EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY 01?
PRESENT... .
THE HONBLE MR. RD. D:NAKAR.5N, JI}si'1c:E L
AND % q
THE HON'BLE MR.JU'3.'fiCE v..* " '
. GNANABHARATHI ROAD
' 'mamgaaaavig
!'§A(?:AR B.l~_iAVi POST-560072
~2' --.._'ASh§¥_';».S§§Af§THAMMA
D[G.LA*i'E MUNIYAPPA
AGED" ABOUT 50 YEARS,
'RIA NO. 192
+. , GNANABHARATHI ROAD
_ NAGARABHAVI,
' NAGARBHAVI POST
'V -,." ws 4 01? THE
KARNATAKA gzazaj-c0URr A.£'P«.PR}_iY1NG'TO SET ASIDE THE
ORBER 1=Ass;:_E1::PI_r~z ft':-IE. W121? PE'I'1'I'ION. No.42-43/2009
DATED 20;?{)4;_?.0(}'9';__ "
T5336' comm' g up for i3I\':3 '
Hearing Of} day, J., delivered the following.
gunammn?
'A appeals are filed by the petitioners in
being aggacfivcd by the order dafied
" " ' 9 7 L --- disgaissea the writ petition.
20. 4~.§J()ii9 wilcmin the Iflarneci Single Judge of this court has
\H
2. The appellants herein filed
seeking for a dimctioxa to the respondents "
xeprcsentafions dated 8.7.2098,.:4′.9..30C§§V ;siri§i” 7′.:.§;2o0_§ ”
submitted by the first respondent offirgé
afidavit filsd by the pctitioncfTsv”i11V accor<1a:3.ceT"m1der. L'
Section 48 of the Act for
denofificafion]withdra\vvalV:~" proceedings of
land Sy.No.78 of VNa.gg£'fi}*#:i§*i ._ sgéshivanthpur Hobli,
Baflg an area of 5 acres 13
layout and a direction to the
second reoL1:r§i1de;: zt..I1t;»t"fzftake illegal action to demolish the
V. A_ cxififing constfuctipzm or to evict the occupants and
the petitioners from the land—Sy.No.'78 of
H Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North
–V Talfik, 5 acres 13 guntas.
It is averted in the writ petition that
K the petitioners’ mother~Huchamma was the owner
xs?”
of the land bearing Sy.No.78, Nagarabhavi village, haying
acquired the same under registered sale decaf’
19.10.196′? and her name was ordemd to be ‘
shown in the revcmue records. Theaaidé Iarsd VV
extent of 10 acres 8 gunfas including 1:
guntas of kharab land. The ‘p:_(_-.’t”it.joI1t=:’i~’s (Sf
Smtfiuchamma. Huchamma 2000
leaving behind the pefifiicxfixis #23 to succeed to her 1
cstateujlt year 1978 the second
mspondéni ‘issuc;{fio1.ific;.=§tiofl proposizag to acquire various
lafiiifito a11 “t:x tVc12.t’.’of ’12«I.(.) acres 35 guntas in Nagarbhavi
V’ vfl]z§gé’9’iIic1uding the petitioners land Sy.No.78
_.ofi’ for implementation of an improvement
ééhféfite f§3:¢*’V”tI?.;.-éiforzzzatioza of Nagarbhavi iayeut under Section
17 of? VEDA Act, 1975. Notification dated 15.7.1982
% figgfitjfished in the Karnataka Gazette on 19.8.1982. The first
xigspondent issued a final notificaizion 91:: 16.8.1985
wifublishecl in the gazette on ‘?.1I. 1985 notifying an extent: of
518 acms 29 guntas said to be acquired for Nagarabhavti I
W”
Stage Layout. The second respondent-BDA’ K V’
any steps to implement the
smmunding Lands are being <_ievelo:f)cd:"w:.ith
consisting of buildings, the the V
land in question and the
second mspendcnt awani during
the year 1938;. District
Co-opcrativss ' '€',Vo-operative Society
Ltd., my ¥the Society') moved the
seccmd xia$po:§de1;i?V~~1:'éq11esfing for yant of pcnnission
to form pxi§i'ia'te_:V1ay¢utAb11V'i:kV:ha}f of the: land owner and filed
'*.W.i5;§io:,.12i'19/1§i38 —- "siecking directions. The sand' writ
on 13.1o.1%3 and the appeal filed
in W.A.No.1696/88 was dismissed on
7.__23.a. and mcrmfier Civil Appeal No.17/91 before the
5]” Court was disposed of homing that the same ma
‘ Bagcfimc infructuous and second respondent-Bl)A had not
Wiiakcn any steps for formation of Layout and allotment of sites
formm in the land in question. The second mspondent-EBA
\>/’
issued notificatian dated 6.4.1998 proposing to,
ailotment of land in question for res»iAc}e11t:ia1_-{~g:*z:xii1:j1;1 ‘A V.
puirpoms and EDA had dropped ai.": layout in implementation of fthg: V L. mother was alive at that time Vcamc
to the schedule iand Augfigi, 5000, she
appmached this court on the gonad
that the the award was not
TA ” ch 1z1n the pcndency of the writ
petition, *pefition¢f${:V’;:fiG’£§ér in December, 2000 and
petitioners fin as legal zep11=:se1:”1wt.ivr:s and
§#rit”‘”pcfition. ‘E’hereafi:er, the pciitioncrs
grounds that the proposed scheme has
27 of the am Act and writ petition
__was ~~ Being aggrieved by the same,
A .,:j:¢”4’;f.A?.L.’f’€9.2945/ 2004 was fiied and Division Bench of this court
‘ dismissed the writ agxpeal on the sole ground of delay and
” W’];%ac11es. The Apex court dismissed SLP.No.2I’73/2005 on the
gonad of dchy and haches on 14.1.2009. During the
K9}
pcndency of the petition before thc_I*Iae3,I_1_’b}g:_. ” ” V
petitioners submit that repzeseniatixjts
second respondent bringing fiofiéc of ‘
that an area of 2 acres 30 -ouf for
formatjon of 80 feet guntas of
fand ufiliscd for mm of 4
acres being 5 acres £3 guntas
in land is built up with
consu1,;i§’}1:{é1%1s’,.: ‘ V establishment,
kalyan ehurch anti private layout has
been in the surrounding area of the
‘~ . :iI3%,.A’-cgus:2s,tionV”Vférivate layouts have been dcvcibped and
any layout and petitioners made
that they are ready and w111m’ ‘ g to give up
,_their elfiimvaver ufilisad land of an area of 4 acres and
A to delete an area of 5 acres 13 guntas built up
‘ with private layout from acquisition p and
.4 they shall not claim any compensation in mspcct of
utilised land and Withdraw all litigations. On the suggcation
ks?’
of the second respond:-.nt~BDA petitioners ‘V _
ufidcrtak1n’ g amdavit on stamp
that behalf. In continuation pf a1:»3.; )}_§;¢étti¢a1iV ~.
undertaking afidavit the” ‘V
3135., the petitioners éi}…jrepf¢*s;e=ntaEt:ion on
20.9.2007 to the first c§§;vc.».;nment in that
behalf. The sgaug file regarding
iof _ proceedings _ in
mspecffurflif village to an extent
of 5 acflsts with private layout on the
basis cf and unequivocal tmdcrtaking
‘~ The grievance of the pctzitzioners was
L’ . 1 ” to the State Government by
s:i.:»a’.P.i{1§5<;;a::ei§wamy, MLA of Mudigcre, Chiclanagaiur
I)ist44i'i<;tV"';i.s?}1.i$ has foxwarded the xetter dated 3.7.2003 in this
x V' V.tieh.a1£ éfhe first respondent enquired into the matter afier
for infomxation from the second rcspondent~BDA and
conducting spot inspection zeganiing the factual
situation of surrounding area in respect of Sy.No.?8 of
K93
10
Nagarabhavi village and the BDA
submitted sketch and raped stating that _a}.E. ‘
area of Sy.No.78 of Nagarabhavi
private layouts and EDA has not az:;3,r1″1%.1é§koi1m’;–:}’
these 13-acts are brought to the’ of th¢§ in
SLP with regard to the for cofifiiidéiafion for
denotification from an area of 5
acres 13 however, the Apex
Court “th e= ‘ is altogether
difl’eIez:it_ ‘ of power by the State
Govemmcfi”… 48 of Land Acquisition Act to be
., indeiizcngicnfly by the State Government under its
‘p Owe;r sf domain anti dismissed SLP by order dated
H ground of delay and iachcs without going
qiiesfion cf exercise of power by the Stairs
K V” V (3ov¢mm ” mt under Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act and in
” ‘ébove sand” facts and cizcumstances the oficiais of
‘”second respondent abruptly without any notice nor any
communication to the petitioners, with their squad cams
:03?
12
petition and pcfitioncrs have stated in para-21 of thé
pctiblon that there are no other iitigations or 3
either pending or decided before any court
In writ petition is liable to be
averted that all the four petitzionérs ~_
challenged the acquisition ‘ A
oouxt/Apex couxt as the and~.t1:p.s’§ pm-sent
writ petition is filed to Asjssucs which have
been against the petitioners in the
earlier ” _ 3’11+.gs’.A:-j.’I’tb avermd ‘that award was
passxsd. on ‘uI2._.:S.’1E$88.”-pnsscssion of 5 acres 13 guratas
*-gegceiiiaisxg the khafafiéiand) is taken on 30.6.1988 under
‘g: the Land Acquisition Act, 1961. A
been issued and respondent No.2-BEA has
‘V._frmed’ layout consisting of 1588 sites in Nagarahhavi
A “ii and aliottcd the sites to S€Vf’:I’aI ehgib’ in persons and
‘ has issued possession certificates, sak: dcfis to respective
Hsllotccs. It is further avcrrcd that writ petitimcx has been filed
ts prevent the second respondent-BDA from implementing
Q
13
the order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the _
Court. All the grounds allegad in s1’v1Jpfii<§£*i«Qf"-the
in respect ofwrit petitioners right, intétgét ..
gone into in the o:dt:r; "'w-A»dat§a".. . V in 'V
w.p.No.mr671/2000 which ha-.2:"':;:1Ei:;c:,fiéic:;i@ ..i3e1:iaonez~
N<3.4 has firm 0ng)na' ' 1 S:.;i1 'rs.«.§';»§%1 before the City
Civil Court in.» :=s{g'.p~cct based on
certain VIE} law and therefore,
the
5. ‘Fh:cM~ leamv’ Judge after oonsiderm g the
ooigtgghfian df counsel appearing for the writ
AGA., appealing for respom:1ez1twNo. 1 and
1 for respondents 2 and 3 by oxdcr
dafilcl hem that the acquisition proceedings have
..&};ahc1d in the earlier s by the
K ” of the pcfifioners-Snat. Huchmmaa in
.&:v’_Vv_\¥i?.P.No.276?1/2000. Bruring the pcndency of the writ
petition, Huchamma dim! and petitioners were bmught on
xi?’
15
Apex ccmrt has also specifically ruled that ‘
taken on 30.6.1988 and the1eforc;;:’thc§1:1E:’ isjtadi
Writ petition and accordizigly,’ the’
Being aggrieved by the salt!’ or<i t§i'».§:.i;isan1issii1g_ péfifion
on 20.4.2009, the *~V.;_}c1jii§z'§':–V_1i}:£"'.*§._ these
appeals.
6. W; « ‘ appeaxing for
the: appgllantggi-. for mspondent
No.2~BDA :ӣ}o:r:$i-nmxnt Advocate appearing
fior the r63P011cié9t NAo.i.’V.. «V ” U
for the appellants
-. the acqtiisifion proceedings have
H pmcccdm gs m’ mated’ ‘ by the writ
iv 1§3.ed¢V ” \av.P.No.276’71/2600 The second
.1 has not implemented the pian rfiaxtiing
of ‘ layaut and %ession of the
‘ T comprised in Sy.No.78 bclongkxg to the petitioners
not been talwn and tlixzrcforc, the scheme has lapsed
~\3/’$7
16
under Sec®»n 2′?’ of the BBA Act anti the .
fiver: by the petitioners for dcnofificgiion is ” =
the Government and the it;
SLP.No.290/ 2009 is also Am if.
therefore, the learned smgle’ Ju§ge_V%wa;;’- in
dismissing the writ ought to
have been allowed.
8,.» ” for respondent no.2~
EBA éoyiténtions raised in the present
writ pctit:ii5n._ V11.’1sV4V’E2v.e£-.1;§:_ by Huchamma in the earlier
_ writ. «§f:;§:iti:>;;1~\\fV;’i3′;–}\V.’l:;v;f’f’27fS71]2000 which has been dismissed
appeal by the {)ivis£on Bench of this court
by the Appellate Court and thercfom, no
_ which have almady become finai cannot be
V. was the petitioners are para” ‘es in the sand’ writ
being thc”LRs of Huchamma who died during the
~~p<;,11d€I1cy of the writ petition.
K'?
17
9. Learned Government Advocate _. . A
respondent No.1 submitted that
been already taken and quesfsiee of dev’i1otific2:tio;..1v»:€i«€>ee’; L»
arise and all the contenfions are earlier
writ petition have been the peifitieners and
has become final and be reopened
by filing fie-.311
consideration to the
conte1i”ijon_ _ appearm’ g for the partle’ s
and the” en record.
The zxieiteri-.9103 xeconi wouid dearly show that the
L’ fietificafion was published by the second
proposing to acquire lands for the
forefiiatien Nagaxbhavi Residential Layout under Section
meme (3). Notxfica’ mm’ dated 15.37.1982 was published in
12;; gazette dated 19.3. £982 proposing to acquired 73; acres
gunias in Nagarbhavi village and 478 acres 39 gtmtae in
Malagala village incluéing Sy.No.78 measudng 9 acres 13
\9/9′
19
acquisition and negativing the contcntion t§uf’ti.’:¢-ii ” =
herein who are the LRS of
petifioner that the scheme has-.__;~;;1psé2d.V_tin(1erT. 0i’ L,
the am Act and therefore, .:;V1’ot”(‘}j’:-_ex:;*.’1’v’:to }ti1e writ
petitioncrwappellants V ” «mnmfifi that the
scheme has lapsed. A given in the
said writ belonging to
the mothezjgf have succeeded
was has not iapsed under
Sectio11v 2′? ‘of and therefore, it is not open to
the pf’1itiOIié’I’3_TtO édiitcnd that acquisition proceedings
V’ ~ ‘S-Eéfion 27 of the BDA Act and in aI’I’I’V’111’ ‘ S
at :.£§u:t:ic-Zfizsion that the scheme has not lapsed,
reiicd upon the decision of tlim wart in
Kalsimamumm vs. BANGALGRE DEVELOPMENT
% .§§O1*}10Rm (11.12 1996 KAR1258) and BANGALORE
‘i)E’§’A’ELOPMENT AUTHURITY vs. DR.H.S.HANUMAN’I’HAPPA
V ‘(ILR 1.996 KARNATAKA 542). Even otherwise, it is ch;-,a£ that
there is no force in the contmtnlon of the id counsel
K33′
2′!
therefore, it is ciear that the contention of the
that acquisition is vitiateé and the scheme
View of the provisions of Section 27 ;or’thc .3135 ¢…m:..b¢.’ V’
accepted and the same is liable eis~ i._
any merit. The material on m<?° woA1.1'i-'1 <:l¢'«,?i1'1,}' " L?
Horfble Supreme Court has ;§éssing.»'éhe order
dated 14.1.2009 that pets:§essi'(:;;V§'§diTt.1Eie..V:ia,«§1d has been taken
on 30.6.1998 a:1d.__thenef6'n;;:: Vtieraotification or
Withdnfivai ings under Section
48 of the would not arise at this stage.
Mere fact reibxeserifafions have been made by the
. beforeflthefivtate Government to denotify the land
2 acquisifion_ pedings would not by
beg.' ts set aside the acquisition pmceedm gs
iiasvbeeu confirmed in the earlier pedings in
~Ief"\i§(.'i5'.**z.§:o.2'?6?1/2000 initiated by the mother of the
.' iietitioners who are impleaded as 1.85 of theix mother who
'4 durm' g the pendency of the writ petition. Accordingly,
':97
22
we hold that, then: is no merit in thcgsgappeais’ ” ” ‘V
following ordcix”.
The writ appeals are dismj§:scd. 1,.’
w.~.».-;3;.,.«_.3;fl1<,:;,
v Ihé'3?§::.Y§$/ 510 , ….. .. e
v»%}s-.45 .H9s::'¥'¢§]'r4o