-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 131'" DAY OF SEPTEMBER,j2O 10
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIcE RAM _
WRIT PETITION No.3s47o of ;2°0_o9 'Irina' '_
C[w.
WRIT PETITION NOS.1'849-18.50 OF iBI:f~A)II ,
MISC.W.No. I397/2010 &'VMISC.W.-No.51 1.2/2010
IN w.P.No,3s4fm or 2909 (BDA)./
MISC.W. 1397/20 10 A: 'M1scIE.I:*a\Z;5 0 &
W.P.NO.38470.0F 2009 1 ' 1 'A '
A
PSRIDHARAAREDDTWS A'
S/Q.,,VENKU_RED'DY\
AGE 47 YEARS,
" . R/AT / 1, BLOCK
. jGANQENA§--1AL__L1, BANGALORE --- 32. PETITIONER
~.(E§¥R «sir'<i«'§"'_I#»I'1(}ID{jIA'i\/IED NASIRUDDIN, ADV]
AND ' -
" ~ COMMISSIONER D
.BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
._ BELLMQY ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST
BANGALORE ---- 20. .. .RESPONDENT
(BY SR1. A M VIJAY, ADV]
MK
MISC. W. 1397/10 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF
CPC FOR VACATING INTERIM ORDER 5: MISC.W. 5112/I0
FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF THE CPC”-.R/W
ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF’ THE CONSTITUTION OEfI.ND_IA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE A.<~:~QUwIS_IT*I__ON
PROCEEDINGS AND AWARD PASSEDj' BYV"_
RESPONDENT ON 21.12.1983 AT 8:
PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT. 'AALON'GWITH.i'. ITS
OBJECTIC)NINW.P.38470/09. * I.
THIS PE'I'I'I'ION FILED UNDER-.. 1Vx'}"\'1'IC'I,.'I¥3AT.§2v2,6VV<'SI 2272*
OF THE CONSTITUTION OFTNDIA PP{I'–\fYI'1'JC% TO DIRECT
TI-IE RESPONDENT, ITS OFEICIALS._, OR ITS,_l-IENCHMEN
FROM IN ANY WAY 'INTERIi'ERIN'(?; WITH THE PEACEFUL
POSSESSION AND EfI\IJOYMf€»Nv"i' 'THE SCHEDULE
PROPERTY OR, IN AT1fI:MPTING""~-.TO._':_.DEMOLISH THE
STRUCTURES»,STA:N'DING_'THEREON; AND ETC.
W.P.NOs u1849w'l.S.5f)j;1¥Q*~..: '
BE'IWEI<3N :"
T, , I . IvIO}iAMMED”‘R1YAZUDDIN
–. _ .8/OI.,IvIOHAMMED ZIAUDDIN
AGE 46_YEARS
~ R/AT NO. 5, 3RD MAIN RAOD
VASANTHNAGAR (EAST), BANGALORE.
2 ” NAVEED PASHA
I S/O. LATE MOHAMMED ISMAIL
AGE 39 YEARS
R/AT NO. 647, 7TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS
HMT LAYOUT, R T NAGAR, BANGALORE.
.. . PETITIONERS
{BY SR1. A K SUBBAIAH & A S PONNAMMA, ADV)
M
AND:
THE COMMISSIONER M
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUT_H.ORITY_” E
BELLARY ROAD, KUMARAPARK EST’ ‘ .. ”
BANGALORE. E. ..1E»RESPON[i3EN%I’j ‘
{BY SR1. V B SHIVA
THESE PETmO_NS E1LEt)»v.:J1~:pER’ ARTICLE 226 81
227 OF THE CONSTITUTTONVA *’O.EfIND1A PRAYING TO
DIRECT TI-IE RESPONDENT ‘LSSTJE AEPRORRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER OR D1REcT’1OVNV:’THE__ N TGRE_’;G1T PROHIBITION
REsTRAIN1NG.–.TEE Ij3ESP’Q1\TD’EANT, “ITS” OFFICIALS AND
HENcHMAN3..FR-SM DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING OF THE
PETITONERS;HEREIN’~-.STANr51NG IN ASSESSMENT NO.6.
EHOO1?SANE’RA.;_,V1LLAGE’. ~– KASAISA I-IOBLI, BANGALORE
NORTH TALIJK; AND ETC’.
