Writ Petition No. 8048 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.8048 OF 2024 (LA - BDA) BETWEEN: SHIVANGINI BHARTIA D/O SRI ALOK BHARTIA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDENT OF 101, PARIJAT APARTMENTS, FAIRFIELD LAYOUT, NO.45/1, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN, RESIDING OF 22, 17TH ‘E’ MAIN, 7TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANAGALA BENGALURU – 560 095. (BY SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SMT.EKTA PRADHAN, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA 2 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020 KARNATAKA. EMAIL: [email protected] 3 . THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020 KARNATAKA EMAIL: [email protected] (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1; SRI SHVAPRASAD M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) DIRECTING THE R-2 TO REGULARIZE THE ENTIRE SCHEDULE PROPERTY; b) DIRECTING THE R-2 TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF REGULARIZATION FOR THE ENTIRE SCHEDULE PROPERTY INCLUDING THE LAND AND OTHER CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS OWNED BY THE PETITIONER, AS PER THE ORDER DTD 06.12.2022 3 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.(S) 1614-1616 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 7661-7663 /2018 VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, M. NAGAPRASANNA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) In this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to regularize entire schedule property, for it having been regularized partially by the Committee. As a consequence thereof, she also seeks a writ, in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting respondents 2 and 3 from acquiring or taking possession of any portion of the schedule property. 4 2. Heard Sri K N Phanindra, learned senior counsel appearing
Legal Reasoning
for the petitioner, Sri M Rajakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Shivaprasad M Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the land to the extent of 5 acres 36 guntas in Sy.No.18 situated at Ramagondanahalli Village, IVRI Road, Yelahanka Hobli and Taluk, Bangalore Urban District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the schedule property’ for short). Portions of the schedule property were originally purchased by the mother of the petitioner in terms of two sale deeds dated 07-04-1999 and 01-02-2001 and through one gift deed from the aunt of the petitioner. These are not in dispute. In 2001, the mother of the petitioner files an application seeking approval of a plan for construction of farm house in the schedule property from Gantiganahalli Panchayat. Permission sought was granted by the Panchayat. The farm house is constructed and upon completion of 5 construction and inspection of the schedule property building completion certificate was also issued on 19-12-2006 by the Competent Authority. The mother of the petitioner was residing in the farm house itself and developed the farm house into a horticulture and vegetable farm. All the necessary revenue entries are made in the name of the mother of the petitioner and statutory taxes that are to be paid qua the schedule property are all in place. In the year 2008, on an apprehension that her property would become subject matter of acquisition by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB”), the petitioner files an application seeking information whether the property would be notified for acquisition. The KIADB in response to the said application replies clarifying that the schedule property was not the subject matter of acquisition by it. 4. When things stood thus, the 2nd respondent/Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short) formulated a scheme for formation of a layout in the name and style of Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout and issued a preliminary notification on 30-12-2008. After issuance of the said notification, the mother of 6 the petitioner files an application before the Competent Authority under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) seeking change of land use from the property being described as a park-zone to a residential main in terms of the Act. The same is accorded by the Competent Authority. The mother of the petitioner then complies with all the statutory necessities issued from to time by paying betterment charges also. The mother of the petitioner and the petitioner did reside in the said property. On 17-05-2011, the mother of the petitioner gifts the schedule property in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner comes into picture and is said to be in continuous possession since then. Katha and other statutory necessities of the local authorities are complied, and the petitioner is said to be in possession throughout. 