.._ 1 _
IN THE HIGH comer or KARIIATAKA AT nanaalmm
DATED THIS THE 21.3? DAY 0? AUGUST, V,
BEFORE 3
mm Hoxrnw nsn.Jt3s1*:cE»._3,s.%%é.§r'xiI1i }'
wxrr pm-more Hos_._g4138-;39 9;?
BETWEEN: TV " ' A %
K.P.SWamynatha11,
S/o late V.Po1muswamy Me3ist1y;V " V
Aged. about 7'3 ycazs, ;
Residing at No.162/C, { ' '
Bangalore -» 56(}..O45.'-. § .;; pmwmoxnn
{By Sri '
: ' . . ' . 'I '
Rep1'ese':;§ed, by its
Dcparmejafi of Housing '&»~L'Urban Deveiepmtsnt,
Sou;cl,};a; Bangalore --- 560 O0 1.
.- Tlf1e Bé:if1g£iiQ1'e Defiéibfiment Authority,
» Rep, by its « filbsnmissianer,
3{1:mmjéq;§a1'3:"3&'écst,
B anga1orc§_j-: 550 020. RESPOHDENTB
my sé' M.'}'<:é,si1§va Raddy, AGA. for R-1,
.. Sri D.N.Na:ijunda Reddy, 81". Counsel appears
'*Sai4_B.V§S yana Rae, Adv. for RWQ)
'R-Auk
Thesis Writ Petitions are fileé under Articles 226 8:. 227 of
E116 Constitution of India praying to declare that $116 acquisiticm
proceedings initiated by the raspondents for the formation of
-2...
§ie:nnur--Bel!a1y Road 1" Stage Layout under
Notification dated 27.06.19'}'8 and the Final Notificae:i:.¢;«..;1a.ted
09.01.1985 produced as A;m1exums~F and % is
Angala' measuring 14 acres 11 guntas in "sf.-:s1.o;13/F"1 :m"dV '
cannot have the effect of acquiring :5§y.vNo;'13'f.3 '
measuring 2 acres 10 guntas situatéd ai'TI\J£agaixra1a','
North'I'a1uk. ' % " ' '
These Pctifions having heaéii- ffif Carder on
17.08.2009, coming on i'"(ޤi"'~prOIiOt1Ii(3611}.{:i1$.t}1is day, the Court
made the following: ~
1. Pe1it,iQ;1c"z;_'V'a1:<§¢1;f1ior° apyroached this Court
making action of the 23°' respondent-
Bangalore (for short, ‘the BBA’) stating
V that wigthozit acquisition ymceedings and Without
in the manner lcnown to law, ig being
pmpcrty comprised in Sy.No.13/3
‘ m<:.asi21:ing_v'2. éi¢rcs 10 guntas situatefi at Nagawam Village,
" fiofih Taluk. Pcfitionefs grievance is that in the
A acquiring Syflo. 13/ 1, the 813A is tiying to lay claim on
33/3 measming 2 acres 10 guntas belonfing to him.
… 3 ._
2. The undisputed facts are that the BB3.» issued a
Pnclinainaxy Nottificafion dated 27.06.1978 the
Kamamka Gazette dated 08.07.1978 pmj;_tbs.in;g’V’t”tbt»
certain Lands for the puzrpose :of”f{;rtr&1:at:io1:3..”
Road 1st stage Layout. At (of tttiykg ”
issued undsr Sub»SeCfiot1s:VL:’L” V” ‘}17 (if the
Bangalore Developmfiglt *»(f§>r t$hOrt..’tb.t:: Act’) the land
is shown as ‘Sy.I\¥o.’3;5/.1-‘.’* ‘ccglumn relating to the
name of the éhown as ‘Kare Angala
to ‘dry, wet or
of the land acquimd it is
shown as 81%: column, ‘total extent of iand’, it is
showfiéfitntas’. Likewise, under the column
I10. it is mentioned as East —- Hennur
«V&ti0tz1it{3tI’_:§;’«.§Uest – Sy. Nos}, 4, 5, 5, 7, 3,15, North —- Hennur
— Sy.No.14 Kacharkanahally boundary. Final
was issued on 09.01.1985 describing the land as
AA jSy. ..I’~§r};;13/ 1 Ker: Angala measuring 16 acres 21 gzmtas.
