Sri R Sampathraj vs Bangalore Development Authority
2022 Latest Caselaw 1515 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I. ARUN

           W.P. No.43751 OF 2013 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

SRI. R. SAMPATHRAJ
S/O C. RAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.5, MURUGESHA MUDALIAR ROAD
FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005.

                                          ... PETITIONER
(BY MR. SUNIL S. RAO, ADV., FOR
    MR. T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
       T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
       KUMARA PARK WEST
       BANGALORE-560 020.

2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       NORTH DIVISION, BDA COMPLEX
       R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.

3.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
       HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
                                  2



    VIKASA SOUDHA
    BANGALORE-560 001.

                                                  ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADV., FOR R1 & R2
    MR. BOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R3)
                           ---

     THIS   W.P.   IS   FILED   UNDER      ARTICLE    226   OF   THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
FROM THE RESPONDENTS.       DIRECT THE R1 TO REFRAIN FROM
ASSERTING WHATSOEVER RIGHT OVER THE PETITION SCHEDULE
PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SY 27/11 OF BANASWADI VILLAGE KR
PURAM HOBLI, PRESENTLY BANGALORE EAST TALUK, UNDER THE
GUISE OF NOTIFICATION DATED 3.11.1977 ISSUED BY THE R1
U/S 17[1] OF THE BDA ACT 1976 FOUND AT ANNX-G AND THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 13.11.1980 ISSUED BY THE R3 U/S 19[1]
OF THE BDA ACT 1976 VIDE ANNX-H.            CONSEQUENTLY HOLD
THAT THE SCHEME WITH RESPECT TO LAND BEARING SURVEY
NO.27/11 OF BANASWADI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM, PRESENTLY
BANGALORE EAST TALUK, UNDER THE BANASWADI SCHEME
BETWEEN OLD MADRAS ROAD, BANASWADI ROAD HAS NOT BEEN
IMPLEMENTED    WITH      RESPECT      TO     SY     NO.27/11     AND
CONSEQUENTLY THE SAID SCHEME FORMULATED DOES NOT
EFFECT SY. 27 AND TREAT THE SAID SCHEME AS LAPSED WITH
RESPECT TO SY NO27/11 OF BANASWADI VILLAGE KR PURAM
HOBLI, PRESENTLY BANGALORE EAST TALUK & ETC.,


     THIS   W.P.   COMING       ON   FOR   HEARING,     THIS     DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              3




                         ORDER

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India filed on 19.09.2013, the petitioner

inter alia seeks a direction to respondent No.1 to refrain

from asserting right over the petition schedule property

in the guise of notification dated 03.11.1977 and

13.11.1980 issued under Section 17 & 19 of the

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act' for short) as well as a declaration

that scheme in respect of land bearing Sy.No.27/11 of

Banaswadi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli under OLVR Scheme

has lapsed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition

briefly stated are that predecessor in title of the

petitioner viz., one Sri.Yele Venkatappa Reddy was

absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.27 of Banasawadi

Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The

Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred

to as 'the Authority' for short) issued a preliminary

Notification dated 03.11.1977 under Section 17(1) of

the Act seeking to acquire lands in various villages

including Binnamangala, G.Byapanahalli, Banasawadi

and Doddigunte Villages. Thereafter, final declaration

was issued on 13.11.1980 under Section 19(1) of the

Act. The petitioner admittedly after issuance of the

aforesaid notifications, acquired title by a sale deed

dated 19.01.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that

the officers of the Authority tried to interfere with the

possession of the petitioner over the land in question on

03.09.2013. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed on

19.09.2013 seeking the relief as aforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the possession of the land in question was not

taken. Therefore, the scheme has lapsed. It was further

submitted that the Authority be directed to allot the land

in question to the petitioner under Section 38D of the

Act.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

authority submitted that the writ petition suffers from

inordinate delay and laches and the petitioner having

purchased the property subsequent to issuance of the

notifications dated 03.11.1977 and 30.11.1980 issued

under Section 17 and 19 of the Act has no locus to

maintain the petition as the petitioner has no title in

respect of the land in question. It is also submitted that

the scheme has been substantially implemented and

even assuming that the scheme has not been

implemented then also, since the land has vested in the

Authority, the same cannot revert to the petitioner. In

support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been

placed on decisions of the supreme court in 'OFFSHORE

HOLDINGS (P) LTD. VS. BANGALORE

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY', (2011) 3 SCC 139,

'BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MOTILAL

AGARWAL', (2011) 5 SCC 394, 'MEERA SAHANI VS.

LT.GOVERNOR OF DELHI', (2008) 9 SCC 177 and

'SHIVKUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA

AND OTHERS', (2019) 10 SCC 229.

5. We have considered the submissions made

on both the sides and have perused the record. It is well

settled in law that when there is an inordinate delay in filing

the writ petition and when all the steps are taken in the

acquisition proceedings, which have become final, the court

should be loath to quash the notifications. It has further been

held that though this court has discretionary powers under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the said powers

have to be exercised taking into account all relevant factors

into pragmatic consideration. It has further been held that

when the award has been passed and the possession is taken

the court should not exercise its power to quash the award

which is a material factor to be taken into consideration

before exercising the powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. [SEE: 'MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD & ORS.', (1996) 11 SCC

501, 'MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY

VS. SHAH HYDER BEIG & ORS.', (2000) 2 SCC 48,

'SWAIKA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE

OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.', AIR 2008 SC 1494 AND

'JASVEER SIGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH AND ORS.', (2017) 6 SCC 787.

6. In the instant case, admittedly, preliminary

issue notice was issued on 03.11.1977 whereas, final

notification was issued on 30.11.1980. The award was

passed on 08.07.1982. The writ petition has been filed

after an inordinate delay of 31 years from passing of the

award. The writ petition therefore, suffers from delay

and laches and therefore, deserves to be dismissed on

this ground alone. It is noteworthy that after issuance of

preliminary and final notification, the petitioner has

admittedly purchased the property subsequently by a

sale deed dated 19.01.1999. Therefore, the aforesaid

sale deed does not confer any right on the petitioner.

7. It is pertinent to note that notification under

Section 16(2) of the Act was issued on 15.05.1983 and

thereupon the land vested in the Authority. Once the

land vests in the Authority, the same cannot revert to

the owner in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in

Offshore Holdings Pvt. Limited supra. Even otherwise,

the scheme in question has been substantially

implemented. It is pertinent to mention here that order

of the learned Single Judge by which the scheme in

question was upheld has also been affirmed by a division

bench of this court vide judgment dated 24.06.2021

passed in W.A.No.1548/2014 (LA-BDA).

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any merit in this petition, the same fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS