Writ Petition No. 18550 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2175 WP No. 18550 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 18550 OF 2023 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. JAGADISH REDDY S/O. LATE S. GOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2, 2ND E MAIN ROAD, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BENGALURU-560 043. (BY SRI. SAMPATH A.,ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka 1. 2. 3. 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK (WEST), BENGALURU-560 020. ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK (WEST), BENGALURU-560 020. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LA) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK (WEST), BENGALURU-560 020. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2175 WP No. 18550 of 2023 5.
Legal Reasoning
SRI. VEERABADRAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS 5(a) RUDRESH V., S/O SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT MUTHAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 6. B.M. MARANNA S/O LATE MARULAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.14, 2ND MAIN ROAD 3RD CROSS, NEAR RAILWAY STATION KENGERI UPANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 060. (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. BASAVARAJU H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. M.K. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R5(a); SRI. D.L. JAGADEESH SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. RAKSHITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R6) …RESPONDENTS AWARD THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AMENDMENT BEARING DATD NO.BDA/AABHUSWAAA/156/2023-24 PASSED BY THE R3 - ADDITIONAL SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AT ANNEXURE-A. CONSEQUENTLY, UPHOLD THE CONSENT AWARD DATD 28.02.2018 PASSED BY THE R3 AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. 26.07.2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2175 WP No. 18550 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the award dated 26.07.2023 produced at Annexure-A, in terms of which the respondent No.3 has amended and modified the earlier consent order dated 28.02.2018 as per Annexure-F. 2. Case of the petitioner is that: 2.1 One Sri. Chikka Gangaiah was granted land bearing Sy.No.94, measuring 2 acres situated at Kannalli Village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk in terms of Official Memorandum dated 12.01.1954 by the then Sub Division Officer, Bengaluru Sub-Division. Pursuant to which, his name was entered into revenue records. The said Sri. Chikka Gangaiah passed away leaving behind six daughters and two sons. 2.2 By virtue of preliminary notification dated 21.05.2008 and final notification dated 18.02.2010, the aforesaid land was acquired by respondent-BDA for the purpose of formation of ''Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout''. 2.3 That in the meanwhile, petitioner herein had sought to purchase the aforesaid extent of land, accordingly the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2175 WP No. 18550 of 2023 petitioner along with one Dasappa son of Sri. Chikka Gangaiah had obtained permission from the respondent-BDA, who had given permission to buy the said property, purportedly subject to a condition that the petitioner and said Dasappa shall hand over the said property to respondent-BDA without any objection with a right to receive the compensation in accordance with law. 2.4 In furtherance thereof, the petitioner and said Dasappa had given consent for passing of the award under Section 17(5) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1976'). Accordingly, consent award dated 28.02.2018 as per Annexure-F came to be passed. In terms of which, the petitioner was held entitled to receive 19,166 Sq. Ft. of developed area in lieu of compensation in respect of 2 acres of acquired land and in furtherance thereof, Allotment Letters at Annexures-G2 to G4 were issued indicating the sites which were proposed to be allotted by the respondent-BDA. 2.5 When things stood thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that, the respondent-SLAO passed an amended - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2175 WP No. 18550 of 2023 award as per Annexure-A, amending/revising the earlier consent award dated 28.02.2018. In terms of which, the respondent-SLAO has held that the petitioner is entitled for 1/8th share out of the said 19,166 Sq.Ft. It is this order which is put to challenge. 3. Sri. Sampath. A, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records submits that once the award at Annexure-F is passed by the respondent-SLAO, he becomes functus officio and in absence of any specific provision of law, he could not have revisited the award, either by revising or modifying the same. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent-SLAO is one without jurisdiction. He further refers to Section 12A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to point out that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has very limited jurisdiction in that he can only carry out corrections in the nature of arithmetical error and he cannot rewrite the award. 4. Sri. Basavaraj H.T, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA submits that the said Sri. Chikka Gangaiah had six daughters and two sons. Dasappa being the son and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2175 WP No. 18550 of 2023 other son is Veerabadraiah. He submits that the petitioner as well as said Dasappa had not brought to the notice of Special Land Acquisition Officer regarding the other six daughters and son of the said Sri. Chikka Gangaiah. Thus they had exerted fraud and misrepresentation on the Special Land Acquisition Officer, which had led to conducting of enquiry through Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF), who had found such a fraud having been played by the petitioner and said Dasappa. Taking into consideration the aforesaid enquiry report and the factual aspect of the matter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed the impugned award revising the earlier consent award holding that the petitioner is entitled for only 1/8th share in 19,166 Sq. Ft. of the developed area in lieu of compensation in respect of 2 acres of acquired land. Thus he submits that there is no illegalities in the award passed. 