SRI. S.N. MOHAN KUMAR @ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV ORDER In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the Preliminary Notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B) and Final Notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-C) issued by the respondents, has become lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') insofar as 'A Schedule Property' is concerned, inter-alia, sought for quashing the Award dated 18.08.1980 issued by the respondent No.4 (Annexure-G) and sought for issuance of fresh award in respect of the 'B schedule Property'.

2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition are that, the land bearing Sy.No.172/2B of Bilekahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring to an extent of 4 acres 29 guntas was purchased by G. Narayana Swamy Reddy (father of the petitioners) as per the registered Sale - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024 Deed dated 05.05.1967 and the revenue records stand in the name of the father of the petitioners and on his demise, revenue records transferred into the name of the petitioners. It is further stated in the Writ Petition that the respondent - authorities have issued the Preliminary Notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B) and Final Notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-C) and sought to acquire various lands including the land belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of formation of BTM Scheme, however, no efforts have been made to take possession of the schedule properties within the reasonable period. Therefore, the petitioners have sought for declaration that, the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed under Section 27 of the Act insofar Schedule ‘A’ to the writ petition and to quash the award dated 18.08.1990 (Annexure-G) insofar as Schedule 'B' property concerned. Hence, this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri. Lokesh R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi Rao, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024 learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. H. T. Basavaraja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

4. Sri. Lokesh R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, father of the petitioners was owner in possession of the land in question and schedule properties have been sought to be acquired by the respondent-authorities for the purpose of formation of BTM Scheme. It is submitted that, the impugned notifications were questioned by the father of the petitioners and same has reached finality, wherein, the acquisition proceedings was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that, even after the conclusion of the proceedings during the year 1987, possession of the land in question has not been taken by the respondent-authorities and the award notice was issued on 13.11.1990 and further, no steps have been taken by the respondent-authorities to complete the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024 acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

5. Nextly, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, as per Annexure-K to the writ petition, Mahazar was drawn as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.7448 of 2021, and as such, as the petitioners are in possession of the land in question as on today, accordingly, sought for quashing the impugned notifications on the ground of delay in passing the award and no compensation is paid to the petitioner and further, possession of the schedule property is with the petitioner and accordingly, sought for allowing the writ petition.

6. Per contra, Sri. H.T. Basavaraja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA contended that, the father of the petitioners has challenged the very same notifications, which came to be upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits as res-judicata is applicable to the case on hand. He further contended that, the respondent-BDA has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024 implemented the Scheme substantially and therefore, no interference is called in this writ petition and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State argued in similar lines with the learned counsel appearing for the respondent –BDA.

8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner is assailing the notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B) and Final Notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-C) issued by the respondent-authorities for formation of BTM Scheme and the subject is also notified acquisition. It is the principal submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA that, the father the petitioners has challenged the acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.13115 and 13464 of 1983, wherein, the prayer in the writ petition is to challenge the acquisition proceedings. This Court, by order dated

04.06.1984, dismissed the writ petition. The said - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024 judgment is confirmed in Writ Appeal No.1481 of 1984 dated 14.08.1984 and by order dated 29.04.1987 in SLP (C) No.294 of 1985. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Award has been passed during the year 1983, however, the Award notice was issued on

13.11.1990, after lapse of sixteen years from the issuance of the Final Notification. In this regard, it is relevant to deduce the portion of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (CIVIL) No.294 of 1985, which reads as under: "The petitioner in this case has questioned the validity of the acquisition proceedings under which the land belonging to him was acquired and taken over by the Government for the purpose of utilising it for the B.T.M. Scheme of the Bangalore Development Authority. The preliminary notification was issued on 19th September, 1977 and the declaration under Section 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published on

17.2.1978. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award in the early part of 1983. The notice - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024 under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was served on the petitioner immediately thereafter. The revenue records show that the possession of the land was taken on 15.6.1983." (underlined by me)

9. It is pertinent to mention here that, the respondent- authorities after the conclusion of the proceedings by the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the year 1985, issued the award notice under Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, on 13.11.1990 (Annexures-H and J, respectively) after lapse of 13 years from date of issuance of Preliminary Notification. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per Mahazar drawn by the Surveyor of the respondent- BDA on 09.09.2021 (Annexure-K), the petitioners are in possession of the schedule properties. It is to be noted that, even after four decades, the respondent-BDA has not take possession of the land in question and therefore, though the impugned notifications have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, however, no steps have been taken by the respondent-BDA to take - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024 possession of the land in question even during the year 2021 and to allot the site in favour of the prospective allottees. It is also forthcoming from the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, the Award has been passed during 1983, however, on careful examination of the original records produced by the respondent-BDA, connotes that, the Award was passed on 11.06.1990. It is mentioned in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the award is passed during the year 1983. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, though the father of the petitioners has challenged the acquisition proceedings, however, same was rejected by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, much before the passing of the Award dated 11.06.1990. Therefore, this petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of res-judicata since the petitioners herein have challenged the Award dated 11.06.1990/18.08.1990 (Annexure-G) issued by respondent No.4 and therefore, this Writ Petition cannot be dismissed on the threshold that the acquisition - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024 proceedings has reached finality in so far as the land in question is concerned.

10. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent-authorities have not produced Notification said to have been issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as to taking possession of the land in question. This would makes it clear that the respondent- BDA has abandoned the scheme insofar as land in question is concerned. This court in the case of Savitramma and others vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2021) 1 KLJ 305 under similar circumstances set aside the impugned notification in respect of the Hennur Bellary Road II Stage. It is also to be noted that, this Court in the case of MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH vs. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2011 KAR 574, at paragraph 8 held as follows: “8. Having heard Sri. Krishnappa, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Abdul Khader, Learned counsel - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024 appearing for the respondent –Authority on merits, it is found that, the situation is one which is irredeemable and irretrievable for the Authorities as the Authority by its own inaction and latherginess has allowed the acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned lapse. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings in terms fo the preliminary Notification, under Section 17 of the Act and Final Notification under 19 of the Act are hereby quashed only insofar as it relates to the land in possession of the petitioner in terms of the report now placed before the Court according to which, the petitioner is in possession of site measuring 40 feet by 60 feet.”

11. The aforementioned judgment of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.4824 of 2010 disposed of on 01st March,

2014. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2018 KAR 2144, wherein at paragraphs 5 and 8 held as follows: "5. It is no longer res-integra that power conferred on any authority be exercised reasonably and reasonable - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024 exercise of power includes exercise of the same within a reasonable period. An acquisition proceeding once initiated has to be completed by passing an award and paying compensation followed by taking over possession within a reasonable period. This has to be strictly followed even in the absence of any statutory limit prescribed for passing of award and completing the acquisition proceedings.

8. In the present cases, though final notification was issued in the year 1971 so far, neither award has been passed nor possession has been taken over by paying compensation. Therefore, the acquiring body has neither exercised its powers in a reasonable manner nor has it completed the acquisition proceeding within a reasonable period. Hence, acquisition having been abandoned stands lapsed on account of omission and commission on the part of the CITB/BDA in respect of writ petitioners/ respondents' herein in so far as the land is concerned."

12. Having applied declaration of law referred to above, I am of the view that, as the award notice was issued during the year 1990 and no compensation is paid to the petitioners as on today and that apart, no possession has been taken in respect of the subject land by the respondent-BDA and as acquisition proceedings has not - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024 reached its logical end and no material has been produced by the respondent-BDA insofar allotment of sites to the respective allottees in the subject land and further taking into consideration the Sketch produced at Annexure-K to the writ petition, which would demonstrates that, the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and therefore, the contention of the petitioners is to be accepted. It is pertinent to mention here that issuance of the belated award notice by the respondent-authorities would affect the acquisition proceedings and as such, the petitioners have made out a case that, the respondent- BDA has not completed the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land as required under law and therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for interference this writ petition. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land is liable to be quashed as no possession has been taken by the respondent-authorities even after four decades in passing the Preliminary Notification as evident from Survey sketch produced at Annexure-K to the writ petition. It is also - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024 pertinent to mention here that as per the records produced by the BDA, notice under Section 12(2) was issued to one Smt. Chayadevi and Sri. G. Narayanaswamy Reddy in respect of the subject matter of the land on

13.11.1990 (Annexure-H) and 13.11.1991 (Annexure-J). It appears that notice under Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act was issued to the daughter of Sri. G. Narayanaswamy Reddy during the year 1990 and thereafter, similar award notice under Section 12(2) was issued in the name of Sri. G.Narayanaswamy Reddy (father of the petitioners), however, the petitioners have produced the death certificate of the father of the petitioners - G. Narayanaswamy Reddy, who died on

04.05.1989, as per Annexure-D. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents have not taken possession of the land in question and have abandoned the scheme of acquisition insofar as the petition schedule property is concerned. In the result, the writ petition is allowed quashing impugned - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024 notifications i.e. Preliminary Notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B) and Final Notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-C) in respect of subject land belonging to the petitioners. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB CT-MCK List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1