THESE MISCf;W;s__}LNI3 PETITIONS COMING ON FQR
PRLHEARING IN ‘E5 GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE. FOLLOw1NG;–. *
_ . . . .
questions Of fact and that Of
Sr-ise Vforivticfieeision making, with the consent of learned
_cOurz1sei for the parties, the petitions are clubbed
O gttcgether, finaliy heard and are disposed Of by this
—-Common Order.
bk
-4-
2. It is not in dispute that land
guntas in Sy.No.6 of Boopasandra V111age,oL1t’oi”
the petitioner claim to purchased
sites, was acquired alonggvzith 1ar_g”‘e- tracts.
the formation of Rajarnahalnéiii’ Stage,”-Cfoiiui:’}IImStage,
Extension layout, Vifieyelopment
Authority, for, short… preliminary
notification Pfvinaiwjnotification dated
of possession was
nofified dated 3.1.1985 under
Sectionxi1§d3d(2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
the”«1ay_out has been formed. According to
— BDA, the notified kathedars did not
acquisition proceedings while one Raziya 5
Bee; ‘W’/o. Abdul Jabbar Khan claiming to have; an
in the immovable property in question
___5instituted O.S.No.3502/89 for permanent injunction
arraigning the respondent-BDA as party~defendant
which when dismissed by judgment and decree dated
5*
-6-
3. Aithough a faint effort was made by’
counsel for the petitioners that
permitted to challenge the noitificateionscp it
lands in question, I am afraid neither suchajp conte_ij.1tion_–‘*.
cannot be countenanced in
the light of the decision Imnvsnuss LTD
vs. STATE or p OTHERSI
disentitling in question the
acquis_i_tior1~ couért of law.
4. iA~Fut1c1 this Court in POORNAPRAJNA
H_o*Us1Es: tpmilnnzwoz COOPERATIVE SOCIETY vs.
DODDA BAILAMMA & OTHERS? hgiq
“28. Writ appeals 2090434/93 arising
out of wit petition Nos.480 to 484/93 have
been filed by the purchasers of the lands
after the issuance of notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act. Now it is a well
‘ (2003) 5 scc 365 M
_-7..
settled proposition of law that a perso;1*-Wl1o_:”‘.j’
purchases the land subsequent {the
issuance of the notificat.io’n–under _, .S”ectio11._f,
4(1) of the Act, cannot be to
owner. Such a pu:~’ch__aser7has no.”ri’ght_ to’;
challenge the acquisitionl’it_self,” he
is entitled to claim b3dr’VVi1’tue of
sale made in title and
interest ;of__ his A 1 Reference may
be Ina-deb t’l1e”Supreme Court
in it jji’i1’§’J’i._3ui;A sR1. SHIVKUMAR
I’l’BHAF§t}Al?}}”‘&:”Ofi’i-IERS”{JT 1995 (6) so 274)
* ‘
A T V of the Government
ind_i_c_ates that the person whose land
was acquired means the owner as on
‘-date. notification was notified for
‘V dll’-ijacajuisition, and he alone will be
t ‘V entitled to allotment of alternative site.
A person who purchases land
subsequent to the Notification may be
entitled to claim compensation by
virtue of sale made in his favour,
namely, the right title and interest the
3 ELR 2.998 KAR E441
-8-
predecessor had but, he cannot
said to be the owner for a11otrn”ent..’ it
since the right of ownership Wouid_beA_f
determined with refere’nee’4to theedtate V
on which Notificationi’ufi_der
4(1) was pubIished’.~..-WasVt}1e”V’.ijewVV
of this Court in another oases ‘white
considering: the Judgment
of the De1hi4Hi_gh” these
circtariistancet V’ it Ttllowed.
S h’e””considered
dddd “‘tto:.:ivi}3’eTV’::ii§he ‘”_’as””on the date of
_ ” Section 4(1)
= the Gazette. The
direction given by the learned Single
“eiudged ‘accordingly quashed. The
:Wi}it.Petition stands dismissed.
it “Reference can also be made to the
subsequent Judgments of the Supreme
Court in SMT. SNEH PRABI-IA vs. STATE OF
U.P. 8: ANOTHER (AIR 1996 SC 540}; U.P.
JAL NIGAM, LUCKNOW THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER vs. M/S. KALRA
UR
-9-
PROPERTIES (P) LTD., LUCKl\?OW;~””;~’\;[\lf_)_J:’I’
OTHERS (AIR 1996 SC 1170) aiIH1d~.,:$\;]’AY t
KRXSI-IAN SHINGHAL vs.:-‘U’NI«ON~’_:OF’:iIi\I’DlA.’_i’. it
AND OTHERS (AIR 1996:”1SCf_’_’2L5’7’7}=i_ ‘-15}:
aforesaid judgments’ -..__t_he S_uprerr:e:’
reiterated the View
Bhargava” casg Supraiargdg p held that the
purchaser subs’et;uent_Vtoitheilissuance of the
notifications uiiideriffiection 6 has no
right acquisition
Dro1§§e5ii1;1éS’i”’ ‘ a
exfeielgsettied proposition of law that a
person the land subsequent to the
is:s’}:1ance,vp_of notification under sub–section (1) of Section
V of”-cannot be said to be the owner and such a
Fcannot have the right to challenge the
acquivsiition itself although he is entitled to claim
vcofnpensation by virtue of the sale made in his favour
__§i.e. of right, title and interest of his predecessor.
M
.10
In the circumstances, writ petitions :are_wi__fict’§;cut
merit and are accordingly rejected.
In View of the disposal ofithg. ‘:petitioia.sL:_’i{ssei’f,
MiSC.W.1397/2010 &«’ »i__M1sc,W.511.27/gfcvio
dismissed as having become__i’mriecessa:yi_.’ I if;
KS