Karnataka High Court
Chikkathayappa Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2022
Bench: S.Sujatha, Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
W.P.No.26920/2010 (LA - BDA)
BETWEEN :
1. CHIKKATHAYAPPA REDDY
S/O PILLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O NO.E13, RUPENAGRAHARA
MADIWALA POST, BANGALORE-68
2. SMT.RAJAMMA
W/O LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O NO.143, RUPENAGRAHARA
MADIWALA POST, BANGALORE-68
3. SRI PILLA REDDY
S/O LATE CHENNAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O No.143, RUPENAGRAHARA
MADIWALA POST, BANGALORE-68
4. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O LATE CHENNAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O No.143, RUPENAGRAHARA
MADIWALA POST, BANGALORE-68 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI K.R.LAKSHMINARAYANA & SRI DAYASHANKAR, ADVS.)
-2-
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (BDA), BANGALORE ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA. FOR R-1;
SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADV. FOR R-2.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THAT THE ACQUISITION OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.32/4
MEASURING 2 ACRES 26 GUNTAS SITUATED AT
RUPENAHAGRAHARA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE
SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 28TH
NOVEMBER 1986 AT ANNEXURE-H HAS LAPSED IN VIEW OF
SECTION 27 OF THE B.D.A. ACT. ONLY SO FAR AS SY.NO.32/4
OF RUPENAHAGRAHARA, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH
TALUK, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the purchasers
challenging the acquisition proceedings relating to the
acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.32/4, measuring 2
acres 26 guntas situated at Roopena Agrahara village,
Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk ('subject land' for
short) vide notification No.HUD/444/MNX/86, dated
28.11.1986 (Annexure-H).
2. It is not in dispute that the subject land was
notified for acquisition vide preliminary notification
dated 15.12.1984 issued under Section 17(1) followed
by final notification dated 28.11.1986 issued under
Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority
Act, 1976 (BDA Act for short). Despite the final
notification made in the year 1986, no possession has
been taken, no award has been passed to compensate in
respect of the said acquired land. In this background
the petitioners have approached this writ Court.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.L.N.Rao
appearing for the petitioners fairly submits that the
arguments regarding the lapsing in terms of the
provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 2013 for
short), nor Section 27 of the BDA Act insofar as lapsing
of the scheme, are not pressed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted
that a portion of the land in the very same Sy.No.32/4
of Roopena Agrahara village was sold to one Smt
K.V.Indiramma and her sons on 10.9.1981 much prior
to issuance of the preliminary notification. The said
purchasers had approached this Court in
W.P.Nos.19117-19118/2016 challenging the very same
acquisition proceedings. The learned Single Judge of
this Court referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Ram Chand and others v. Union
of India and others, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 44
and other catena of decisions has held that, when a
power is conferred on an authority to do certain things
such power has to be exercised in a reasonable manner
and within a reasonable period. Even in the absence of
statutory limit prescribed for passing such award and
for completing the acquisition proceedings, it has to be
done within a reasonable period. Accordingly,
considering the factual aspect of the case inasmuch as
no possession being taken and no award being passed,
nearly for a period of 30 years, has allowed the writ
petitions declaring the acquisition proceedings in
respect of the said land as abandoned and lapsed. The
said order has reached finality. Thus, the learned
Senior Counsel argued that the petitioners herein
cannot be treated indifferently.
5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
lands abutting the subject land were deleted from
acquisition as abandoned and lapsed. Sketch of the
land in Sy.No.32/4 and the abutting lands in
Sy.No.32/5B i.e., land deleted vide order passed in
W.P.No.27210-216/2010 and the northern portion of
the land in Sy.No.32/4 i.e., the land deleted as per the
order in W.P.No.19117/2016, are referred to, to contend
that no distinction could be made to the petitioners
herein, who are similarly situated. Learned Senior
Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of BDA v.
State of Karnataka and others, W.A.No.4426/2016
and allied matters (disposed of on 8.12.2017).
Learned Senior Counsel has invited the attention of the
Court to the letter dated 16.11.2010 issued by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, whereby it has
been clarified that no award has been passed and no
possession of the subject land has been taken till date.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the BDA
submitted that though the subject land was acquired as
per the preliminary notification dated 15.12.1984
followed by the final notification dated 28.11.1986, the
petitioners have approached the writ Court in the year
2010. There is a enormous delay and laches on the part
of the petitioners in seeking the relief before this Court.
On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed. Learned Counsel further submitted that
pursuant to the notification issued under the provisions
of the BDA Act, HSR layout has been developed.
Section 27 of the Act would be operative when the twin
requirements are satisfied i.e., i) failure on the part of
the authority to substantially implement the scheme
due to dereliction of duty; and ii) failure on substantial
implementation of the scheme. The scheme is
substantially implemented and hence, question of
lapsing of the acquisition proceedings does not arise.
Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd., v. Bangalore
Development Authority, reported in (2011) 3 SCC,
the learned counsel argued that the BDA Act is a self
contained Code. Sections 6 and 11A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, are not applicable. Hence, non
passing of the award till date or not taking possession of
the subject land would not vitiate the acquisition
proceedings. Learned Counsel further argued that the
injunction/stay granted relating to the acquisition
proceedings of any survey number coming within the
ambit of acquisition proceedings would be a ground for
the delay caused in passing the award and taking
possession. However, the learned counsel fairly
submitted that till date no award has been made and no
possession of the subject land is taken. It is also fairly
admitted that no challenge was made to the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.19117-
19118/2016.
7. We have carefully considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the material on record.
8. Factual aspects are not in dispute. Learned
Counsel for the BDA argued that in the absence of
challenge made with respect to Section 24(2) of the Act
2013 and Section 27 of the BDA Act, no ground would
survive for consideration of the writ petition. However,
as narrated above, the learned counsel has fairly
admitted that the order passed in W.P.No.19117/2016
has reached finality.
9. The core question that requires to be
considered by this Court is, whether non passing of the
award and non taking of possession of the subject land
till date would render the acquisition proceedings as
abandoned and lapsed.
10. This very same controversy was considered
by the learned Single Judge relating to the very same
survey number, part of which was sold by the
petitioners herein to Smt.K.V.Indiramma and her sons -
petitioners in W.P.No.19117-19118/2016 and
considering the order passed in W.P.Nos.10286-
291/2014, disposed of on 5.12.2016 in the case of
Suryaprakash and others v. State of Karnataka
and others, wherein the effect of BDA not choosing to
- 10 -
pass any award even after the lapse of 30 years and the
possession of the land remaining with the original
owners and subsequently with the purchasers, has
allowed the writ petitions holding the acquisition
proceedings as abandoned and lapsed.
11. It is true that the provisions of Sections 6
and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are not
applicable to the facts of the present case as enunciated
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Offshore Holdings (P)
Ltd., supra, but passing an award and taking
possession cannot be delayed indefinitely i.e., for a
period of 36 years from the date of issuing of the
preliminary notification.
12. In WA.No.4426/2016 and connected matters
(disposed of on 8.12.2017) having regard to the decision
of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri
H.N.Shivanna & Ors., v. State of Karnataka and
anr., reported in ILR 2013 (4) KCCR 2793 (DB), it has
- 11 -
been observed that though, the final notification was
issued in the year 1971, till December 2017 i.e., passing
of the order, no award has been passed nor possession
has been taken for paying compensation. Therefore, the
acquiring body has neither exercised its powers in a
reasonable manner nor has it completed the acquisition
proceedings within a reasonable period. Hence, the
acquisition having been abandoned, stands lapsed on
account of omission and commission on the part of
CITB/BDA in respect of the writ petitioners therein
insofar as the said lands were concerned. In paragraph
39 of Sri H.N.Shivanna, supra, it has been held thus;
"39 .............As held by the Apex Court in Ram
Chand's case, two years is held to be a
reasonable time within which a final
declaration has to be issued, if there are no
hurdles placed in the acquisition by the land
owners or if there are no hurdles in law.
........................ Even in the absence of any
such prescriptions expressly under the
- 12 -
statute, having regard to the fact that the
right to property is a constitutional right and
the person whose land is sought to be
acquired is entitled to compensation at the
market rate, such a compensation has to be
paid to him at the earliest and therefore, the
power of acquisition should be exercised
within a reasonable time so that the person
who lost the land is duly compensated at the
earliest point of time."
13. The acquisition proceedings not being
pursued in respect of the land which is situated
immediately abutting the subject land and the
conscious decision taken by the BDA not to prefer any
appeal against the order passed in WP.No.19117-
19118/2016, no justification to be found with the BDA
in giving a different treatment as far as the petitioners
herein are concerned.
14. On a specific query made by the Court as to
whether any specific stay or injunction order was
- 13 -
passed relating to the subject land not to proceed with
the acquisition proceedings i.e., to pass the award and
to take possession of the subject land, no positive
answer is given by the learned Counsel appearing for
the BDA. On the other hand, learned counsel made an
endeavor to contend that any stay order passed relating
to any survey number in the layout could be a reason
for the delay caused in passing the award or taking
possession. This argument does not merit any
consideration being vague and not substantiated. If
such argument is countenanced, no awards would have
been passed relating to any of the properties coming
under the said acquisition proceedings. But it is not so.
For the reasons best known to the BDA, for this subject
land, no acquisition proceedings have been reached to
the logical end till date.
- 14 -
15. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, we declare
that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the
subject land stood abandoned and consequently lapsed.
Writ petition stands allowed accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
nd
