Karnataka High Court
The Bangalore Development ... vs The Principal on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.A. NO.4121 OF 2017 (LA-BDA)
IN
W.P.No.18196 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE 560003.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BANGALORE 560003.
APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 ARE BEING THE
DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE SAME
AUTHORITY BOTH ARE REP. BY ALAO.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. GURUDAS S. KANNUR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560001.
2
SRI. NARAYANA REDDY
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
(SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LRS).
2. SMT. H.G. RATHIDEVI
W/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY.
3. B.N. RAMA REDDY
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY.
4. SMT. B.N. ANUPMA
D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY.
5. SRI. B.N. LOKESH REDDY
S/O LATE B.N. NARAYANA REDDY.
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE
R/AT NO.772/2, B V REDDY GARDENS
NO.9, 10TH CROSS, 100 FEET ROAD
BANASWADI , BANGALORE 560043.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S. RAJASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1
MR. K. SURESH DESAI, ADV., FOR R2-R5)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION 18196/2014 DATED 25/02/2016.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this intra court appeal the appellants have assailed
the validity of the order dated 25.02.2016 passed by the
learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by
respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) has been allowed and then
preliminary notification dated 21.03.1977 as well as final
notification dated 14.05.1980 issued under the Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act' for short) have been quashed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in nutshell
are that original respondent No.1 viz., Narayana Reddy said
to be owner of an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.345
measuring 3 acres and 23 guntas situated at Banaswadi
Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The aforesaid
land as well as several other lands were required for
formation of a layout between Banaswadi Road and Hennur
Road commonly known as HRBR Layout. A preliminary
notification dated 21.03.1977 was issued. Thereafter, a final
notification was issued on 14.05.1980.
3. Admittedly, father of original petitioner viz.,
Sri.D.Venkataswamy Reddy had filed a writ petition viz.,
W.P.No.11976/1984 seeking to give effect to the resolution
for de notification of the land. The said writ petition along
with other connected writ petitions was dismissed by a bench
of this court by an order dated 14.09.1988 and it was held as
follows:
Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed
with a direction to the BDA as made in paras 13
and 14 above. Whether the petitioners would be
entitled to higher compensation in a matter to
be considered by the authorities under Section
18 of the land acquisition Act if the petitioners
make a proper representation before the
authorities constituted under the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act and if such
representations are within time.
Parties to bear their own costs.
4. It is also not in dispute, the father of the original
petitioner filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.14757/1986, in
which challenge was made to the validity of the notifications
dated 21.03.1977 and 14.05.1980. The aforesaid writ
petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this court
vide order dated 06.08.1986. The said order reads as under:
Heard.
The preliminary notification is issued on
21.03.1977 and final notification is issued on
12.06.1980. Large extents of the land in the
neighbourhood are also acquired petition suffers
from delay and laches.
W.P. rejected.
5. Thereafter, the original petitioner viz., late
Narayan Reddy again filed a writ petition viz.,
W.P.No.18196/2014, in which once again preliminary as well
as final notifications dated 21.03.1977 and 14.05.1980 were
challenged. Admittedly, the original writ petitioner in the
aforesaid writ petition did not disclose the fact that his father
had previously filed writ petitions viz., W.P.No.11976/1984
and W.P.No.14757/1986. The appellants also did not bring to
the notice of the learned Single Judge the factum of filing two
previous writ petitions by the father of the original writ
petitioner.
6. The learned Single Judge by an order dated
26.02.2016 inter alia held that neither the award has been
passed nor possession has been taken. It was further held
that scheme was not substantially implemented as required
under Section 27 of the Act within five years from the date of
the final notification and therefore, the scheme has lapsed. It
was further held that the contention that the writ petition
filed by the original petitioner suffer from delay and laches is
untenable as the scheme has lapsed. The impugned
notifications dated 21.03.1977 and 14.05.1980 were quashed
and the writ petition was allowed. In the aforesaid factual
background, this appeal has been filed.
7. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that the original petitioner was guilty of
suppression of facts and the writ petition filed by the original
petitioner suffered from delay and laches. It is further
submitted that the writ petition filed by the original petitioner
was barred by res judicata as in the writ petition filed by the
father of original petitioner, the validity of impugned
notifications was upheld. It is also contended that the original
petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the principle of
negative equality and no legal right accrues to the original
petitioner even if in some cases in which adverse orders have
been passed against the appellants, it may not have
preferred an appeal. However, it is fairly submitted that the
land owners are entitled to just and fair compensation. In
support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed
on decision of the Supreme Court in 'INDORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MANOHAR LAL', (2020)
8 SCC 129 and 'FULJIT KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB
AND ORS.', (2010) 11 SCC 455.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondents 1 (a) to (d) submitted that the earlier writ
petitions filed by the father of the original petitioner did not
pertain to Sy.No.345. It is further submitted that neither
award has been passed by the authority nor possession of
the land in question has been taken. It is also urged that
order passed in W.P.No.9761/2015 passed in case of a
similarly situate land has not been challenged. It is further
submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge
does not call for interference. In any case, the land owners
are entitled to just and fair compensation. In support of
aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to division
bench decision of this court in BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS,
W.A.NOS.4426/2016 AND CONNECTED MATTERS
DATED 08.12.2017.