5. As observed hereinabove, the preliminary notification that was issued by the 2nd respondent/BDA for formation of Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout had received several objections from all the stake holders. The said objections, as also the preliminary notification, became the subject matter of proceedings before this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 55863-55865 of 2014. The said writ 7 petitions come to be allowed. The BDA then challenged it before a Division Bench. The writ appeal is dismissed. The dismissal of the writ appeal leads the BDA before the Apex Court. The axe of acquisition falls on the petitioner in the proceedings before the Apex Court. The BDA, in terms of the order of the Apex Court dated 03-12-2020, issued a public notice on 11-12-2020 directing all the stake holders to file their objections/claim statements before Justice A.V. Chandrashekar Committee constituted for regularization of certain properties in terms of respective orders. 6. The petitioner files a composite application of all the properties seeking regularization of entire schedule property by representations dated 27-03-2023 and 31-03-2023. There was no response from the Committee. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.9892 of 2023 and sought regularization of entire schedule property – the farm house and other structures. During the pendency of the writ petition, it appears, that the petitioner gets to know that the Committee has not favourably considered the representations of the petitioner and the Apex Court had approved the said partial consideration of 8 regularization of land of the petitioner. On the said development of the Apex Court approving what was done by the Committee, this
Decision
Court disposed of Writ Petition No.9892 of 2023 reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Apex Court. The Apex Court directed the petitioner to approach this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri K.N. Phanindra would vehemently contend that the petitioner had placed entire material before Justice A.V.Chandrashekar Committee for regularization of entire property. The Apex Court, in terms of several orders that are passed had directed issuance of regularization certificate for the property of the petitioner partially and the same order prohibited the BDA from acquiring entire schedule property of the petitioner. The petitioner later had communicated several letters to the Committee, all of which go unheeded and, therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court and when the BDA had brought it to the notice of this Court that the Apex Court on 06-12-2022 had accepted the recommendation or report of the Committee, liberty was given to the petitioner to 9 approach the Apex Court. The Apex Court has now directed the matter to be placed before this Bench. All the material that was necessary to be given before the Committee had been given. In the entire farm house property, the Committee has regularized only the structures and not the land though the petitioner is residing therein. Five acres of land is regularized on the ground that there are structures. The remaining is not. The learned senior counsel submits that the two cannot be separated. Land and the farm house go hand in hand. If the farm house is regularized, the land surrounding the farm house, which the petitioner had developed in these 25 years should also be regularized. The learned senior counsel submits that the Committee fell in error and now the Committee is not in existence and, therefore, this Court should allow the petition in furtherance of what the Apex Court had directed for reconsideration. 8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar representing the 2nd and 3rd respondents/BDA would only take this Court through the report of the Committee to contend that the Committee had regularized the structures and the 10 BDA cannot now go beyond what the Committee has done, as the recommendations of the Committee are accepted by the Apex Court. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The dates and the link in the chain of events upto 2008 would not need any reiteration. The mother of the petitioner generates a doubt as to whether her property would become subject matter of acquisition. She communicates with KIDAB seeking information. KIADB issues an endorsement on 28-02-2008 which reads as follows: “¸ÀASÉå:¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ/«¨sÀƸÁéC/3239/2007-08 ¢£ÁAPÀ:28/2/2008 -::»A§gÀºÀ::- «µÀAiÀÄ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ºÉÆç½, gÁªÀÄUÉÆAqÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.18gÀd«Ää£À ¨sÀƸÁé¢Ã£ÀzÀ §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR: CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30/1/2008 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 31/1/2008 _ _ _ _ _ _ 11 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ºÉÆç½, gÁªÀÄUÉÆAqÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.18gÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄqÀ½ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ, E®èªÉà JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖ. ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÀbÉÃj zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀzÁUÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ºÉÆç½, gÁªÀÄUÉÆAqÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.18gÀ d«ÄãÀÄ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉñÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀzÉà AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÀÆ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ »A§gÀºÀªÀ£ÀÄß F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÉƼÀ¥Àr¹ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. (C) F »A§gÀºÀªÀÅ PÀ.PÉÊ.¥Àæ.D.ªÀÄAqÀ½ ¤ÃrzÀ ¤gÁPÉëÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæ (D) JAzÀÄ w½AiÀĨÁgÀzÀÄ; ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°è C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ZÀlĪÀnPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä EzÀÄ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀvÀæªÉAzÀÄ w½AiÀĨÁgÀzÀÄ; (E) ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÉ.L.J.r.© UÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀÄ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä EzÀÄ CªÀ±ÀåPÀ«zÀÝgÉ CrØAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è; (F) EzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ zÀÈrüÃPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæªÉAzÀÄ w½AiÀĨÁgÀzÀÄ.” On the communication, the mother of the petitioner develops the property by seeking change of land use from park zone to residential property. This is permitted by the Competent Authority under the Act, by order dated 08-02-2010 which reads as follows: “PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ (cid:1)ಷಯ: (cid:4)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:9)ರು ಉತ(cid:14)ರ (cid:15)ಾಲೂ(cid:19)ಕು, ಯಲಹಂಕ (cid:22)ೋಬ(cid:25), (cid:26)ಾಮ(cid:28)ೊಂಡನಹ(cid:25)(cid:31) (cid:28)ಾ ಮದ ಸ#ೆ$ ನಂ.18ರ %ೈ’ 5 ಎಕ(cid:26)ೆ 36 ಗುಂ)ೆ (cid:1)*(cid:14)ೕಣ$ದ ಪ -ೇಶವನು0 ಉ-ಾ1ನವನ ವಲಯ2ಂದ ವಸ3 ಉಪ4ೕಗ5ೆ6 ಭೂ ಉಪ4ೕಗ ಬದ8ಾವ9ೆ :ಾಡುವ ಬ(cid:28)ೆ;. . . . NzÀ¯ÁVzÉ: ಆಯುಕ(cid:14)ರು, (cid:4)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:9)ರು ಅ>ವೃ2@ %ಾ A5ಾರ, (cid:4)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:9)ರು, ಇವರ ಪತ ¸ÀASÉå: ¨ÉAC¥Áæ/£ÀAiÉÆøÀ/¹J¯ïAiÀÄÄ/01/09-10/2123/2009-10, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06- 10-2009. 