Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petition averments are as follows:-

2. The petitioners, who are husband and wife, claim that they are the owners of three residential sites, totally measuring 29500 square feet, culled out of land in Survey no. 58/1 and 59/1 of Thanisandra, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.

The same was said to have been purchased from one Gopalappa and his sons. It is stated that Gopalappa and his brother Ramaiah had inherited the property from their mother Yerramma, who is said to have purchased the same under a sale deed dated 27-11- 1941. Gopalappa and Ramaiah had partitioned the land in the afore said survey numbers , totally measuring 3 .15 acres. Under the partition an extent of 1.23 acres had fallen to the share of Gopalappa and an extent of 1.28 acres to Ramaiah. It is claimed that the two brothers had formed a residential layout in the said extent of lands, consisting of 12 sites in all, after setting apart areas for formation of roads and other infrastructure. The village panchayath is said to have approved the layout and is said to have assigned site numbers, while assessing the same to property tax.

It is further stated that the residential layout developed by the vendors of the petitioners is now within the jurisdiction of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (Hereinafter referred to as 'the BBMP' for brevity), which has reassessed the properties to tax. And that there are several houses that have been constructed in the area.

It is also stated that the Bangalore Development Authority has in its Revised Comprehensive Development Plan, 2011, indicated the land in the erstwhile Survey no. 58/1 and 59/1 for the formation of a residential layout and park. Therefore the same could not be declared as an industrial area without there being a change in land user. Incidentally, it is stated that the BDA had issued a preliminary notification under the BDA Act, proposing the formation of the Arkavati residential layout over the very same land in question and the petitioners have been notified as owners of the land purchased by them. It is also stated that the said acquisition having been challenged by several land owners, the same had not attained finality as on the date of the petition and that the proceedings are pending before the apex court.

It is further contended that the petitioners had filed a writ petition in WP 17387/2007 challenging the Preliminary Notification dated 9.3.2007 and the order passed by the third respondent as being illegal and without jurisdiction. There was initially an order of status-quo granted by this court, but the writ petition was dismissed as on 11.7.2009, as being premature. There was one other writ petition filed by the sons of Gopalappa in WP 572/2010, questioning the same Preliminary Notification as well as order dated 10.9.2007 passed by the third respondent, which was again rejected on 19.7.2010. In view of those petitions, the land in Survey Nos.58/1 and 59/1 were excluded from the Final Notification that was issued and subsequent to the disposal of the writ petitions, steps were taken to issue a Final Notification in respect of those lands as well. It is pointed out that the petitioners had repeatedly requested to exclude the lands from acquisition, mainly on the ground that they were purchasers of house sites formed in the said extent from Gopalappa and his sons and that their names are reflected in the revenue records. It is pointed out that the sale deeds produced by the petitioners do not disclose the land as forming part of any survey number, but the entries in the revenue records relating to the said lands, continued to reflect the names of Ramaiah bin Munishamappa and Gopalappa bin Munishamappa and even though the petitioners contend that the land was converted and a layout was formed by the owners and sites were sold to different persons, including the petitioners, there was no document produced evidencing approval of conversion or sanction of plan in the formation of the layout. The approval said to have been obtained from the Grama Panchayat cannot be accepted, as it is not competent to approve any layout plan when the lands are situated within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and it is the planning authority, namely, the BDA, which could grant any approval of the layout plan. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners based on the entry of their names in the Thanisandra Grama Panchayat records in Form No.10 or the kandayam receipts, would have no relevance insofar as respondent no.3 is concerned, in taking steps for acquisition of the said lands. The circumstance that Gopalappa and Ramaiah had died and therefore, a Notification having been issued in the name of dead persons as vitiating the proceedings, is also not a tenable ground, since there was no record or report of their death in the revenue records. Respondent no.3 could not be expected to ascertain whether the said khatedars were alive or dead.

7. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Udaya Holla, appearing for the Counsel for respondent no.4, would urge the following legal contentions insofar as the grounds raised in the petition are concerned.

That in the eye of law, the lands bearing Survey Nos.58/1 and 59/1 of Thanisandra are agricultural lands. It has never been converted for residential purposes. Therefore, the question of any layout plan having been sanctioned and khata numbers being assigned in respect of sites formed therein, is not tenable. The Village Panchayat would have no power to sanction any such layout plan. The contention that the property is shown as residential zone in the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Planning Authority and therefore, cannot be declared as an industrial area, is an incorrect statement. The State Government is empowered to declare any area as an industrial area in exercise of its powers under Section 3(1) of the KIADB Act. The said Act is a later piece of legislation, which was enacted in the year 1966 and the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, is enacted during the year 1961 and in view of Section 47 of the KIADB Act, the same would override the provisions of the KTCP Act. The petitioners have also not explained the circumstance that they had objected to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the BDA, with respect to a portion of land in Survey Nos.58/1 and 59/1, sought to be acquired for the formation of the Arkavathi Layout. If that be so, it is inexplicable that they also seek to claim the lands notified under Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act and since the challenge to the proceedings initiated under the BDA Act, in respect of the said lands having attained finality with the apex Court upholding the acquisition proceedings, the petitioners also claiming lands, that are the subject matter of the present acquisition proceedings, is a contradiction in terms. It is also contended that in the light of the circumstance that the petitioners had instituted civil suits against third-parties, who had entered into agreements with respondent no.4, to consent to the acquisition proceedings and those suits having been dismissed, the title of the petitioners is yet to be adjudicated and therefore, the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition. The learned Senior Advocate would place reliance on the following authorities in support of his contentions: