SRI K M RAJANNA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, H.C.G.P. FOR R1; SRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND 3) PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE 21.5.2008 PUSBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 22.5.2008 ISSUED U/S 17[1] AND [3] OF THE BDA ACT 1976 AT ANNX-A ISSUED BY R2 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER

#1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers – “a) Issue Writ of Certiorari or writ in the nature of the Certiorari quashing Preliminary Notification dated 21.05.2008 bearingNo.BDA/COMMR/DC/LA/ALAO/158/20 08-09 Bangalore published in Karnataka Gazette dated 22.05.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act 1976 at - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19778 WP No. 37276 of 2013 HC-KAR Annexure-A issued by the second respondent insofar as the petitioner is concerned. b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or writ in the nature of the Certiorari quashing the Final Notification

18.02.2010 bearing No.UDD 51 MNX 2010 issued under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 issued by the first respondent produced at Annexure-B insofar as the petitioner is concerned. c) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or writ in the nature of the Certiorari quashing the Notice issued under Section 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 bearing No.Bhoo Swaa. Praa. Sankye.660/2011-12

17.08.2011 issued by the third respondent produced at Annexure-C.”

#2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the acquisition for ‘Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout’ has been affirmed with certain directions by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1783/20141 and 1 Bangalore Development Authority & Another vs. Sri.R. Shankaran & Another - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19778 WP No. 37276 of 2013 HC-KAR connected matters dated 22.02.2024. The directions so issued are as follows - “ORDER i) The above appeals filed by the BDA are allowed; ii) The order dated 11.7.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.32186/2010 and other connected writ petitions is set aside. The orders passed in writ petitions which are decided placing reliance on the order dated 11.7.2014 passed in WP No.32186/2010 and other connected writ petitions are also set aside; iii) The preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/ COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158/2008-2009, Bangalore, dated 21.5.2008 and notification bearing No. UDD 51 MNX 2010, Bangalore, dated 18.2.2010 issued for acquisition of lands for the formation of the “Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout” are upheld subject to the following conditions: a) With regard to the land owners (excluding the site owners): i) All the land owners/writ petitioners who are seeking for dropping of acquisition on the ground that their lands are (1) nursery lands; (2) situated within green belt; (3) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19778 WP No. 37276 of 2013 HC-KAR totally built up; (4) that the buildings are constructed by religious/charitable educational institutions; (5) that similar adjoining lands have been either left out from acquisition or de- notified, are permitted to make an application to the BDA seeking for dropping of their lands from acquisition by producing all such material that they deem fit/necessary in support of their applications within 3 months from today; (ii) The BDA shall consider each of the said application/s keeping in mind the status of the lands as on the date of the preliminary notification and without taking into consideration any developments / improvements / constructions made subsequent to the preliminary notification; iii) The BDA shall complete the exercise of considering the applications of the writ petitioners and deciding on the same within an outer limit of six months from today; iv) The BDA, upon consideration of applications shall intimate the writ petitioners about its decision; v) If the BDA is of the opinion that the acquisition will have to be proceeded with, the BDA is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law; - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19778 WP No. 37276 of 2013 HC-KAR b) Insofar as the site owners who have not made an application as contemplated in para (iii)(a) hereinabove: i) They register themselves allotment under the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 within three months from today by paying the registration fee. However, payment of initial deposit by them is exempted. The necessary documents along with the said applications are also to be filed to enable the BDA to verify the same; ii) The BDA shall treat the applicants as being entitled for priority allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30x40 in the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout prevailing allotment prices subject applicants satisfying the dual requirements of allotment under the Rules that they must be the residents of Bengaluru (for 10 years) and should not be owning any residential property Bengaluru; iii) In case the applicants/writ petitioners do not fulfill the requirements for allotment under the Rules, 1984 they may be considered for allotment of 20x30 feet sites as per the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19778 WP No. 37276 of 2013 HC-KAR c) Insofar as the owners of residential sites who form part of a layout and who have sought for dropping their lands from acquisition in accordance with para (iii)(a) hereinabove, the BDA shall consider the same having regard to the observations made at para 66 hereinabove. If the BDA rejects their applications, the site owners who have first filed applications pursuant to para (iii)(a) hereinabove, shall be entitled to a further period of one month after the decision as contemplated therein is intimated to opt to and apply in the manner as contemplated in para (iii)(b) hereinabove. iv) Till the aforesaid exercise directed to be undertaken by the BDA and the applications filed by the writ petitioners, either for allotment of sites or for dropping of the lands from acquisition are considered, their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished. v) In view of the allowing of the above appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.”

#3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition be disposed with liberty to submit a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19778 WP No. 37276 of 2013 HC-KAR representation, as is reserved by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment, in the event he would stand covered by the directions so issued.

#4. Learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority (“BDA”), Sri. B.Vachan seeks to submit that the petitioner cannot be declared to be beneficiary consideration a representation, as he is not the site owner.

#5. Be that as it may, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition in the light of the acquisition being upheld Division Bench W.A.No.1783/2014 connected matters reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation pending out his grievance, if any.

#6. If a representation is submitted, it is needless to observe that the BDA would consider the same in accordance with law and pass necessary orders and communicate the orders so passed to the petitioner. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19778 WP No. 37276 of 2013 HC-KAR

#7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48