Writ Petition No. 9180 of 2022 · Karnataka High Court · 2024

7. SRI RAJAPPA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.18/19, 1ST MAIN ROAD N S PALYA, BG ROAD, BTM 2ND STAGE BENGALURU -560076.

8. SMT N RUKKAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABUOT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.51/A, 8TH MAIN 14TH CROSS, BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU -560076.

9. SMT N RENUKAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABUOT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.51/A, 8TH MAIN 14TH CROSS, BTM 2ND STAGE BENGALURU -560076.

10. SMT N BHARATHAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.51/A, 8TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS, BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU -560076.

11. SMT N ARUNA - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11247 WP No. 9180 of 2022 D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.51/A, 8TH MAIN 14TH CROSS, BTM 2ND STAGE BENGALURU -560076.

12. SMT N JYOTHI D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.51/A, 8TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS, BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU -560076.

13. SMT N SHOBHA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.51/A, 8TH MAIN 14TH CROSS, BTM 2ND STAGE BENGALURU -560076. (BY SRI. X M JOSEPH., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONERS

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA VIDHANA VEEDI, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY ROAD BENGALURU 560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3. B V KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, 2ND MAIN ROAD JAYABHEEMA NAGAR, BTM 1ST STAGE BENGALURU -560068. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11247 WP No. 9180 of 2022

4. G NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU S/O LT B V GOVINDNASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.53, 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, JAI BHEEMA NAGAR BTM 1ST STAGE, OLD MADIWALA BENGALURU -560058.

5. G RAMESH S/O LATE B V GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.53, 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, JAI BHEEMA NAGAR BTM 1ST STAGE, OLD MADIWALA BENGALURU -560058.

6. G RAJESHWARAMMA D/O LATE B V GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU W/O SRI P M BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT GOPI ENGINEERING WORKS BAZAR STREET, V KOTA CHITTOR DISTRICT ANDHRAPRADESH.

7. G SULOCHANA D/O LT B V GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU W/O SHRI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT OF MUNIRATHNAMMA COMPOUND PRITCHARD ROAD, K.G.F. KOLAR DISTRICT.

8. SHRI.S.RADHAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE SEENAPPA, R/AT No.30, 7TH ‘C’ CROSS, 16TH MAIN, 4TH ‘B’ BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.

9. SMT. B.N.KOKILA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11247 WP No. 9180 of 2022 W/O SHRI.S.RADHAKRISHNA, R/AT No.30, 7TH ‘C’ CROSS, 16TH MAIN, 4TH ‘B’ BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.

10. SHRI KONAPPA.M.K., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE KONAPPA, R/AT No.694, 7TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS, 3RD PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078.

11. SMT. MANJULA.M., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O SHRI KONAPPA M.K., R/AT No.684, 7TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS, 3RD PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078.

12. M/S MOHAN ENTERPRISES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.165/2, KRISHNA RAJU LAYOUT, DORAISAMIPALYA, BANNERGHATT ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SHRI A. MOHAN RAJU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.G.BHANU PRAKASH, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI. MANJUNATH.K, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI.SURAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.10.2022, NOTIVE TO R-3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R-4 TO R-7 ARE SREVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-8 TO R-12; (VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2024, IA 1/2024 FOR IMPLEADING IS ALLOWED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11247 WP No. 9180 of 2022 RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT - STATE, GRANTING APPROVAL FOR ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATE LAND TO R3, B V KRISHNA REDDY IN LIEU OF 1 ACRE AND 13 GUNTAS LAND IN SY.NO.43/4 IN MADIWALA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGLAURU SOUTH, VIDE COMMUNICATION, ANNEXURE-Y IN REF. DATED 25.05.2010 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF R1 AND QUASH THE SAID ANNEXURE-Y IN REF. DATED 25.05.2010, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the approval granted to the allotment of alternate land to respondent No.3 herein on 25.05.2010 and also quashing of the order of bulk allotment made on 17.12.2012 in respect of 01 acre 3.67 guntas of land in Sy.No.172/2A in favor of respondent No.3.

2. Prayers are also made for directing an appropriate enquiry to be caused against those involved in granting the approval for bulk allotment to respondent No.3, who is neither the owner nor the occupier of the petition schedule ‘B’ land and also for considering the prosecution of respondent No.3 for misrepresenting himself in W.P. No.32603 of 2013. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:11247 WP No. 9180 of 2022

3. Lastly, a prayer is made seeking a symbolic restitution of the writ petition schedule ‘A’ land bearing Survey No.172/2A in terms of Section 38-C of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (for short, “the BDA Act”) or, in the alternate, direct payment of appropriate compensation to the petitioners.

4. These facts are not in dispute : (a) The land bearing Sy.No.172/2A measuring 05 acres was notified under Section 17 of the BDA Act on

19.09.1977 formation of Byrasandra Tavarekere Madiwala Layout (“BTM Layout”). This was followed by a declaration under Section 19 of the BDA Act on 07.02.1978. (b) After the declaration under Section 19 of the BDA Act issued

07.02.1978, Chinnappa—the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, purchased 03 acres of the afore-mentioned land on 30.06.1983. (c) On 21.03.1984, an award came to be passed in respect of Sy.No.172/2A and possession was taken - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:11247 WP No. 9180 of 2022 on 09.04.1984. A Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“LA Act”) was also published on 07.05.1985 thereby establishing that the land stood vested with the BDA free from all encumbrances. (d) In the year 1996, the purchasers of 3 acres of land from Ramaiah, M/s. Evershine Monuments and Others filed W.P. No.11299 of 1996, and this Court by an order dated 13.09.2016 disposed of the writ petition directing the BDA not to demolish the structures. (e) Subsequently, the Government de-notified the lands in which possession of which was not taken. The State also brought about a Group Housing Policy and the purchasers sought approval of a housing project in respect of 3 acres of land, which was, however, rejected. They preferred W.P. No.26992 of 2000 against this rejection, but this was also dismissed on

08.03.2002 and the appeal preferred against the - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:11247 WP No. 9180 of 2022 same was also dismissed on 20.09.2006 and this order was confirmed right up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (f) In 1999, Chinna Papamma, the wife of Ramaiah and her children filed O.S. No.9493 of 1999 in respect of the 1 acre 33 guntas retained by Ramaiah, but said suit was dismissed on 27.09.2010. An appeal filed in R.F.A. No.2124 of 2010 was also dismissed on

23.07.2012. (g) Thereafter, they filed W.P. No.17290 of 2014 & W.P. No.17673-687 of 2014 challenging the notifications under which Sy.No.172/2A was acquired, on the ground that the acquisition had lapsed by virtue of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This Court, by an order dated 14.12.2017, dismissed said writ petition. - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:11247 WP No. 9180 of 2022 (h) A writ appeal in W.A. No.744 of 2018 was preferred by Chinna Papamma and her children against the dismissal of W.P. No.17290 of 2014. However, this Writ Appeal was also dismissed by an order dated

19.04.2021. An SLP filed in S.L.P. Nos.15151-15166 of 2021 was also dismissed. While dismissing the SLP, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “We decline to interfere in these special leave petitions, situation of the present case. The special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly. However, dismissal of these special leave petitions will not come in the way of petitioners to pursue remedy recovery of compensation amount, if already not received. That claim be decided on its own merits and accordance with law. We are not expressing any opinion in that regard.”

5. It is, therefore, clear from the above facts that the challenge made by the petitioners by way of a suit was dismissed and an appeal filed against said dismissal was - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:11247 WP No. 9180 of 2022 also dismissed. Thereafter, the challenge of the petitioners to the land acquisition was negated by a learned single judge and the same was upheld by the Division Bench and also confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a clear observation that they would be entitled only to recovery of the compensation amount.

6. About a month after the dismissal of S.L.P. Nos.15151-166 of 2021, the present writ petition is filed seeking the above-mentioned reliefs.

7. As could be seen from the above, since the petitioners had challenged the acquisition unsuccessfully earlier, it is obvious that their right in said property came to an end and the only liberty granted to them by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was to seek compensation.

8. If the petitioners have lost their subsisting interest and title in the property in question, they cannot be permitted to challenge a bulk allotment made by the BDA thereafter in respect of the land over which they had lost - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:11247 WP No. 9180 of 2022 all semblance of right, title and interest, and which land stood vested in the BDA free from all encumbrances.

9. In this view of the matter, I find absolutely no reasons to entertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

10. Having regard to the fact that the petitions have been filed repeatedly in order to forestall the utilization of the land, in my view, it would be appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) on the petitioners, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. In view of the above, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and they are accordingly disposed of. RK Ct: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 Sd/- JUDGE