5. Sri. D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior counsel appearing for Smt. Rakshitha, learned counsel for the private respondent No.6 submits that the respondent No.6 is also one of the land loosers, whose land in Sy.No.13, measuring 1 acre and 8 guntas was acquired under the same notification and he was held entitled for 11,500 Sq.Ft. of developed area in lieu of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2175 WP No. 18550 of 2023 compensation in respect of acquired land. He submits that after the modification of consent award, the respondent-BDA has issued allotment letter in favour of the petitioner, of which one of the sites namely Site No.3305, subject matter of Annexure-G3 had been allotted to the respondent No.6. He submits that the allotment of the said site in favour of the petitioner is withheld in view of the dispute raised by respondent No.6. Hence, the respondent No.6 has serious objections in the matter. 6. Heard and perused the records. 7. The question involved is with regard to the jurisdiction/power and authority of the respondent-SLAO in revising/modifying the consent award produced as per Annexure-F. 8. On a specific query by this Court, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA fairly submits that the Act, 1976 does not provide for any specific provisions enabling revising the award once passed. However, learned counsel for the respondent- BDA as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 point out that provisions of Section 13A of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2175 WP No. 18550 of 2023 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in terms of which the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) has power and authority to carry out corrections in the nature of clerical errors within a period of six months. He further submits apart from such powers, in view of the alleged fraud and mis-representation, the authority is justified in revising the award. 9. Relevant at this juncture to refer to Sections 12A and 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which reads as under: ''12A. Amendment of award.-(1) Any clerical or arithmetical mistake in an award or errors arising therein from accidental or omission may, at any time not later than six months from the date of the award, be corrected by the Collector either on his motion or on the application of a person interested and the award so corrected shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly. immediate after (2) If the award so amend discloses any overpayment, the Collector shall, either the amendment of the award or after the expiry of the time allowed to make a reference to the Court from the amendment of the award, issue a notice to a person to whom overpayment was made that if the amount overpaid is not paid back to the State Government within one month after the receipt of the notice the amount overpaid shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue and after the expiry of the time stated in the notice the amount shall be so recoverable." ''13A. Correction of clerical errors, etc. - (1) The Collector may, at any time but not later than six months from the date of the award, or where he has been required under section 18 to make a reference to the Court, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2175 WP No. 18550 of 2023 the application of any person interested or a local authority: Provided that no correction, which is likely to affect prejudicially any person, shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in the matter.'' 10. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that there is no power vested with the respondent-SLAO to amend/modify the award once passed, except, carrying out corrections in the nature of clerical ommissions and arithmetical errors. Further reasons assigned in the award at Annexure-A do not indicate that the same has been passed for the reasons of respondent-SLAO having been misled or mis-represented by playing fraud on the part of petitioner or said Dasappa. No doubt, there is a reference to the report with regard to existence of other legal heirs. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner there is no reference with regard to fraud or mis-representation, which could have been an exception for the respondent-SLAO to revise the award. 11. In that view of the matter, Order at Annexure-A has to be held to have been passed without authority and the same requires to be quashed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2175 WP No. 18550 of 2023 12. Necessary at this juncture also to note that the private respondent No.6, who is before this Court claiming his rights with respect to one of the sites which is the subject matter of Annexure-G3, which had been allotted to the petitioner in terms of the consent award at Annexure-F is admittedly not a party or person claiming either through or under Chikka Gangaiah or his legal representatives. His property has been independently acquired and he is entitled for relief on his own in accordance with law. At this juncture, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 submits that a liberty be reserved to respondent No.6 to make such representation before the respondent-BDA for allotment of his site, which he is entitled to in lieu of acquisition of his land. 13. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA submits that if such representation is made by the respondent No.6, the same would be considered in accordance with law. 14. Submissions taken on record. 15. Petition is allowed. The award dated 26.07.2023, produced at Annexure-A is hereby quashed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2175 WP No. 18550 of 2023 16. In the peculiar fact situation of the matter and in the interest of justice it is ordered that the private respondent No.6 is at liberty to make representation to the respondent-BDA seeking allotment of suitable site in lieu of compensation receivable by him in respect of his land acquired by the respondent-BDA. The respondent-BDA to consider the case of respondent No.6 independently in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45