3. The case of the pefiiiener is that he is the joint owner of
‘ Iané bearing Sy.No.1.’3/3 (New No.}..60) Iineasuriug 2 acres 10
” guntas of Péagatvaza Village, Bangajiort: North Taiuk. Fathttr of
._ 4 ..
the petifioner Sri Ponnuswamy Maistxy purchased the property
under a Registered Sale med dateé. 13.97.1942. file. on
22.1 1.1949. After his death) his wife smt.r>apaz;%gi§:;a<' me
property under a Registered Sale Deed datcté K
favour of Sri Vadivelu. Fmm the
of Sri Ponnuswatny purchasedflze ;
Sale Deed dated 09.05.1955. the said
purchase, the children inclueling
the petitioner hefein possession and
enjoyment of the aeeerdingly their names
have been It is also his case
that the}? V:fl:1on~residentia1 purpose as
Pttr the §ie§r– Iiassed by the Spfteiai Deputy
Commissionefl Bangéflofe Sienict. Petitioner has pmdilced the
V’ A. at Annexure-A, which cliscbses the
” “sale transactions in respect of Sy. No.13/3
measfi%ing_A2′ 16 guatas of land. By virtue of the sale deed
“dated the pefitioner and his brothers have become
Voeiéners of the property in question. Their names came to ‘be
__ “eI1fi;Ied in the revenue Iecottis.
t. 3 _
4. As on the date of the Preliminary Notificaticm L6. as on
19′?’7′–‘?8, the name of Sri Pcnzmuswamy Maistiy, father of the
petitioner is entered in the column pertaining to ov§i1er~cum«
khabjedar in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.
2 acres 10 guntas. in support of this contenfioiéé
pmduced the mom of rights of t1’1emj§?e’ar5_ I’97’?-‘?$§t«1Q:v1§8i~’=82b. A’
To show that names of Sri K.P,
Sri K.P.Armugam and Sri V» sjof
Ponnuswamy are ente:vred.V in the teiveiiue respect of
Sy.No.13/3, me Recs;-d”6i’flRi2’ht,~§§’» 1982-83 to 1986-
8′? are also pred before the Court
along –a..__34-.’B8.2009. Petitioners have also
p1″ocl11ceei,”v.t:}1e :ecn{n’afe£ in respect of Sy.Na:>.13/1 as per
An1;e;:’cme«E1V that it measured 14 acres 11 guntas and
been acquired by the BDA. An11exure«E2 to ES
1 Vt Rights pertaining to Sy.No.13/ 1, for the years
2efi2~03,~ 2ee3»04, 20o4~o5, 2901-03 and 2oes~o9 respectively
fizhereitx the extent is mentioned as 14 acres 11 gumas and
A »it”is eéeted that this land is acquired by the BDA.
u Sy.Nc;.13/2 belongs to one Sri M. K. Haj}. Mohamed Ahdui
Khader am}. it measures 1 acre 13 guntas. An-other RTC for the
….. 6 ..
year 2()(}8–G9 is produced at Annext1ie~–E’7 to shew that
Syn N0. 13 / 3 measmzting 2 acres 10 guntas has bee;;1″
as 83!. No.16() and continues in the name of
with his brothers. Petitioner has }f)I”0(‘1Z’J,C’Cd._’ the
of the years 2005-06, 2oo»4~0S;«.V 5
Annexuresy-E7 to E310 wh,AieE1’_ “that Sy’.
910.160 stands innthe joint na1:;esflofSm:;s of Ponnuggwamy.
6. When the BDA stssjtsa the possession of
the petitioner;his:=bxt:tEseré;; a Civil Suit in
{).S.N0.743§/ 3 Permanent injunction.
The saga éfiit
7, The’ 0-f learned Senior Counsel for the
is acquiring the land of the petitioner
any awaxd and without paying any
the peijtioner, the EBA is laying an iiiegal
claim the of the gpetitioner, thereby depriving him of
_. , { :y”’}1isL_1igf1t–1$7ithout following the due process of law.
‘ 8 ,; The stand of the BSA, as earwasseé by the iearned Senior
‘4 Counsel Sri. Nanjunda Reddy and as urged in the statement of
ebjeetzions is that though it is mentioned in the Preiiminazy and
%.
_ 7 _
Final Notifications that Sy.No.13/ 1 is acquired, What is actuafly
acquired is Sy.No. 13 which méasurcg 16 acres 21 guntas and
which belongs to the Government} ‘hxemfore, no right”-._9f the
petitioner is affected and the petitioner is not depri§:ed:”L:of”§1is
property. According to the BDA, there is 11o–: §;u(:I:3«T
existence as Sy.No.13/3 and whatxwas», (>i;.iy
Sy.No. 13 which was :21 ‘Kerr: Angala’ sa2fi:¢”‘vz’::2v1s
for the purpose of formation of Iay6’U.’§. filrthess» L’
case that having filed O.S.No.743_3}”v19’9.8, whemip. gin issue is
raiseé with regard to Vt;;é:”T.ac«;1;gs:fi6::[V%% the land by the
Government, it is apt approach. this
Court -‘as the entire land has been
taken §0s§es$ion’anf1″ i$ The EDA has f£1I’TLhCI’ urged
that pe§ti1:ia:§nera c*t:u_V}7iiV”noii have derived any vaiid right, title or
ifitsrééf. i.t:3§: pmperty by virtue of the sale deeds or any
as mcorci of rights referred to by him in
‘ tl3isAW1:*it, as flaw entire extent of 16 acres 21 gtmtas of
in ..S3§.:’No.13 was classified as Government land. as per
_}L. 33 and allottmi the same to various persons.
p
-1
J;
_ 3 _
9. Having heard the iearned Senior Counsei for the parties
and on caxeful perusal of the materials on record, I find that
there are absoiutely no materials to Show that as on the”d_ate of
Notification there existed land
Sy.No. 13 measuring 16 acres 21 guntas. On
the record of rights yroduced f1cIf.i”197.7
encumbrance certificate }prociucedz’«Va:t–._T V”
disclose that as back as in the V’i..’?1__ereVVWasVeiib~di§risiofl’ V
of Sy.No.13 and Sy.No.13./3 wase-ptgizehased b3§’I;’a1e faiher of the
pefitioner Sri Ponn11swafij;y afegistered sale deed
dated 13.o7.1942,:” The ifijrt”‘ ‘in respect of this
property’: sho\x;eVT’ 1;13a_f~3§ere’ two other sale deeds dated
2?’.(}’7.1953 The relevant Iecoifi of rights for
the yam 197?’4’m E86187 make it clear that Sy.No.13/3
; i11eaeiLn”nE§’2 véxxéxes 10 guntas was very much in existence and
V fcnnuswamy Maistry and Kate’; on that of his
font the petitioner were entered in the record of
by Revenue Authorities as owners in pcsseesaion. It is
_e§ta¥:)1ished that entzies in the revenue records have got
K : p1’e§’.~:umpfive value until the contrary is established. The entries
made in the recozti of rights am presumed to be true
.. 9 M
and coxmct as per Section 133 of the Karnataka I,and”‘–.§2evenue
Act.
10. On the one hand, there is no enny showing. titiai $34.
in its undivided form was in eidsteziee and its measurement iriras’, 2
recorded as 16 acres 21 guntas as n.”f’}{e’1″e”
contended by the BDA. tnét
Sy.Nos.13/ I 6:. 13/ 3 welein the date of
issue of Prelizninaxy No. 13/3 has been
in existence fttjami x V” ” 2
11. When” for prelinlinaxy hearing
while Ieenbnéients, the BDA was directed
to 13.08.2009, an argument was
advanced _ 1:}:m for the BDA stating that the
acq;;;§~$it;en VWa$”‘i:1.,._r€:spcct of the entire extent of Sy.No.13,
:=vffiexjeasV_vth,e«.i:$AJA’o?;i§tication incorrectly disclosed acquisifixm of Sy.
._tIA1e£$;’V.backg”£t3und, the BOA was directed to file an
V . afi.i’ Land Acquisition Oficer stating whether at the
uof P.1°e1im1n’ my and Final Notifications, the land beaxing
Sy;No;13 was in existence in its oansolidatcd form or there wem
-dnvisiotzct of Sy.No.13 Into Sy.No.13[1, 13/2 and 13/3.
Accoxvdiflgiy. an afidavit is filed along with Statement of
Objections.
33
-10..
12. In the aflidavit filed by the Land Acquisition. it is
asserted that entire extent of land Sy.N’o. 13 faeies
21 guntas has been acquired and is iwithi
respondent. But no materiai is A123.’
said assertion. Even in tI:1e»i’st§1te1:nie:1,’tii’ of es
adverted to herein above, no is Show that
Sy.No. 13 was in existenee’:«it1 forfiiiet the time of
issue of S’3~f;~:§r()”J}:5’3″V{V3S in existence in
its eonsoiidated issue of Preliminaxy
Notification: BDA from producing any
onisiieieeument on which reliance is
placed Fthei produced at Annexure-R1.
This is not iér dioctltaeiit seowing the title or possession of the
it. is §ao:e<a' Record of right. it is issued by the
There is no rnaterial to hold that
tliiexeiiwas division of land Sy.No.13 and Sy.No,13 in its
conseiédétted form stood in the name of the Government. As
i V' lieid herein above, the overwhelming materials prwalced
— form of record of lights and the Eneumbrance Cerfificate
” that at an undisputed point of time the sub division of
A. Syfio. 13 had taken piece and the land Sy.Nes.13/1, 13,’2 65
L}
13/3 had come into existence. Therefore, noxlefof the
contentions urged by the BDA are ” The
Netifieatien issued under Section 15(2) of the ‘I’J.;s:§11cI_V’e;i:kxC%(;”Ii1i~.*;3″‘i;t_it)V’::;:.._
Act does not refer to Sy. No. 13 f3,” ‘AHe1:ee,”..«the« Ad
BDA that Sy. No.13/3 is taken 9&9; sites:A.§&’ere
baseless. Without
names of the owners particulars
pertaining to the bounddeites-, the pefifionefs }and,
the BDA intendsfto’_dep:;’iir”e’ nis valuable piece of
33nd, Thisrie and untenable
contention V’ land belonged to the
Geveminzent beieg’ “‘Keie_uAngal~a’.
13. ‘”‘tr>VVprQ};:»eft;;z not be a fzmdamentai right now,
< V300Aqef"EIieVC0nsh'tution states that 'no person shall
lhis property save by authority of law'. This is a
.:§)rotec1:ion given to the citizen against deprivation
C of The procedure of acquiring the land as pmvided
Vzxndezj Sections 17 85 19 of the BDA Act makes it clear that there
to be a Notificatien preposing t<::_ acquire the land
" dnentioning the names of the owners and occupants, the smvey
mzmbers and other details of the land. Individual notices have
to be given to the owners; objections have to be invited and after
ks
… …..
considering the objecfions, if the objections are overrxiied, Final
Notificafion has to be published and thereafier to
be passed and before passing the award noiiee-._:1:1asV’_i iie”
to enable the landowner to
compensation. Thezeaftex, onee
determined by passing an the nave
remedy of seeking reference ihe’Ai§ii»;&gfl1jevcd by
the quantum of will detennine
the con1pensaltio:n..i11 Such being the
procedure forward a totally
untenahlen. ithe EBA is depriving the
petifioner sf iof land contending that what is
notified Comprised in Sy.No.13. This
contenhen is uriitenable.
V [AB2iei*eiji’nvl::ieeause the petitioner along with his brothers has
npghiiieaciieiif Civil Court seeking to protect his possession by
a for injunction, it eannat be said that the petifioner
i V’ the éoors nf this Court complaining of the illegal
‘ étegirivafien of his property Without authozity caf Law. Article
” HVSGDA as enticed above, protects the citizen against such
deprivaticzan. The BSA is at statutnry body. If it Wants to acquire
the pregaerty of the citizen, it has to do it in accordance with law.
§’=,.,
n/
….. _
It has ezztacted the Bangalore Deveiopment A1ztho1’ity.j’A»::t. It is
very strange and shocking to note that the ‘take
over the property of a citizen without notifgfifizg
number, his name, the extent of of AV
the said property. By resorting the
successfillly prevented the petittdner
right from the year 19’?8,
15. This Court Vca1111otVV_tV_1Vx:1;t:;V he has come
to the Court …+c;:rf§31tending that he has
been a statutory body. It will
be a tzf¢i£?ei*sit3Vf’¢)uf of the citizen are allowed
to be Court does not come to their
rescue ex:er:ris’ingV ‘flower under Article 226 of the
r Csttsriitgtiiozg. Heiice,–«–€}:1e petitioner deserves to succeed.
and for the reasons mentioned above, the
wrii._4#)etitiat:1’afloWed in part. It is ordered that as the Land
13/3 belonging to the petitioner is not acquired,
cannot deprive the petitioner of his rights in respect of
land. It is further oxtiered that as the Nofifications
A1mexures~F and G are only in respect of Sy.No.13/ 1, they
cannot have the effect 01″ acquiring Sy.No.}3 / 3 beiongiifig. to the
petitioner.