Sri. M. Chandrashekar Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 7022 Kant

                              1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                          PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                            AND

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

          WRIT APPEAL NO. 1357 OF 2021(LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY
S/O SRI MUNISWAMY REDDY
65 YEARS
R/AT SHYAMARAJPURA GRAMA
YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 064

                                                ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.KIRAN V RON, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST,
SANKEY ROAD
                                 2


BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001

                                                   ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & 3)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO a)ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29/11/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.2489/2021 AND
ETC.,

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the petitioner assailing

the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.2489/2021.

2. The appellant questioning the final notification

dated 30.10.2018 issued by respondent-BDA authority under

Section 19(1) of Bangalore Development Authority Act,1976

(for short "the BDA Act") filed a writ petition in

WP.No.2489/2021. The learned Single Judge having taken

note of the order dated 3.8.2018 passed by the Apex Court

was of the view that the Apex Court has not only restored,

revived and upheld the entire scheme and preliminary

notification, but has in unequivocal terms directed the State

Government and the BDA to implement the entire scheme and

issue final notification within three months.

3. The learned Single Judge having meticulously

examined the order of the Apex Court dated 3.8.2018 has

come to the conclusion that the question of examining the

validity of the final notification which was in fact issued

pursuant to the order dated 3.8.2018 passed by the Apex

Court is impermissible and the same would lead to virtually

reopening of the acquisition proceedings which was put to rest

by the Hon'ble Apex Court by upholding the entire scheme and

preliminary notification.

4. It would be useful for us to refer to paragraphs 21

to 25 of the learned Single Judge's order and the same are

culled out as under:

" 21. It is well settled that it is not open for this Court to venture or attempt to interpret the aforesaid order of the Apex Court, which consists of clear, definite, unequivocal and unambiguous directions to the State and BDA to issue the final notification in respect of the entire extent of 3546 Acres 12 Guntas notified under preliminary notification. The aforesaid order will also clearly indicate that in unmistakable terms, the Apex Court has directed the State Government and BDA to issue a Final Notification without excluding any portion of land from acquisition by coming to the definite conclusion that there was no scope for exclusion of any land in the ultimate Final Notification. Further, the Apex Court has not only upheld the Preliminary Notification but also the scheme framed by the BDA, both of which are in respect of the entire extent of 3546 Acres 12 Guntas.

22. There is no gainsaying the fact that all the contentions urged by the petitioners are for the purpose of assailing the final notification and to contend that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the portions claimed by the petitioners deserve to be quashed;

however, in the face of the clear dicta of the Apex Court in its order dated 03.08.2018, directing issuance of the final notification in respect of the entire extent notified under the preliminary notification without excluding any portion from the final notification, any contrary order or direction which would have the effect of quashing or excluding/dropping/deleting any portion of land from the final notification would be diametrically opposite and run counter to the order of the Apex Court which is impermissible in law; in fact, this

Court cannot go beyond/behind the orders of the Apex Court and any tinkering around with the orders of the Apex Court would be a complete negation of the dicta of the Apex Court. Under these circumstances, contentions of the petitioners that the Final Notification is liable to be quashed in respect of their properties cannot be accepted.

23. A perusal of the subsequent series of orders passed by the Apex Court commencing from 03.12.2020 onwards also disclose that the final notification dated 30.10.2018 has been ratified, upheld, confirmed and affirmed by the Apex Court repeatedly; while upholding the validity of the final notification and scheme for the entire extent of 3546 Acres 12 Guntas, the Apex Court has attempted to salvage the situation and has carved out certain categories of properties in respect of which reliefs' can be granted to the parties by permitting them to approach the BDA or the Justice A.V.Chandrashekara Committee; the subsequent orders of the Apex Court also make it absolutely clear that the BDA scheme, final notification and acquisition proceedings in respect of the entire extent of the notified 3546 Acres 12 Guntas have been declared by the Apex Court to be perfectly legal and proper, except only those lands, buildings etc., which fall within the categories specified and protected by the Apex Court. Under these circumstances also, I am of the considered opinion that none of the contentions urged by the petitioners merit acceptance by this Court.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph No.11 of its aforesaid order 03.12.2020, wherein the Apex Court has directed this Court to dispose of the present petitions "on merits", in order to contend that all aspects and contentions are kept open and that this Court need not refer to the Apex Court's order dated 03.08.2018 and other orders nor is this Court

bound by the same. In my considered opinion, the said contention is only to be noted to be rejected; the said observation has to be construed and understood in the context where it was made and not divorced from the remaining portion of the order or the other orders passed by the Apex Court, all of which are inextricably linked and intertwined to each other. In other words, the said observation of the Apex Court in its order dated 03.12.2020 cannot be understood, construed, treated or interpreted as enabling this Court to interfere with the acquisition proceedings by ignoring the remaining portions of the said order or the other orders, particularly in the face of repeated orders and directions made and issued by the Apex Court to the State Government and BDA to implement the scheme in relation to the entire extent of 3546 Acres 12 Guntas excluding only those exceptions and categories of cases carved out by the Apex Court in its subsequent orders.

25. A conjoint reading of the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by Apex Court as well as the subsequent orders leads to the inescapable conclusion that the phrase "on merits" as observed by the Apex Court (supra) will not entail reopening the acquisition proceedings nor interfering with the Final Notification and the said observations pale into insignificance, particularly in light of the subsequent orders passed by the Apex Court. To put it very simply, from 03.12.2020 onwards, despite being fully conscious and aware that the present petitions challenging the final notification are pending before this Court, the Apex Court has continued to pass several orders and issue various directions safeguarding and protecting only certain types of categories of cases, thereby indicating that except the said categories enumerated by the Apex Court, the Final Notification in respect of the remaining lands is perfectly legal and proper and does not warrant interference by this Court."

5. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the

detailed judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of

this Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 3.8.2018

has directed the State Government to issue a final notification

with respect to the land which was notified in the preliminary

notification. The Apex Court has taken strong objections in the

manner in which the concerned authorities have dealt with the

matter. The Apex Court has clearly held that though the

scheme had the prior approval of the State Government,

however, at the instance of some vested interest, the entire

scheme proposing to acquire the land so as to form a

residential layout known as "Dr. Shivarama Karanth layout" is

virtually frustrated by powerful unforeseen hands and the

issuance of the final notification has been delayed. The Apex

Court was also of the view that the State Government as well

as the authorities under the BDA Act are supposed to cater to

the need of the planned development which is a mandate

enjoined upon them and also binding on them.

6. The impugned final notification dated 30.10.2018

which is called in question in batch of writ petitions as rightly

held by the learned Single Judge cannot be gone into and if

done, would virtually amount to permitting the present

appellants to re-litigate on same cause of action and it would

also tantamount to over stepping the jurisdiction of the Apex

Court and over reaching the orders of the Apex Court. If the

final notification is issued pursuant to a positive direction

issued by the Apex Court, the question of validity of final

notification cannot be looked into and the learned Single Judge

has rightly declined to entertain the writ petition. We do not

find any valid grounds to arrive at a contrary view in the

present case on hand.

7. The ground urged in the writ petition would not

displace the reasons and conclusions arrived at by the learned

Single Judge.

8. Therefore, the writ appeal is devoid of merits and is

accordingly, dismissed.

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

*alb/-