IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY 01? OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE: J _} THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIV. Writ Petition No.6676 of 2004 (LA-BEA; A "' ' BETWEEN: MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH W/O GIRISH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NOJ193/D, 121%-I CROSS ROAD . Arm MAIN, M C EX'FENSION*.. f WJAYANAGAR * 'I - ' BANGALORE «W 560 040 PE'I'ITIONER ' SE 9; 1cI:ishfiéf§ip3,_._A§j§.] REVENUE .UEPART'PAENT. A GOVT. SOT KAI?.N;A'1'AKA " M S BUILDINGS. I _ _ -- BANGALORE. j--- ._ 560 001" ~-- REP, BY ITS P'R1NC1EA'L« SECRETARY 1. .THE c'eM'M1SS1ONER' _; BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT ..... 13AN~::AL.ORE .- 'I'HE.S;>ECSIAL ADDITIONAL LAND '- ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT ' AUTHORITY 13A1:JGALORE RESPONDENTS [By Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, AGA for R1; Sri U Abdul Khader, Adv., for R2 & R3[ THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 22'? OF 'THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRLY. NOTIFICATION DT.8.4.2003 81 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE 2 DT.9.4.03 ISSUED BY THE COMMR. EDA. VIDE ANNK AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT.9.9.2003 & PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DT. 10.9.2003 ISSUED BY R1 VIDE ANNLAND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:~ ORDER
Writ petitioner who is saidpto be the and in
possession and enjoyment of the Ij’eaiiiiig”‘s_ite
No.71, Mailathahalli Viiiege, -5Hob1–i.0
Bangalore North Taltik, has_…so~ught for “q1;1eshing of the
preliminary notificatiiont-A and final
notification tiated of which the
petitioners-ijre1sfl_–.s;oi1ght::5_to_he acquired by the
respondent “II3éin:g’aIore’.””I)e*g}e1opment Authority for the
purpose of..d0eVeIIopinent:ef Sir M Visveshwaraiah Layout in
V. ‘_ the “ha_s__prayed for the following reliefs:
“‘a_ writ of certiorari or any other
. ‘Iiapp.ropiféa.te writ or direction as the case may
be “I.i’f»S,CI air as the petitioners lands are
concerned and be pleased to quash:
.. It The preliminary notification bearing
No.BDA/A. U. V.A.L.A No. 79/ 03-04
dt;8/4/03 and published in the Gazette
dt.9.4.03 82. issued by the Commissioner,
BDA, Bangalore, which is marked as
Armexu.re–K.
[ii]
[iii]
[iv]
3
Final no ttjicatton bearing No.AE~ 7 49-
B ‘lore–LAQ-2003 dt. 9/ 9/ O3 and
published in the Gazette dt.10.9.03 &
issued by the 151 respondent, which ts.__
marked as Annexure-L.
be pleased to issue the
mandamus directing the respondents*e,& %
their o_fficials from dgtspossessingvg ‘the–_
petitioner from the p;’operty_ in quest1’on’,*~’
which is described ingflthe’cc».Schedu1€~..p
hereunder.
be pleased to grai’t.t..”such other greliefs in
the circumstances… of__ the case, in] the
interest ofj__us_tice;A equtity and law.”
2. I have heard Sri counsei for the
petitioner ‘Abdulgithaderflearned counsel for the
resporiderit —-. ‘Ba t’1ga1ore._DeVe1opment Authority.
3. Sri _ learned counsel for the
mosaic tiles and is also residing in the very premises.
-9.9 B-arigaliore Development Authority requests
be cailed tomorrow though the report placed
by the Very official of the BDA indicates
that petitioner has continued to remain in
A ‘~:9f”‘pos’s«ession and occupation of the building constructed on
9 the site and running a manufacturing unit to manufacture
4
4. if such is the factual position, the acquisition
proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned has
become stale and inconclusive, not havin.gVi»~.44 taken
possession of the subject property,
acquisition under the provisions of””th–e:f ,E3’an*ga1_or”e.
Development Authority Act, I9-?’6
Automatically. the notifications. issued forl’lthe._’pi.i.rp3ose
acquiring the lands vvill not_…einiire.._ypto .the.,benl3efit of the
authority insofar as 0′-particuiigizydtlparcel of land is
concerned as it.is._nov\j”coVnced_edV:that~ ‘authority has not
taken possessi.Qn..bt_1t’ the petitioner to remain
in posvs.essi’on V ; 0 h
5. It court to protect interest of the
Ci’Ef;Zt:?.n:S__pA.ftj0II1ab€i1T1_g¢ subjected to harassment by the
gwhirrisical exercise of power by public
vvas definitely open to the authority to have
saved thesituation even in terms of the order that had
to be passed by this court earlier in writ petition
l\§o.16133 of 2004 and connected matters disposed of on
6.6.2006 by offering the petitioner any alternative
5
solution, but the authority having kept quiet and non
responsive to this writ petition as Well as travai1s»:.:’:of_V_the
petitioner and even having
orders / observations / directions contained ” ii of . –
this court dated 6.6.2006 passed:’;in
of 2004 and connected matters,
gross irresponsibility on .$E}q”e.:vresvpondent –
authority, but also a of functioning
as it is obvious that some the petitioner
have been ‘authority itself whereas
many petitioner are driven to
approach “‘2vhieh again only demonstrates
the erratVic–.._V%dmanner._ functioning of this authority,
to ‘A”be…_…<:reated under the statute for the
ddevelopineiiti of~Banga1ore city and surrounding areas!
'ggnothin
6.} _f’What’f’ii_s.’happening in the name of development is
cfhshort of destruction and haphazard manner of
4:; ~
“:d:’1’unet’ioning to the detriment of persons/citizens like the
‘ petitioner. §’\«~-
6
7. in the wake of the inaction on the part of the
authority itself and which is now conceded in terms of the
report placed before this court by the authori’tl’!y5″‘:”.;tV is
obvious that the situation is more akin to
by the provisions of section 20__of the Act”
provision the authority if it is:;’=no’1i’_’_A
within the area earmarked’l-féifr.deyelflpmféiigé’Alllittien “if
authority is of the ,.9DinioAn«~l:llil1-at’–~._aslhla’resuilt of the
development in the ‘the land owner
whose land is_1;eft_ gain, then the
authority tax and it will be
open take action to claim such
betterment tax in a’&C’C(ll_j’daHC€ with law, after issue of
_ necessary notice-.to_ the petitioner in this regard.
V”eheard Sri Krishnappa, learned counsel for
the’-~.peti’tion.erl and Sri Abdul Khader, learned counsel for
“‘thepresp.o’ndent — authority on merits, it is found that the
_ ‘situation is one which is irredeeniable and irretrievable for
,.the authorities as the authority by its own inaction and
letharginess has allowed the acquisition proceedings
V
7
insofar as the petitioner is concerned to lapse. Therefore,
the acquisition proceedings in terms of the prelirriinary
notification under section 17 of the
notification under section 19 of the
quashed only insofar as it relates’-to
of the petitioner in terms ofthe novel
the court according . to ‘the is in
possession of site
9. It is alsoopen ensure that the
structure, i.f”a’11yf:..o1fi_ tl1e.sit.e is brought in conformity with
the bu;i_ldinglAbly.e–la’ws an’d__I’egulations which are in force in
the Concc.rried lareafltt”is’rather surprising nay annoying
that ;a~ public’-»a_uthorityT like the Bangalore Development
‘Atithori’tj7 behaves in a most irresponsible manner to
without responding to either the land
own’ers’v–._’tra'<fails and even has the tenacity to ignore and
Vbyptassveven court orders. as if this court had in a
_ situation similar and in a cause brought before this court
"earlier by a group of land owners, has already passed
orders [passed in Writ petition No.16}33 of 2004 and
8
connected matters disposed of on 6.6.2006], it is the
bounden duty of the public authority like the
Development Authority to have implemented
that order in letter and spirit andvrlflotd to
to seek relief only before this court. :5 it it y 4
10. Though Sri Abdul Klaad-er, 1éar{1ca_
respondent — authority tolhthelylnotice of the
court that this Writ petition for default
and had come be that in no way
absolves the ‘authoirity: frorn -its ginsensible, irresponsible
conduet. on notice about this writ
petitionilwayp “year 2004 and if the public
auth~_o’rit.y is.’ insensiti’ve and irresponsible to the notice
Court to examine the grievance and for
is sought for in the writ petition and as
_ has””bee.n’e:etended by the very authority to other similarly
.py.d:pAlao__ed lpersons. then it is nothing short of a most
i’;re’s’ponsib1e conduct on the part of the public authority
“Which is always expected to not only respond to the needs
and travails of the citizens of the Country, but is also duty
9
bound to obey and respect court orders. The Bangalore
Development Authority has miserably failed inw ineeting
either of these requirements.
11. In the circumstances, the’
notification dated 8.4.2003 :
writ petition] and the fina1″‘-notification
[Copy at Annexure~L to hereby
quashed by issue of only to the
extent of petit*ion£er’s covered by these
two notific:i;:tions.. and n4o’t7.’jfor’n1lore:.
12. ‘l’he–..:B’ang”a1ore Development Authority
is mulctedtwlith cost of ‘$10,000/~ for the misery
V. that’3’§.t __caused.._tQ. a person like the petitioner.
paid within four weeks by depositing the
am”ount’before this court. Where after. the petitioner can
it draw the amount through his counsel. If the respondent
it “‘faiIs’Alto deposit the cost, then the registry is directed to
“issue a certificate in favour of the petitioner, to enable the
10
petitioner to realize the amount as though it is a decree of
the civil court.
14. Writ petition is allowed. Rule made abso1ui_’e..e
e ‘
AN/~