Smt. Sakamma v. The State of Karnataka

(By Shri. N.S.Sanjay Gowda, Advocate) 2 AND:

1. The State of Karnataka, By its Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, M.S.Buildings, Bangalore – 560 001.

2. The Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, K.P.West, Bangalore – 560 020, Represented by its Commissioner.

3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer, The Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, K.P.West, Bangalore – 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri. C.R.Gopalaswamy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader Respondent No.1) ***** This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the Development Scheme prepared by the Bangalore Development Authority for the formation of “Venkataswara Layout” in Nayandahalli Village vide Notification dated 17.11.1988 vide Annexure-C and the declaration dated 30.11.1990 vide Annexure-D and the Notification dated 8.4.1994, vide Annexure-E has lapsed as 3 contemplated under Section 27 of BDA Act and declare that the lands which were the subject matter of the Notification [at lease in so far as the petitioner’s land bearing Sy. No.21/1B measuring 36 guntas is concerned has not stood vested in the Bangalore Development Authority. This Writ Petition is coming on for Hearing in this day, the court made the following: O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was the widow of Chikkavenkatappa and she has died during the pendency of this petition and is represented by her legal representative. The petitioner claimed as the co-owner of the land in Sy.No.21/1B measuring 1 acre 32 guntas of Nayandahalli village, Kengeri-1 Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk along with her brother-in-law and that the property was ancestral property. Her husband had passed away on

13.04.1982 and she had succeeded to his share namely 36 guntas of land in the said survey number and she has produced 4 documents to establish that her husband was the kathedar along with her brother-in-law. The Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA’ for brevity), is said to have published a notification on 17.11.1988 stating that an improvement scheme was duly sanctioned by the State Government for formation of a layout called Venkateswara Layout on 29.06.1988 and the notification listed measuring in all about 209 acres and 4 ½ guntas around Nayandahalli Village which were proposed to be acquired. The husband of the petitioner had been indicated as the kathedar though he had died as early as 1982. Subsequently, a final declaration was issued under Section 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BDA Act’ for brevity) and ultimately, 137 acres 8 ½ guntas of land was to be acquired as per the said declaration duly published in the gazette on 30.11.1990. The BDA thereafter published a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ' the LA Act' 5 for brevity) declaring that it had taken possession of 26 items of land totally measuring 18 acres 13 guntas. According to the petitioner, the BDA never took possession of any lands and did not form a layout called Venkateswara Layout even after several years of the said declaration and it only conceptualized the idea to form and allot sites in the said layout but the same was never implemented and that the BDA has also not deposited the compensation amount that was determined to be paid to the land holders, as required in law. It is also averred that the very lands were notified for acquisition to form a layout by the ITI House Building Co-operative Society. It is in this background that the present petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the above sequence of events, would submit that as on the date of the petition, the BDA has not taken any further steps to implement the scheme and in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act, in view of the inaction on the part of the BDA in 6 implementing the scheme within five years in terms of Section 27, the scheme would lapse and the land would have to revert back to the land owners and therefore, would submit that the petition be allowed without any further consideration.

4. The petition has been contested and statements of objections are filed to contend that the declaration under Section 19 was followed by notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the BDA Act and after completion of all formalities, an award was passed and approved on 7.5.1993 and possession had also taken on 6.10.1993 and the BDA has taken up implementation of the work. However, compensation was not deposited as none had claimed compensation. There is no further averment in the statement of objections as to the implementation of the scheme or the completion of the scheme. This ambiguous stand of the BDA would lend credence to the complaint of the petitioner that notwithstanding the acquisition proceedings, the BDA not having implemented the scheme 7 within the time prescribed under Section 27, would render the scheme as having lapsed and therefore, the acquisition proceedings would result in a nullity and the land would revert back to the land owners.

5. Though the learned counsel for the BDA would submit that the scheme not having been implemented is on account of the land having been overrun by unauthorised occupants who claim to have occupied the lands and there has been an impediment in implementing the scheme, even this would not the acquisition proceedings. Notwithstanding any intruders in the land in question, the BDA was armed with ample power to deal with such a situation and therefore, would not be a ground for extraneous reasons. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The scheme pursuant to which the acquisition proceedings were initiated is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 27 of the BDA Act 8 and the lands would consequently revert to the land owner, the petitioner. KS Sd/- JUDGE