Bangalore Development Authority vs Devagiri Builders And
2022 Latest Caselaw 5004 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5004 Kant
Judgement Date : 17 March, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Bangalore Development Authority vs Devagiri Builders And on 17 March, 2022

Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                             AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

               W.A. No.26 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)
                            IN
              W.P. No.40215 OF 2017 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

1.    BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
      KUMARAPARK WEST
      BANGALORE-20
      REPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

2.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
      KUMARAPARK WEST
      BANGALORE-560020.

                                              ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. SACHIN B.S. ADV.,)

AND:

1.     DEVAGIRI BUILDERS AND
       PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD.,
       HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.517
       1ST FLOOR, 33RD A CROSS
       9TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK
       JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560022
       REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
       SRI. P.V. GOVINDA CHARYULU.
                                2



2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
     M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BANGALORE-01
     REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. PRINCE ISAC, ADV., FOR R1
   MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R2)
                             ---

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP NO.40215/2017 DATED
05.03.2021.

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

                         JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed against the order dated

05.03.2021, by which the writ petition preferred by the

respondent No.1 has been allowed and the notification dated

05.02.2016 by which the earlier notification denotifying the

schedule properties from acquisition was withdrawn has been

quashed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated as that respondent No.1 is the owner and in

possession of the land bearing Sy.No.30/1 measuring 37

guntas and Sy.No.30/2 measuring 14 guntas. The

respondent No.1 acquired title in respect of the aforesaid

land from the original land owners vide registered sale deed

dated 08.12.2014. The original owners of land had filed a suit

in O.S.No.31/1997 seeking the relief of declaration and

permanent injunction. The aforesaid civil suit was dismissed

by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated

16.03.2004. Thereupon, a Regular First Appeal before this

court was filed namely RFA No.431/2004, which was decided

vide judgment dated 06.09.2006 and the appellants were

restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of

the plaintiff viz., the predecessor in title of the property in

question. The aforesaid judgment and decree passed by this

court was dismissed by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave

Petition by an order dated 24.02.2014. It appears, that a

preliminary notification dated 21.01.1963 was issued in

respect of a land in question as well as other lands. The State

Government in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act' for short) issued a notification dated 13.01.2010, by

which the lands in question were withdrawn from the

acquisition proceedings. Thereafter by an order dated

05.02.2016, the aforesaid notification dated 13.01.2010 was

withdrawn. The respondent No.1 challenged the validity of

the aforesaid order before the learned Single Judge The

learned Single Judge by an order dated 05.03.2021 quashed

the notification dated 05.02.2016 and has allowed the writ

petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has

been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted

that the appellant had drawn the Mahazar on 08.12.1969 and

therefore, had taken possession of the land in question.

However the learned single judge has failed to appreciate the

aforesaid aspect of the matter. On the other hand, learned

counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the order passed

by the learned single judge.

4. We have considered the submissions made by

learn counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The relevant extract of the judgment dated 06.11.2006 reads

as under:

The respondents are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of

the plaintiffs without adopting due process of law.

The order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No

(Civil) No.21089/2006 dated 24.02.2014 reads as under:

Delay of 165 days in filing Special Leave Petition (civil) No.15120/2007 is condoned.

The High Court in its impugned judgment and order has stated that the Bangalore Development Authority can take appropriate proceedings against the respondents, in accordance with law. We have not disturbed this portion of the order.

We clarify that the question whether the respondents herein have a title or interest in the property in question can be agitated in an appropriate proceeding.

5. Thus, it is evident that the finding that the

predecessor in title of the appellant was in possession of the

land in question has already been upheld even by the

Supreme Court. Therefore, it is not open for the appellant to

contend that the possession of the land in question was

taken. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there

appears no justification for withdrawing the notification dated

13.01.2010 issued under Section 48 of the Act. The

impugned notification dated 05.02.2016 has therefore been

rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. For the

aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ

with the view taken by the learned single judge.