circumstance of case, however, I do not find merits in the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners in these writ petitions, challenged the
acquisition proceedings. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petitions are allowed in part.
ii) Preliminary Notifications dated 12.12.2005 and 15.11.2006 and Final Notification dated 27.07.2011 issued by the respondent-authorities, sought to acquire the land in question for the purpose of formation of Peripheral Ring Road (Part II), between Hosur Road-Mysore Road and Tumakur Road are hereby upheld.
52
iii) Direction is issued to the respondent-authorities to pass award in respect of the acquired land, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to pay compensation to the petitioners/land loosers, in accordance with law.
iv) Respondent-BDA is directed to take possession of the land in question, if not taken till date, and to pass the award if not passed, within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with law and to complete the project in terms of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB