NARASIMHA REDDY N v. K SRINIVASA REDDY

S/O LATE SRI MUNISWAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/AT NO.66, RATNAMMA LAYOUT, MANNARAYANAPALYA, R T NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P. N., ADV.) MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22585-DB WA No. 896 of 2016 HC-KAR AND:

#1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

#2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE-560 020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

#3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAND ACQUISITION) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE-560 020.

#4. ADDITIONAL SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 SRI K. KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 26980-982/2015 DATED 10/03/2016. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22585-DB WA No. 896 of 2016 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) This appeal filed under Section 4 of the High Court of Karnataka Act, 1961 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.03.2016 passed W.P.Nos.26980-26982/2015 by which, the appellants’ challenge to declare the final notification dated 05.08.1986 (Annexure-B) as incapable of enforcement in respect of appellants’ land in view of the fact that acquisition has lapsed is rejected.

#2. Heard learned counsel Sri.P.N.Rajeshwara appellants/petitioners; learned counsel Sri.K.Krishna for respondents No.2 to 4 and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Saritha Kulkarni for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ appeal papers.

#3. The appellants claim that they are the purchasers of land in Sy.No.55/1 measuring 38 guntas in Malagala village. In respect of the said land, preliminary notification was published on 15.07.1982 and final notification was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22585-DB WA No. 896 of 2016 HC-KAR published on 05.08.1986 for acquisition by Bangalore Development Authority, whereas the appellants said to have purchased the land in question under sale deed dated 13.03.1991 from the original notified kathedar Sri. Muniyappa. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri. Rajeshwara would contend the possession continues to be with the appellants and in fact, award was passed only on 13.02.1997 much subsequent to the purchase of land by the appellants. Further, he submits that the award was approved on 27.05.1997. Learned counsel would submit that when the possession continues with the appellants, learned Single Judge ought to have accepted the contention that acquisition lapsed in view of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re- settlement Act, 2013. Learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that batch of writ petitions were allowed and the order was passed rejecting the writ petitions only in respect of the appellants. Learned counsel would - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22585-DB WA No. 896 of 2016 HC-KAR submit that learned Single Judge committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the earlier acquisition of land is not disclosed, as such, the appellants would not be entitled for any relief. As the possession continues with the appellants, learned counsel would pray for holding that the acquisition has lapsed by allowing the writ appeal.

#4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.K.Krishna respondents No.2 to 4 would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as appellants are concerned. It is his submission that the appellants purchased the lands subsequent to the final notification further he submits that the original kathedar Sri. Muniyappa approached Court W.P.No.8340/2003 in respect of acquisition of land in Sy.No.55/1 which came to be dismissed by order dated

21.03.2007 and the writ appeal filed against the said order also came to dismissed. It is further submitted that SLP was also filed before Supreme Court which was dismissed on 23.01.2012. The appellants have suppressed the said - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22585-DB WA No. 896 of 2016 HC-KAR fact and have approached this Court in the above stated writ petition. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to the order passed in the earlier proceedings and submits that there is a specific finding with regard to taking possession by the respondent-BDA in respect of the land in Sy.No.55/1 and as such, the appellants would not be entitled for any relief.

#5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge insofar as appellants are concerned.

#6. It is an admitted fact that the preliminary notification and final notification in respect of the land in question are dated 15.07.1982 and 05.08.1986 respectively. It is also an admitted fact that the appellants purchased the lands in question on 13.03.1991 much after final notification for acquisition under Bangalore Development Authority Act,

#1976. It is also an admitted fact that the appellants have - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22585-DB WA No. 896 of 2016 HC-KAR not disclosed the challenge to the preliminary and final notifications Vendor-original kathedar Sri. Muniyappa. The writ petition filed by the original kathedar Muniyappa was dismissed so also the writ appeal against the said order was dismissed, which was taken up to Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.34005/2007 was dismissed on 23.01.2012. When the challenge to preliminary and final notifications in respect of the acquisition of land in respect of the Sy.No.55/1 had gone up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and put to a quietus, the appellants could not have approached this Court again and again. Learned counsel for the appellants made an effort to justify the filing of writ petition by stating that in the present writ appeal it was only with regard to 38 guntas of land in Sy.No.55/1 whereas the earlier writ petition was in respect of 3 acres in the same survey number. But, in the earlier round of litigation by the original kathedar, there is categorical finding that the possession of land has been taken on 12.07.2002 in respect of Sy.No.55/1 which also - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22585-DB WA No. 896 of 2016 HC-KAR includes 38 guntas of land which the appellants claim to have purchased.

#7. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly contended that the award is passed in the year 1997 in respect of the preliminary notification of 1982. Therefore, he prays for enhancement of market value, so that the appellants would get fair compensation. It is open for the appellants to work out their remedy for determining the market value appropriately.

#8. There is no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28