Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Development Authority vs Sri.Murali Mohan on 20 April, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Vijaykumar A Patil
-1-
WA No. 911 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUAMRA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020
REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
Digitally
signed by KUMARA PARK WEST
GAYATHRI N BENGALURU - 560 020
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 3. THE SPECIAL LAND
KARNATAKA
ACQUISTITION OFFICER
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. AJAYKUMAR M, ADVOCATE)
-2-
WA No. 911 of 2021
AND:
1. SRI.MURALI MOHAN
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.437
38TH B CROSS, 26TH MAIN ROAD
9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 069
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MS BUILDING
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.L.JAGADEESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT/MISS. RAKSHITHA D J, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) ALLOW THE
ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
15.12.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
NOS.53572-73/2014 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS
THE WRIT PETITION; b) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS
THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WA No. 911 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Sri.Ajay Kumar M., learned counsel for the
appellants.
Sri.D.L.Jagadeesh, learned Senior Counsel for
Smt/Ms. Rakshitha D.J., learned counsel for respondent
No.1.
Sri.B.Rajendra Prasad, learned HCGP for respondent
No.2.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of both the parties, the matter is
heard finally.
2. This intra Court appeal emanates from the
order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the learned Single
Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by respondent
No.1, namely, owner of the land has been allowed and the
land acquisition proceeding initiated in respect of Sy.No.31
measuring 1 acre and 12 guntas and in Sy.No.32/2
measuring 1 acre has been quashed.
WA No. 911 of 2021
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that respondent No.1 is the owner of the
land bearing Sy.No.31 measuring 1 acre and 12 guntas
and Sy.No.32/2 measuring 1 acre situate at
Nayanappasettypalya Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk.
4. The BDA was in need of the aforesaid land as
well as other lands for formation of Byrasandra,
Tavarekere and Madivala (BTM) II Stage Layout.
Thereafter, a preliminary notification dated 29.09.1977
was issued. Thereafter, a final notification dated
07.02.1978 was issued. An award was passed on
06.01.1982 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.31 and on
19.12.1982 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.32/2.
5. Respondent No.1 filed the writ petition
sometime in the month of September, 2014 by which the
validity of the acquisition proceeding was challenged on
the ground that the scheme in respect of which acquisition
was sought has lapsed. Learned Single Judge by an order
WA No. 911 of 2021
dated 15.12.2016 inter alia held that acquisition
proceeding initiated in respect of land in question has
lapsed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal
arises for our consideration.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
at length. In the instant case, admittedly, preliminary
notification was issued on 29.09.1977 and final notification
was issued on 07.02.1978. An award was passed on
06.01.1982 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.31 and on
19.12.1982 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.32/2. Learned
Single Judge on the perusal of the record has recorded a
finding that even though it has been submitted by the
Bangalore Development Authority that the possession of
the land in question was taken on 04.02.1983, yet the
notification in this regard to be issued under Section 16(2)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not issued in 14
years. No cogent or satisfactory explanation has been
offered on behalf of Bangalore Development Authority for
WA No. 911 of 2021
not issuing the notification under Section 16(2) till
20.02.1997.
7. In addition, the appellant did not produce the
possession mahazar to show that the physical possession
of the land was taken from the owners of the land.
Learned Single Judge also took note of the communication
dated 01.08.1991 sent by the Bangalore Development
Authority to the State Government that the possession of
the land in question is still with the owners. Learned Single
Judge has also taken into account the fact that by
notification dated 03.03.1998, Bangalore Development
Authority has withdrawn the acquisition proceedings in
respect of adjoining land, namely, land bearing Sy.No.31
and 32/2 and has denotified the adjoining lands from the
acquisition.
8. Learned Single Judge on the basis of the record
produced before it, has recorded a finding that the
possession of the land is still with the owners of the land
WA No. 911 of 2021
and even after publication of the award, the possession of
the land in question was never taken.
9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the
aforesaid finding of the fact recorded by the learned Single
Judge.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MDS
