Dr.x,Par0iasarauw v. Aie.d

‘3 Sri SI-rn sl ui’ai iTM iit tint hr h)etiiP’Iwn an. •ai iIt 4 hc ‘-‘i’,)1t 1(1) L liii. I b’t ‘ ) I m i tip kits ‘ILL’! Qs. ‘-I’— i;bi’•, 11)a’ 7’’ ptitiumr’ ‘ii Ut iC’i a’. S\ 2 1C,2 C) ii 43) ‘)() n ace h’ t tat! J1’—i,ti’ ci tØ%” ii-. j iii’ ‘k ir . ) ‘-1(’ ‘ I Di ‘ 4 — I JO Sr’ Shiv ii’’nr’ar 1;1)flfl% tjjfl tji ‘ ‘t tj(fl). ‘ it- lb4 tTk Oti1rI of the lair’s iii j’i’s’ioi’ t ill %ilbIflu(% iii It Iii’ ,e((xdb sl Ii. it i1 1-Pl1 C’ ‘iji it ‘II aeount ol the ran1ul% • the o uptlflcl ikhrs W’% leyqitft’d to ibta narn” ‘t’ ri.’ .“liiers. Mi tapnr Sved Khareeni. 11 At lh” iua’’i it Raen!rt. the lea ned C )t PS’l IC jet th TiLTS ft ins thc i Mf tf ii Syf I aiiii€ ncshiis 1€ it-sd ( re . i f 1 c f4, I I 1 I- ttci ershp ‘, ( T )ftl’ ) I 41 r a of It tt s 1 r’s cIntN%) S n’4in Pt 1 1 .1 I L * ii- I C U 1 I a ,tacd th’ lie c qit-it (1 ba’e Ci 1 j’it ‘—di t 11t i t d t’ C Ji1’C Uc 1U%c 1 tilt’ V 1I(t’1 i .. •L •‘ \‘ fi] tiI 1• • tjg p c1eri I( Jn’, (I - 1’, 1,1. tg.1 ! ‘I. II” iii’ ‘ . h • •. — : •,. , • • I. • t stibjulic., fihit ji( iie’, a t tnrnitd LII Ilk ItIjOiflhlia arQ.s thc. in • Hi t cn mitt 1 Ia him fl€ tiLt B D.A’ r’IrIjtr !“sotuhinn !br d’iittil nt tlu srln.’diilc b I

13. 1 lit learned nnrnscl n-ad out pi’ra 143 0: the \pe C tuirt jud°nient .ise 4 Bondu Rama wanw & Ore. vs Ba agate Do elopir nt Authority & On. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129. ‘in w 113 14 e luslr( c ih ‘i relnrinq & pr.%ftwc ‘rid rz°ywin. ‘ .i•t’u’tq i”ttl i

1. ‘• lvi. r ‘na I’. fllzert ‘1 l3r11’)Il’7 lrI :Lr’J ItS C’jjlYtL S 1W (1 CUe I SL!. 1iQ i ‘c •71U lk:i (1 U 2 I’k a IC A” i f7k. Y’l 1 ) ‘iit’J.t.i t? . iC .JUL. 1. l”YL L’L s’ ‘qY” ‘.1 ‘;.4’ 1’( ( L Dl’ ‘b’ • I!’ • .t a’ .

1. C I’AL I 411 . 1 i •, - 13— (Will ilk. pt’llLk)lZ(’T’S 1(1114 L” ItO! c; ciCh’lflL. ilic’ p ftc, r ii Ic c Li cc i c c n it c. H r ,-r oj (LL%L’fllflLIIWiUiL. Hit ihe 1k’jIC)oLW lcuicl 11?. (L%liI( S 200t) .s,iL. UI’CL t C’,JCflhIS 11 VIUUSC .e’ I) s _((l ri .)IZC cC re’ ci.nd t’o,flajrgs (1 Isniice ,7te(cnzr4Lg iv)Qfl sr1.fl.. rhc. pe.tiinrter c annnt t’I)i’IOLLSlL; (‘Olittlill 1 Lb r “1 iqlb deleic’d Irvin ucquiciuou being a land icith co ist i Lain z. us one at re land should aLso ix dl’d’iL ria’rnrt’ C 1L11 had a 10(Y) %qji. nnisiruc liv” 13w it may he riossi nc Ii’ In vi o conk’. ci 1(11 Un catcnt vj in! c, ut it IL’ S v’asec tC it be rc’lecLsec4. et ho h( Ic ii Vlie_ cu I rred ,flJ tin ‘Ki ,hbow arc ‘q al sic’ hcr g s’ ul r %lruciu’c s ha1 on. mis vma’msirunf(I IvtIör’ 1 ct .1.. ,7V 1t II 17i i c o.he, a ‘.‘ 1f c 1 PALIT Imsuu tp - :‘‘ .‘.g’•l ‘ :. 4111ttLi. ,,. :,j.(4jI’gfj(%.(’iIg. 4, Ii, C It a: ‘it:, p . • ‘ -r I)cr i .j Jj

7.,f,(,t •J.l t , :i H £ : L L o I Ci ‘3 C C Ut SC A. I 1 I C c t a Cf F a 0 ( C C I I I C It C C C. (CL I Cl 0 C Ft .41. 0 U’ I • I C 1 S 1 1 nq of rut ha r ne of ) cr l’t P0%St 011CC hit 1)0 on s taken b tha Gn “n’ne’.l tii if the p. Itfr’r h:ivr ‘r •‘nterr’4 the %UILLc1uk pr’pem. it i ol nc’ e”n’t qucu’ c 13i aaperatiohi of law. tiLt’ ‘c’ht dub’ prt’p°’ 15 114(1 (1)11)1 Ii’ ‘C%t in tlit State Go’ isnein

15. He hat the c eat tha là ‘ft S sslr’g of the a Ht subn the •u at ;asrd nil 8.$’ 9t$ .ini! t1iL1 tim a’c’ad UhloiliatS 1’v !eL’o”iL ci utii ih Ntteia n’a (“hilt nfl 27.flF 2i(Jfl. f I T ‘til’nh1I 111111 tiM %(j.et’ t .% ‘Ul)’hitItidll s’izplt flht’a)i (‘ q- litt’ttl i,ri,rtt- 01 ‘ :nt ‘a.L’ t .‘i in ‘ la.’it d I\b () I. ‘‘K •I. 1 I z p.’.. I ..— ‘‘ (I i -17- proprietary or possessory rights in the schedule property, as the same Is compulsorily acquired; their entitlement is only to receive the compensation.

18. Sri K.S.Mallikarjunaiah. the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that if the layout plan Is to be revised, the BDA has to pass a fresh resolution. In the Instant case, no such resolution is passed.

19. SrI Malllkarjunalah submits that out of 108 acres. 17 guntas for which the final notification is issued, 35 acres. 36 guntas are de-notifled. He submits that the scheme Is not substantially Implemented. The layout has been formed on land measuring only 13 acres. 34 guntas. He submits that his perusal of the records does not show that 12(2) notice was issued to the petitioners.

20. The learned Government Pleader submits that the stilts filed by the petitioners and others appear to have been dismissed on account of the non-compliance 18 with the rcquiremcnt of usuin prior notice to trw BDA as per Section 64(lj of the Bl) \ct. 1976.

21. He submits that thc Government hac sc’rt the pn;poe.aF oh 13 04.2001 and 23 11.2010 for de ot11Intion of the lands in question H’ submits thu fl) lessileson than tleCh’fMiit -of h Sit a se llcdupcn The 3lAt fy hetoc th phj. C I p s c son ns ta&en in tccoMancc. with 1ac. but so far the BDA has not sent its report to the Government. He submits thu dS per the spot Inspection, the petitioners are m physicai pc ssesslon of ‘hc schedule property. 22 In the course of rejo3nder. Sri Udava Hollu subnus diii tkc is” ‘ci v bc I ‘n heck k it p titiot 1 ci tig,t liii nii ‘rcisfle ly h pcti Ott s i nn ‘ . h c irtshneno j ir1sdwtic , ovtr an pitpcrt3 which is the Mthjt ci matter I aI..cInisiboil pr t edings. •14 I’) 9 si Tcij 1i J .‘ . ...i ‘i, it .hc T3DA’ gil atct. 2M5.23Ol siibi.utiewI •: lilt P119’ Ipa S’ I ‘1 •lfl It I be I I’M lit C Iwt Iini. t i ‘hr itply iet”i to the spot -iIsr ‘tti w v’ik’I v s ‘i 1? 505 it I As j In %T( f I ) r c ‘om mind i . t ‘ted ar miiI the t lad’ tic prs,pu ft. there an S At C heIs, flit. RCL hot ist. three open wells I8 oconut trees thrt-t. inota trt. ‘s .u.td t’iree riot %Hcsibris 1’ 11 ja ii’ ‘. crc ‘ ii U I c i-iaji ad it ‘ nil 1 lknc Nt i nleai mat Utev nc n’ existing ,‘ en prior Ij’ me iflhtiatioli of the J.’jlii%ltiOii J)i (Wi t. diru’ Vt ib issc I I I ir C ru h d a .h f 1 ‘iaickr..ti ‘ “ : /fj/2 I t ‘tkiig. 11. flit ricPnnit rjjt. f• j ‘( i’ g, “k. • a. ii ‘ ‘I. I 1ia. ii’ t I i I 1’)’liii i)f(J I p p ‘ ( C I Pa ‘! ‘1. .4 .t•. a . .1’ ItiqLqi.IIl1IL%%B ttttifUIaiiip ‘ILL‘ 1‘ft11 .LI1.3’U.1L 1 ‘ 11’ I I II 1 j‘fin.,’I ij’t i’.p’1’)p; q fl•J.9.hSjti’ii‘par’ejauqc$uipaaaozdnuijisnibw ILUOSPt)IrIit;uaP%111.)!I40s.wn1iii.pu’wi’ai (it cyqiqannidth’cupeq%rhTEon.ladaqiaqoozr(;ivqgUt) .itapiocci1flStC)t(Mi.a.1O1Cj 14 t)QSIi.I))1 j)(1d1151 dostJOLjfl)d;saqjnahaoj))wu.ndunwei‘ir ci1naqimlii!.JJL{OflPiaU’14IJaCInfljoi)tIflUtriLj; PUP jOUIIILeU.C)dTttT4uIUI’S)IjaiiUiitOflUi111OU TT)%..11ntiso,qrzop:a(tjis:iam I%3IIOjIl’)141.1 .1 1 4‘lj 1X)i UiflUJ.I’)tl ‘drro• •i,rçpT.•:‘1 ...T r’ )tj’p’ )BI• .JP“1TIIL)‘))L’JlU0’II%Tflb3 1•P”.I..e.j. ‘01%’%(I 11‘•t?l • )T_’.t ))TT 4T7I t1’I I ,I). 111 (I ‘)Iflk —, L I I )1 I rtift( by the Apes Court ;tidgniej1t n the Case of State of Bihar us, Dhirendra Lamar & Ors, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 229 and iv The eae of Lmz hand & Ors us, GramPanchayat Karana & Ors reported in (1996) 75cc 218, The Stilts art disiniss d not on m rits, hut on1 on the ground of nialni nabjjitv

27. The qnestio That ft r my COnsideration IS whether th Possession of h land is taken by the Goverzimei from the pc titioners? to thic questio i P empuat4n0JJ for answer Mv f-c foliowiny rt as us, (1 t’he jen J o the n ords intais mat ti inys in not d n in mnn r Tulnai1 to Taw, fht &naha,,tr on a ha h r I re1tat1 i pta’ ed is rft ft , n in mote Pan ne respect c out inn t. tilt s’gnai’Ire4 (4 live j’t r—Cfl. but their flahi)fl. mit’ 1. ii s—. thea €tddrt ‘. ,rt avai’abjc. h II it ‘I I. Jan if 1% litCe 1) th Ii in nrs tpsi lt)1t1 LI) t (ci ivr I s i Ii ‘ r I o ‘rthtpc% ssor Ii” ii tUle crc ‘X t it ii t c-xt’ring are retained th•’y are ‘fil no’r apniic’abie portion is not cven %rruek nit The rnahazar I)reparetI is in the C velo%rvled fnrm. Ii .s haiti to çwe ans c recienc e to such a 1naha2 az. c ickr uecjr nsfn irg. i tI )f ti i•ilz lis F, I ‘s t C CL (Di b I) 11 St •fL’ “k” etd’iii jp I iittitorei

1. )tiIJ In ‘- ‘ r) ‘ly%t 5’) it) ‘ t .‘iI’ 4i.1t — 2at •l% (tin. .M1 Saii’..ik..Js:.;’ itt 1.,r L:.t i I • ‘11 1 .4 -23- the Land Acquisition Act to show that the possession of the lands In question was taken on 06.10.1986. Sri Hoila joins Issue with Sri Shivakumar and submits that many lands are withdrawn from the acquisition even after the Issuance of the 16(2) notificatIon, as admittedly the actual possession of the lands was not taken. Sri Shivakumar submits that the possession of the lands at Sy.Nos.9. 10 and 19 measuring 19 guntas. 21 guntas and 5 guntas, respectively, was taken over by BDA. He further submits that the possession of the said lands is handed over to the Central Excise House Building Co operative Society.

29. I take note of the controversy revolving round the possession. As per SectIon 36(1) of the BIlk Act, 1976, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are applicable to the acquisition of lands under BDA Act to the ettent possible. Under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. empowered to take the possession of the land but after ASH. the Deputy Commissioner wA -24- passing the award. No clinching documents are produced to show that the petitioners are served with Section 12(2) award notice.

30. The award Is stated to have ben passed on

18.09.1986. No explanation Is forthcoming as to why the respondents took four years to pass the award. Although the final notification is issued on 28.12.1982, the award is passed only on 18.09.1986.

31. The sloth does not end at this stage. The respondents took 23 years to deposit the award-amount with the Reference Court. The award-amount deposited belatedly on 27.08.2009.

32. It is also not in dispute that the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMfl has registered the petitioners as the khathedars in respect of the schedule property after collecting the betterment charges and the property 4ç - tax In 2006-2007. Further. the T3MP has also sanctiontd 11 lagni 4c fieeeakprpe3 n 180620% Iniexir D

33. The recpondent I3DA Issued the endorsement. dated 13.01.19.43 (Annexure H) to the first petitioner t r tataescncik r c,)ill 1 hr itnal zone. as per the approved c ornprc lici si e 1ev 1o rn it plan. The endorsemeni further states that the BDA has no objection in developing the land for tht. residential uoe b 1kg - sad regtilaticns. S4. As the circunistances discussed hereinabove re refi setife of lie possession if the sc’h...dnlc’ property ‘z1 edt tcqsnI what relief c n be ‘4’ en to the petiti niers 33 Wh.iteiei benefit has act ned to th inii1arl p1-i ed e ti . i cc ft Ix #xwndel ts Ui. pr srt h tr 1 A ‘ r )tq me in in 1k m,c Sube Sinqh vs State of flaryana rep ‘i-ted in (20(L) 7 SCL 545. T i I ki 1 .. i tIn.. i ‘I S ‘ir lu ‘Ic ua i’ n c. ri ‘d I ii ii ai’qiiicition the lands f othicr% were not ncluded Iruii at qili%11 loll Oil ilw grcaiiid that th” construction mci-co1 cl I c • c Ia s leicas th ‘oil tnic’t on.. (II tlit xi (ad ci’ t. i isfi t tin xistlu’ on ir in or s 1 tic •V 1” ‘a ‘c a’ held b rhc Hon’bk Supreme (‘nun to be unreasonable arbitrary and dis”i immaton.-. ‘% pe the sithry iss on mid I hu lean ed I i lib. t )ilt’%C tilL pinhi li—ar r )iik’ 14c w i 1 c 1 j a• ic’—. ‘, %‘lPt ar’i ‘hr nfl’l o.;uf’calon Xr’LiCkil 2:3 w rts Uj çn’na. i’k HM cv tt’ Ii tl!iIcl% 1’ 1

1. ‘ lY • — n ‘ific.iu.i F’ , . ..f 1 - . L 1 ‘1 ..j , (LI ) ,w r 1.1 . . I • . t - 27 - only 13 acres. 34 guntas are utilised for the formation of the road. The details furnished are as follows: BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUThORITY BANGALORE DETAILS OF FURTHER EXTN. OF RMV 2N1) STAGE SCHEME. Name of Layout Further Extn. RMV 2M Stage. Date of RN.

19.01. 1978 Date of F.N.

28.12.1982 Extent as per P.N. 131 Acre 33 Gunta Extent as per F.N. lO8Acre l7Gunta Name of the Vifiage in the Layout Possession taken including Govt. land and handed over to Engineering Section : Bhoopasandra. Kasaba HoWl 69 Acre 28 Gunta Total Extent Denotified: 35 Acre 36 Gunta Total Extent which Court cases pending: 20 Acre 23 Gunta Total Extent which Layout formed: 13 Acre 34 Gunta Total Site formed 234 Nos. A&H. S Li )1t I 1 2. )S. F ‘ci Hive rinrn(’c a t ), \ \%,tstaIst E’ieruth e Enoiw’er B;tniaiore .SnO fl32. ) i Ii ) 8w igaloi c In’’ sopi’ieii. Atahortv 560 032. Bajigaloit i I 3? ilK i)t-nisa1 ol the atore exti acted fa t and q sir ica we g ils me th . (.. ie itt it n f ti ‘ 1 id w ed by lit fual north 110 Is n1r ib a 1 2. Ii g I a r I t s 1982 the eheme appear to have bei: inj’.lcnentcd truii aU dir *iid subs jut fli k it ixars to .aI r N ‘, j r r 31 p S 1 2 )f ic ai c. T,ft at1% to € e’’t( ijit’ sUi)’tjI’tIcIlh niIiin ‘ •it I )I - a i’l•t’t-t i & a • a’ n i1fli( ,ti 11a1— tti&’ l•it I ‘-i IQ Cd 1 “I • i) ‘ru’lI I L ‘ ‘1III’ :,tn_r.a3 •‘ Li 6 0 r Ti C -29- (supra), has taken the considered view that situation becomes Irredeemable and Irretrievable the authorities, if they have, by their own Inaction and lethargy, allowed the acquisition proceedings to lapse.

39. If large chunks of the similarly placed lands are withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings as is evident from the denotifications, dated 30.10.1984 and

30.08.20 10 (Annexures F and Q, respectively), there is no reason for the respondent BDA to continue with the acquisition of the petitioners’ land. The note submitted by the respondent No.1, the contents of which are extracted hereinabove, Is reflective of the fragmented Implementation of the scheme - 12% of the lands for which the final notification Is Issued. The Apex Court has held In the case of BEML House Building Society Ltd., (supra) that there cannot be any discrimination In the matter of dropping and continuing with the acquisition. Rant It Ic sbi %SM L4( ‘ rt’Ivnlc1vt1T T3Pa ii e irlier rtolulicn1, I r’cflTflTfltIltIIIit br Tilt’ drnppiii& t I’ thu .tnit”IC’ .11 Pt C .Ii us it IC Sf (‘1 0. (1 Mi U t1fl, 1% c I it d K ‘C it ‘ tc ic L I S I 65 R(3) of the BDA \er. If BD: t.u1t to rednd its carlier re%nlutbon It ha’ Lu seiid firsti propais/ t crun ( ‘cs ‘rn t’ stie Gc’ezinntir nsc ath F C k ii’ order or restj1lpn pa’d by the BIfl. In Tile instant U4%E’, 3t 1’ 1101 III cL%puEt that tnt- 13DA ha’ pa’’—c’I I in’ F i l •a a’ 1 r )‘ us U i 10 tc hr )‘ n t “ e )It V c r ‘ ‘irc”Ikcb 1. liii Gflvet;inirnt It 1’. Ij%Pf11: nTt-, :i- tion ‘,. 14 fl .g1 I . S tj1.. %aI’t h’ I. iLt j’l’’. ,%i’ ‘iS •i I t b us fl’ ,• •‘fl It I i i..: 1 . .• (1: ,1 1É– — — ‘cc c I and J i(I(jldflI ns Ii 11th l. II, GnLE.nImeni i•.at vass (flclei S ccinn_-lliiiq thu ;csa’uucnz or ;pj’r or reperilirvj the regitkitioii or bt,e—laiv wid ‘omr lie 0, HC Ic J a repre. E 1 Uion ij he rnd uj or ru’isc. revise. ‘nod(ty. or revoke an order passed wider .zth sec lion (Hi

1. r C rcspoIklenT’s resolution daH ci 24 9. i 992 IAniirxurt Li) 1 tin Isna’ •n ‘fi the :v ,tnlraticn tinder Section 4if 1) o Ear jitisi e ii. 1 t ‘al %‘Ij 1(1’ !;Ltlt._. ItLtli J— 1tLat!J]44.ll .II’1 .) t’Kiii ;aito ;flj! ta_f I ; j.i1 Q ‘—. is i) . n a_I ‘—ri .• t• U1 Li 1’ S I. • • 1% I - %llaii aniinc whether thr nrinded 1uids and the I inn” uiveret! h’ ‘hest petitions havt th batlI. t—•ai un ineliidint tIle ifle1ill(” -I J i,. idiacent land’. an’ delet C 1 oceedhiit&s. It C liii goIng r I -I t 1 r r urffi%e (c a si ‘henw. No. I n o hethtr 4htre 1% til flt’( ci fn r Ltzitua’ o. .he oeul’oij°r’ land ‘ ri-ic —. Lu”lt!.)II piot’ee’i.i.it II. ‘ lc—’ it ilir 1-i I q—rt sn”—’’ 1!)ri j. c 1e. FIZii1r • l.ipsrj 1Ifl ii.. 1—. .)t 1h hi’ ii I.’jtij Cftfl. lb1 ir r1 — tn iil. t ;J. tfiIJ. .1 ,cj. r p a “.2s ii’ 1’ ‘‘ I’c• . a1 • ‘ ;r !‘ ,J11fl 11 I. ; I •1 - Ii- ) ‘ rid S ) ( 1 1’ i. 3 1 ‘ 1’ C’ I ii 1 Ii ‘iau 1 I I— S 1 1 ‘ 1 i ) i1 Ii 1 -C I: it 1 F crllfr 310 L tI t Ii ti K t t e C )‘ ale a d ‘i ii i tie ii t t al ii liii n Irtan Ii sta u ciuc 42 Fhes pet i rinu’ are ac c 1)1 dli iIy allnwed No otder as t) i)%ts. — I -0