9. We have considered the rival submissions made
on both sides and have perused the record. In the instant
case, as stated supra, the preliminary notification was issued
on 21.03.1977, whereas final notification was issued on
14.05.1980. The writ petition was filed after an inordinate
delay of 34 years from the date of issuing the final
notification, for which no explanation has been offered. It is
trite law that discretionary jurisdiction to deal with a prayer
for quashing the land acquisition proceeding, in a writ
petition which suffers from inordinate delay and laches have
to be exercised with great circumspection. [SEE:
'MUNICIPAL COPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO.
PVT.LTD. & ORS. (1996) 11 SCC 501, 'MUNICIPAL
COUNCIL, AHMEDNAGAR & ANR. VS. SHAH HYDER
BEIG & ORS.', (2000) 2 SCC 48, 'JASVEER SINGH AND
ORS. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.,',
(2017) 6 SCC 787]. However, in the instant case, no
explanation has been offered by the original petitioner for
filing a writ petition after an inordinate delay of 34 years.
However, Single Judge has without assigning any cogent
reason has held that the delay is immaterial as scheme in
question has already lapsed. The aforesaid finding cannot be
sustained and therefore, on this ground alone, the order
passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. It is
held that the writ petition filed by the original petitioner
suffer from inordinate delay and laches.
10. This court vide judgment dated 21.06.2021 in
W.A.3487/2016 inter alia held that the scheme in question
has not lapsed. The relevant extract of the judgment reads
as under:
It is also pertinent to note that proceeding
under Section 27 of the Act would lapse only if
two conditions are satisfied viz., failure to
execute the scheme by dereliction of statutory
duties without justification and substantial
execution of the scheme depending upon the
scheme. [See: 'KRISHNAMURTHY VS.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY',
ILR 1996 KAR 1258]. The respondents have
neither produced any material before the
learned Single Judge to show dereliction of duty
nor the learned single Judge has recorded a
finding that the scheme could not be
implemented on account of dereliction of duties
on the part of officers of the respondent.
Therefore, the finding that scheme under
Section 27 of the Act has lapsed cannot be
sustained.
For the aforementioned reasons, the finding recorded
by the learned Single Judge that the scheme has been lapsed
cannot be sustained.
11. It is trite law that principles of constructive res
judicata and res judicata apply to writ proceeding. [See:
'DARYAO VS. STATE OF U.P', AIR 1961 SC 1457,
VIRUDHUNAGAR STEEL ROLLING MILLS LTD. VS.
GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS', AIR 1968 SC 1196 AND
'SHANKAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. V.M.
PRABHAKAR AND OTHERS', (2011) 5 SCC 607 AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. ALL INDIA
MANUFACTURER'S ORGANISATION', AIR 2006 SC
1846. In the instant case, admittedly, the father of the
original petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the
validity of preliminary and final notification dated 21.03.1977
and 14.05.1980 which was dismissed by learned Single
Judge by an order dated 06.08.1986. Thus, the original
petitioner who claims title in respect of property in question
through his father is bound by the decision of previous writ
petition and cannot be permitted to agitate the validity of the
impugned notifications dated 21.03.1977 and 14.05.1980
again on the principle of res judicata Thus, the challenge to
the aforesaid notification is barred by principles of res
judicata.
12. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of material
facts and has not approached the court with clean hands.
Therefore, the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, which is equitable and
extraordinary cannot be exercised in favour of the original
petitioner. [See: 'SHRI.K.JAYARAM AND ORS. VS.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.'
2021 SCC ONLINE SC 1194].
13. It is well settled in law that even if some similarly
situate persons have been granted benefit inadvertently or
by mistake, the same does not confer any legal right on the
original petitioner to claim similar relief. [See:
'CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR. VS. JAGJIT
SINGH AND ANR.', AIR 1995 SC 905]. Therefore, even if
some land owners may have been granted the benefit,
inadvertently by the authority, the same would not confer
any legal right on the original petitioner to claim the similar
benefit.
14. However, as has been fairly stated by learned
Senior counsel for the appellant that respondents 1(a) to
1(d) are entitled to just and fair compensation. It is
therefore, directed that the appellants shall take steps within
a period of six weeks to determine the compensation payable
to respondents 1(a) to 1(d) and shall make payment of the
amount of compensation as is permissible in law.
For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment passed
by learned Single Judge is quashed and the appeal is
accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