12 ಪ Cಾ(cid:14)ವDೆ: Eೕ8ೆ ಓದ8ಾದ ಪತ ದG(cid:19) ಆಯುಕ(cid:14)ರು, (cid:4)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:9)ರು ಅ>ವೃ2@ %ಾ A5ಾರ, (cid:4)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:9)ರು, ಇವರು (cid:4)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:9)ರು ಉತ(cid:14)ರ (cid:15)ಾಲೂ(cid:19)ಕು, ಯಲಹಂಕ (cid:22)ೋಬ(cid:25), gÁಮ(cid:28)ೊಂಡನಹ(cid:25)(cid:31) (cid:28)ಾ ಮದ ಸ#ೆ$ ನಂ.18ರ %ೈ’ 5 ಎಕ(cid:26)ೆ 36 ಗುಂ)ೆ (cid:1)*(cid:14)ೕಣ$ದ ಪ -ೇಶವನು0 ಉ-ಾ1ನವನ ವಲಯ2ಂದ ವಸ3 ಉಪ4ೕಗ5ೆ6 ಭೂ ಉಪ4ೕಗ ಬದ8ಾವ9ೆ :ಾಡುವ ಬ(cid:28)ೆ; ಕDಾ$ಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು(cid:14) (cid:28)ಾ ಮ 4ೕಜDಾ 5ಾJK, 1961ರ ಕಲಂ 14(ಎ) ರLಯG(cid:19) ಪMNೕG*, ಈ (cid:1)ಷಯವನು0 2Dಾಂಕ:09-09-2009 ರಂದು ನPೆದ %ಾ APÁರದ ಸQೆಯ (cid:1)ಷಯ ಸಂRೆ1 : 160/09 ರG(cid:19) ಚT$*ದ ನಂತರ %ಾ A5ಾರದ NUಾರ*VDೊಂ2(cid:28)ೆ ಸ5ಾ$ರ5ೆ6 ಪ Cಾ(cid:14)ವDೆ ಸG(cid:19)*, ಭೂ ಉಪ4ೕಗ ಬದ8ಾವ9ೆ :ಾಡಲು 5ೋMರು(cid:15)ಾ(cid:14)(cid:26)ೆ. ಸ5ಾ$ರವW ಈ (cid:1)ಷಯವನು0 ಕೂಲಂಕಷ#ಾX ಪMNೕG*, ಈ 5ೆಳಕಂಡಂ(cid:15)ೆ DzÉò¹zÉ. ಸ5ಾ$M ಆ-ೇಶ ಸಂRೆ1:ನಅಇ 255 (cid:4)ೆಂಆCೇ 2009, (cid:4)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:9)ರು, 2Dಾಂಕ: 08-02-2010. ಪ Cಾ(cid:14)ವDೆಯG(cid:19) (cid:1)ವMಸ8ಾದ ಅಂಶಗಳ ZDೆ08ೆಯG(cid:19), ಕDಾ$ಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು(cid:14) (cid:28)ಾ ಮ AiÉÆÃd£Á 5ಾJK, 1961gÀ PÀ®A 14(J) G¥À ¥ÀæPÀgÀt(1) (J) ¥ÀæPÁgÀ (cid:4)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:9)ರು ಉತ(cid:14)ರ (cid:15)ಾಲೂ(cid:19)ಕು, ಯಲಹಂಕ (cid:22)ೋಬ(cid:25), (cid:26)ಾಮ(cid:28)ೊಂಡನಹ(cid:25)(cid:31) (cid:28)ಾ ಮದ ಸ#ೆ$ ನಂ.18ರ %ೈ’ 5 ಎಕ(cid:26)ೆ 36 ಗುಂ)ೆ (ಐದು ಎಕ(cid:26)ೆ ಮುವ(cid:15)ಾ(cid:14)ರು ಗುಂ)ೆ :ಾತ ) (cid:1)*(cid:14)ೕಣ$ದ ಪ -ೇಶವನು0 ಉ-ಾ1ನವನ ವಲಯ2ಂದ ವಸ3 ಉಪ4ೕಗ5ಾ6X ಭೂ ಬದ8ಾವ9ೆ :ಾಡಲು ಈ 5ೆಳಕಂಡ µÀರತು(cid:14)ಗ\ೆ(cid:9)ಂ2(cid:28)ೆ ಸ5ಾ$ರದ ಅನು]ೕದDೆಯನು0 ¤ÃL DzÉò¹zÉ:- 1) %ಾ A5ಾರವW ಪMಷ6M*ದ ಭೂ ಬದ8ಾವ9ೆ ಶುಲ6ವನು0 ಪPೆಯತಕ6ದುK, 2) ಪMಷ^ತ :ಾಸ_‘ %ಾ(cid:19)a 2015ರಂ(cid:15)ೆ ಉ-ಾ1ನವನ ವಲಯ2ಂದ ವಸ3 ಉಪ4ೕಗ5ೆ6 ಭೂ ಬದ8ಾವ9ೆ :ಾL5ೊಳb(cid:31)ವWದು. 3) ವಲಯ cಯ:ಾವ(cid:25)ಯG(cid:19)ನ µÀರತು(cid:14)ಗಳನು0 ಕPಾdಯ#ಾX %ಾGಸುವWದು. 4) %ಾ A5ಾರವW (cid:1)Aಸಬಹು-ಾದ ಇತರ µÀರತು(cid:14)ಗಳb. ಕDಾ$ಟಕ (cid:26)ಾಜ1%ಾಲರ ಆ-ೇeಾನುCಾರ ಮತು(cid:14) ಅವರ (cid:22)ೆಸMನG(cid:19). ¸À»/- (ಎಂ.ಎf.%ೆ ೕಮಚಂದ ) 13 ಸ5ಾ$ರದ ಅAೕನ 5ಾಯ$ದN$, ನಗ(cid:26)ಾ>ವೃ2@ ಇ8ಾRೆ.” The petitioner then comes into the picture by a gift deed executed by her mother in her favour. 11. When things stood thus, the BDA issues a preliminary notification seeking to acquire certain lands including the land of the petitioner for the purpose of Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout. The preliminary notification comes to be challenged before a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 55863-55865 of 2014. The petitions come to be allowed by the following order: “4. The respondents have filed the objection statement. In the objection statement it is contended that since there were large extents of lands which had been notified, the respondents require sometime to go through the process and thereafter complete the acquisition proceedings. 5. In that background, I do not propose to refer to the contentions in detail for the reason that in respect of the very same notification, this Court had made a detailed consideration in W.P.No.9640 of 2014 and connected petitions on 26-11-2014. During the said consideration, this Court had taken note of contention put forth on behalf of the respondents with regard to the delay that has occasioned in the process as there were certain deletions at the initial stages and when subsequent deletions were made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Government has initiated enquiries in that regard and therefore 14 there was delay. This Court having not accepted such contention and further relying on a decision of this Court had arrived at the conclusion that the delay as explained by the respondents is not acceptable and therefore, the notification insofar as the lands of the petitioners therein was held as lapsed. Since in the instant case also the position is not different from the said cases, a similar consideration requires to be made. 6. Accordingly, the notification dated 30-12-2008 assailed in these petitions is held as having lapsed as against the lands of the petitioners referred to in these petitions which were included in the said notification. In terms of the above, these petitions are allowed to that extent. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.2/ 2014 for dispensation also stands disposed of.” A writ appeal comes to be preferred by the BDA assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge supra. The writ appeal comes to be dismissed by the following order: “2. As prayed for by Mr. G.S. Kannur, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, the appeal is taken up for preliminary hearing. 3. The writ petitioner assailed a notification dated December 30, 2008, proposing to acquire the land for formation of a layout. The preliminary notification was issue on December 30, 2008. Thereafter, neither the final notification was issued nor possession was taken. Consequently, the Hon’ble single Judge held that as within the reasonable time, no further action was taken, the proposal for acquisition got lapsed. 4. We do not find any merit in the appeal 15 5. The application for condonation of delay in filing the is, also is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal appeal dismissed.” BDA challenges both the orders in several cases before the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 sets aside both the orders of this Court and issues several directions holding: “…. …. …. 15. First, we take up the question as to whether the High Court was legally justified on merits in quashing the preliminary notification issued under Section 17. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] has decided the question affirmatively. The BDA has issued preliminary notification for acquisition of the lands. Non- finalisation of the acquisition proceedings resulted in the filing of the writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka by the owners in the year 1987. Certain lands were denotified and the permission which was granted earlier was withdrawn. The denotification of the land was also withdrawn. It was urged that the time-frame which was prescribed under Sections 6 and 11-A of the LA Act would form an integral part of the BDA Act. This Court considered the scheme under the BDA Act and has observed thus: (SCC pp. 158-59, 162, 164-66 & 192, paras 33, 35, 50, 55, 123, 124 & 125) “33. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, which provide for time-frame for compliance and the consequences of default thereof, are not applicable to acquisition under the BDA Act. They are Sections 6 and 11- A of the Land Acquisition Act. As per Section 11-A, if the award is not made within a period of two years from the date of declaration under Section 6, the acquisition proceedings will lapse. Similarly, where declaration under 1 (2018) 9 SCC 122 16 Section 6 of this Act is not issued within three years from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act [such notification being issued after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 but before the commencement of Central Act 68 of 1984] or within one year where Section 4 notification was published subsequent to the passing of Central Act 68 of 1984, no such declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act can be issued in any of these cases. *** 35. Be that as it may, it is clear that the BDA Act is a self-contained code which provides for all the situations that may arise in planned development of an area including acquisition of land for that purpose. The scheme of the Act does not admit any necessity for reading the provisions of Sections 6 and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, as part and parcel of the BDA Act for attainment of its object. The primary object of the State Act is to carry out planned development and acquisition is a mere incident of such planned development. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, where the land is to be acquired for a specific public purpose and acquisition is the sum and substance of that Act, all matters in relation to the acquisition of land will be regulated by the provisions of that Act. The State Act has provided its own scheme and provisions for acquisition of land. *** 50. Applying the above principle to the facts of the case in hand, it will be clear that the provisions relating to acquisition like passing of an award, payment of compensation and the legal remedies available under the Central Act would have to be applied to the acquisitions under the State Act but the bar contained in Sections 6 and 11-A of the Central Act cannot be made an integral part of the State Act as the State Act itself has provided specific its various provisions as well as time-frames under consequences of default thereto. The scheme, thus, does not admit such incorporation. *** principle
Decision
O R D E R (i) Writ petition is allowed. 49 (ii) Mandamus issues to the respondents/BDA to regularize entire schedule property in favour of the petitioner and issue such regularization certificate within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