SRI. V. JANARDHANA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judgment

3. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARAPARK WEST T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARAPARK WEST T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020.

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B., AGA FOR R1; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) …RESPONDENTS 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE SCHEME KNOWN AS "BYRASANDRA - TAVARAKERE - MADIVALA VI STAGE" IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY SITUATED AT ARAKERE VILLAGE, BENGALURU, SOUTH TALUK, NOTIFIED BY PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 08.09.1987, BEARING NO.BDA/ALAO/A5/18/87-88 AS PER ANNEXURE-D OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED

28.07.1990 IN NO.HUD/231/MNX/90 AS PER ANNEXURE-E HAVE LAPSED UNDER SECTION 27 OF BDA ACT AND; GRANT CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF/S THERETO; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Preliminary Notification dated 08.09.1987 (Annexure-D) and Final Notification dated 28.07.1990 (Annexure-E) issued by respondent No.2 on the ground that the said Notifications are contrary to Section 27 of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 3 1976 (for short, BDA Act), inter alia, sought for quashing the above Notifications as lapsed in respect of the subject land.

2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the Writ Petition are that, the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing *Sy.No.84/1 of Arakere Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, to an extent of 2 acres 1 gunta, having acquired the same as per Registered Sale Deed dated 28.04.1975 (Annexure-A). It is stated that the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner. It is further stated that, the respondent-BDA intended to form BTM Layout, VI Stage, and accordingly, issued the Preliminary Notification dated

08.09.1987, proposed to acquire several lands including the subject land, as per Annexure-D to the Writ Petition.

3. The first respondent has issued Final Notification dated

28.07.1990 (Annexure-E) and reduced the land to an extent of nearly 562.34 acres in the Final Notification. The petitioner has representations dated 14.09.1990 and 21.06.1988 (Annexure-F and G respectively), and sought for deletion of the land in question. The petitioner has filed WP.No.21770/1990 along with others and this Court, vide Order dated 10.09.1996 (Annexure-H) quashed the Final Notification and directed the respondent to re-consider the case of the petitioners therein, in accordance with law and directed the respondent-BDA not to take steps to demolish the existing buildings. The respondent- *corrected vide Chambers order dated 17.01.2025. 4 BDA after considering the representation dated 04.11.1996 conducted personal hearing and has taken decision to withdraw the acquisition in respect of the subject land and accordingly, addressed a letter to the State Government as per the Internal Note of the respondent-BDA at Annexure-K.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, several lands surrounded by the subject land are de-notified and therefore, contended that the acquisition has become lapsed as the respondent-BDA has not taken decision in the matter. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Vishwanath H.M., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

6. Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that, out of 174.25 acres notified in Final Notification, land to an extent of 7.20 acres was utilised for the purpose of formation of the Layout and therefore, the BTM Layout, VI Stage, is substantially not implemented and that apart, the Government has de-notified various lands including the lands surrounded by the subject land and 5 accordingly, sought for quashing the impugned notifications in respect of the subject land.

7. Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner, invited the attention of this Court in so far as the very same Notification has been considered by this Court, in WP.No.17421-32/2012 and connected Writ Petitions and argued respondent-authorities have not substantially implemented the scheme and accordingly, sought interference of this Court.

8. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that, the possession of the land in question has not been taken by the respondent - BDA and no deposit of compensation is made in respect of the subject land before the Civil Court, and accordingly sought for allowing the Writ Petition.

9. Per contra, Sri. K.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, sought to justify the impugned Notifications and argued that, Award was passed in respect of the subject land on 23.07.1994 and therefore he argued that the impugned Notifications cannot be held as 'lapsed' for non- implementation of the scheme, and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6

10. Learned Additional Government Advocate also argued in support of the impugned Notifications.

11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question as per registered Sale Deed dated 28.04.1975 and the respondent - BDA proposed the scheme called "BTM Layout VI Stage" for allotment of sites and as such, sought to acquire several lands including the land belonging to the petitioner. The respondents have issued Preliminary Notification dated 08.09.1987 (Annexure-D) followed by Final Notification dated 28.07.1990 (Annexure-E). It is also not in dispute that, the Preliminary Notification was issued to acquire 805.21 acres (Annexure-D) and Final Notification was issued to acquire to an extent of 174.25 acres. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that, this Court vide Order dated 10.09.1996 in W.P. No.19128/1990 and connected Writ Petitions (Annexure-H), interfered with the acquisition proceedings and directed the petitioners / owners of the land in question to file objections with regard to any construction or development made in respect of the acquired land in question. This Court, in W.P.No.17421- 32/2012 and connected Writ Petitions disposed of on 16.12.2013 (Annexure-P), wherein same impugned Notifications are 7 questioned, at paragraph 7 of the Order dated 16.12.2013, it is held as follows: " 7. It is further pointed out that out of the scheme envisaged, the acquisition of 388 acres 9 guntas of Huliimavu village and 174 acres 25 guntas of Arakere village. However, it was the case of the acquiring authority that the land was acquired and a layout formed over an extent of 31 acres 2 guntas of Hulimavu village and 7 acres 20 guntas of Arakere village, of the entire notified lands. This is as per the statement provided by the competent authority, which is part of the record. It transpires that the petitioners applied for conversion of the land for non- agricultural use, in view of the fact that further proceedings were not taken, insofar as the lands of the petitioners were concerned and that was duly granted by the competent authority on 12/4/2005, insofar as the petitioners in W.P.18362/13, are concerned."

12. The aforementioned aspect was also referred to in W.P.No.1345-46/2016 and connected Writ Petitions disposed of on 21.04.2016 and same was challenged before this Court in W.A.No.5676-5677/2017 and this Court vide order dated 8

19.03.2018 (Annexure-R1), dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. It is also to be noted that, possession of the land in question is not taken as it is evident from the note sheet of the respondent - BDA produced at Annexure-K. It is also not disputed that, the respondent - BDA has not deposited compensation before the Civil Court pursuant to the issuance of Award (Annexure-R3) and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent - authorities have abandoned the land in question from the purview of the impugned Notifications.

13. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) Preliminary Notification

08.09.1987 (Annexure-D) and Final Notification dated 28.07.1990 (Annexure-E) are hereby set aside in respect of the subject land in this Writ Petition. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE