MRS. SHARMILA BHAKTARAM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND SY NO.36/2 MEASURING 10 ACRES (INCLUDING 1 ACRE AND 24 GUNTAS OF KHARAB LAND) IN YEDIYUR NAGASANDRA VILLAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, HAS LAPSED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER

1. In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing Preliminary Notification dated 27.11.1959 (Annexure-A) and Final Notification dated 22.04.1964 (Annexure-B), issued by the respondent No.1, inter alia, sought for direction that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question has - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43503 WP No. 16753 of 2024 been lapsed, and also sought for quashing the letter dated

11.03.2024 (Annexure-D) and letter dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure-F) issued by respondent No.2 and such other reliefs.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners are the children of late C.J. Bhaktaram and late Mrs. Leela Bhaktaram. Petitioners claim to be the owners of the converted industrial land bearing Sy. No.60/1, measuring 1,73,742.75 Sq. ft. (equivalent to 3 acres 39.5 guntas) situate at 2nd Cross, Tyagarajanagar, Bengaluru. It is stated that the original owner of the property - Mrs. Nagamma bequeathed portion of the land to Mr. C.J. Bhaktaram. It is further stated in the petition that, the respondent - BDA acquired portion of the schedule property as per Preliminary Notification dated 27.11.1959 (Annexure-A) and Final Notification dated 22.04.1964 (Annexure-B), for the purpose of formation of a linking road of 80 ft. to connect II and III Stage of Banashankari. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioners are in possession of the schedule property and no award has been passed by the respondent - authorities and that apart, except issuance of the impugned Notifications, no compensation has been paid to the claimants / petitioners and as such, the erstwhile City Improvement Trust - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43503 WP No. 16753 of 2024 Board has given up the proposed acquisition and therefore, the petitioners have presented this writ petition challenging the impugned Notifications.

3. I have heard Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. George C. Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel appearing for the BDA and Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

4.. Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that, though the impugned Notifications have been issued by erstwhile CITB, for more than six decades ago, the proceedings have not reached the logical conclusion by issuance of Award, nor the respondent - authorities have taken possession of the schedule property and therefore, learned Senior Counsel contended that, the respondent - authorities have abandoned the acquisition proceedings. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel by inviting the attention of the Court to Annexure-D dated 11.03.2024 and letter dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure-F), that the respondent - authorities have accepted the fact of conversion of the land for - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43503 WP No. 16753 of 2024 the purpose of running industry and as such, it is contended that the impugned Notifications are liable to be quashed and acquisition proceedings are to be held as lapsed. In order to buttress his arguments, learned Senior Counsel refers to the Judgment of this Court in the case of MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH Vs. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2011 KAR 574, in the case of COMMISSIONER OF BDA Vs. MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH in Writ Appeal No.4824/2010 disposed of on 01.03.2014, and in the case of DR. A. PARTHASARATHY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2017 KAR 3489 and contended that, the impugned Notifications in the present case are liable to be quashed as the respondent - authorities have abandoned the acquisition proceedings.

5. Per contra, Sri. Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - BDA sought to justify the impugned Notifications and contended that, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent by referring to Section 27 and 36 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), that the - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43503 WP No. 16753 of 2024 respondent - authorities have implemented the scheme substantially and therefore, no interference be called for in this writ petition. In this regard, he refers to the Judgment of this Court in the case of SMT. B.L. RAMADEVI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Writ Appeal No.301/2023 disposed of on 27.09.2023.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. Manjunath K., argued on similar lines of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for BDA.

7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the portion of the land bearing Sy.No.36/2 of Yediyur Nagasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk to an extent of 1 acre 24 guntas was notified for the purpose of acquisition by the respondent - Government as per Annexure-A dated 27.11.1959 and the Final Notification dated 22.04.1964 (Annexure-B) issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively, for public purpose for formation of a Layout in the southern side of Mount Joy and the said acquisition was made in favour of City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, being beneficiary - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:43503 WP No. 16753 of 2024 of the acquisition. It is forthcoming from the writ papers that the respondent No.2 vide Board Resolution No.797/87-88 dated

11.12.1987 (Annexure-U), approved a development plan for Group Housing on the schedule property in favour of the father of the petitioners. However, the father of the petitioners has not developed the property. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that, the petitioners have made application for change of land use from industrial to residential purpose on the ground that the respondent - authorities have not taken possession of the schedule property and no compensation has been awarded in favour of father of the petitioners or the petitioners subsequently. It is an undisputed fact that, no document has been produced by the respondent - Government and BDA evidencing the taking possession as well as transfer of land by the State Government, after acquisition proceedings in favour of the beneficiary - BDA (erstwhile CITB) and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that the acquisition proceedings has not reached to its logical end. It is also pertinent to mention here, by looking to letter dated 27.03.2001 (Annexure-T) wherein the BDA has addressed letter to the petitioner to - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:43503 WP No. 16753 of 2024 approach the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, sanctioning of the building plan as well as change of nature of the land in question.

8. The aforementioned letter itself is self explanatory and makes it clear that the respondent - BDA has abandoned the schedule property and therefore, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.

9. Though learned counsel appearing respondents argued that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, however, no award has been passed determining the compensation to be payable to the claimants nor possession has been taken by the respondent - authorities. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by this Court in the case of DR. A. PARTHASARATHY (supra), I am of the view that, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent - BDA referring to Section 27 and 36 of BDA Act would become inoperative. It is also to be noted that recently, this Court, under similar situation, in W.P. No.8504/2024 disposed of on

31.07.2024, was pleased to hold the acquisition - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:43503 WP No. 16753 of 2024 proceedings are liable to be quashed if the same has not reached logical end. In that view of the matter, the Judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent - BDA, namely, SMT.B.L. RAMADEVI (supra) is not applicable to the case on hand, as in the said case, mahazar was drawn as per Annexure-R6 by the respondent - authorities and in the present case, no award has been passed nor possession was taken by the respondent - authorities and that apart, no document has been produced by the respondent - Government to substantiate the transfer of land by State Government in favour of the respondent - BDA and therefore, following the declaration of law made by this Court in DR. A. PARTHASARATHY (supra) and in the case of MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH (supra), the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Preliminary Notification dated 27.11.1959 (Annexure- A) and Final Notification dated 22.04.1964 (Annexure-B), - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:43503 WP No. 16753 of 2024 issued by the respondent No.1 are hereby quashed, in so far as the land of the petitioners is concerned. (iii) Letter dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure-D) and letter dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure-F) issued by respondent No.2 are hereby set aside. (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application dated 28.11.2022 (Annexure-C) and representation dated 10.04.2024 (Annexure-E) for change of land use and take appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SAC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66