Bangalore Development Authority vs Smt Channamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 5861 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5861 Kant
Judgement Date : 31 March, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Bangalore Development Authority vs Smt Channamma on 31 March, 2022

Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                             AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              W.A. No.191 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)
                           IN
             W.P. No.14341 OF 2019 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:

1.     BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
       KUMARA PARK WEST
       BANGALORE 560020
       REP. BYCOMMISSIONER.

2.     THE SPECIAL ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
       THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
       KUMARA PARK WEST
       BANGALORE 560001.

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

AND:

1. SMT. CHANNAMMA
   AGED 92 YEARS
   W/O LATE K. RANGAIAH
   R/AT NO.96/A, 3RD STAGE
   4TH T BLOCK, SHARADA COLONY
   BASAVESHWARNAGAR
   BENGAURU 560079.
                              2



2. ANANDAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
   S/O LATE K. RANGAIAH
   R/AT NO.95/A, 3RD STAGE
   4TH T BLOCK, SHARADA COLONY
   BASAVESHWARA NAGARA
   BENGALURU 560079.

3. HUCHANNA .R
   AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
   S/O LATE K. RANGAIAH
   R/AT NO.96A, 3RD STAGE
   4TH BLOCK, SHARADA COLONY
   BASAVESHWARNAGAR
   BENGALURU 560079.

4. R. RAVIKUMAR
   AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
   S/O LATE K. BORAIAH
   R/AT NO.669, 12TH CROSS
   5TH MAIN, M.C. LAYOUT
   BENGALURU 560040.

5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   VIDHANA SOUDHA
   BENGALURU 560001
   REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

                                      ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. VANI H, AGA)
                          ---
     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 02.07.2021 IN WP No.14341/2019 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT.

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



                         JUDGMENT

Heard on the question of admission.

This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant

against the order dated 02.07.2021 passed by learned Single

Judge, by which writ petition preferred by respondents has

been allowed and the endorsement issued by the appellant

dated 19.02.2019 has been quashed. The appellant is also

directed to take necessary steps to allot incentive sites in

favour of the respondents in lieu of acquisition of their lands.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the respondents are the owners of land

bearing Sy.No.43 measuring 3 acres and 20 guntas situated

at Laggere Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North

Taluk. The aforesaid land was surrendered by them for the

purposes of Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Authority' for short) it is the case of the

respondents that they are entitled to allotment of the

incentive sites under the provisions of Bengaluru

Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary

Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989. However, the incentive

sites in terms of aforesaid Rules were not allotted to them.

Thereupon, the respondents filed a writ petition. The learned

Single Judge by an order dated 02.07.2021 allowed the writ

petition and directed the appellant to allot incentive sites to

the respondents. In the aforesaid factual background, this

appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the provisions of the Rules are not applicable to the case of

the respondents as they have not voluntarily surrendered the

land.

4. We have considered the submission made by

learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the

record. It is pertinent to note that in the statement of

objections filed by the authority before the learned Single

Judge, no such stand has been taken that the respondents

had not voluntarily handed over the possession of the land in

question and therefore, the provisions of the Rules are not

applicable to their case. The learned Single Judge after

perusal of the record produced before him has recorded the

following finding:

5. The material on record will clearly indicate that the petitioners voluntarily surrendered the subject lands belonging to them for the purpose of acquisition resulting in the award dated 07.03.2001 passed by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that only on account of a dispute with regard to apportionment of compensation, the matter was referred to civil court and it was only thereafter, that the petitioners became entitled to compensation in respect of 3 acres 12 guntas out of total extent of 3 acres 20 guntas.