Karnataka High Court
Sri M Murugesh vs The Bengaluru Development ... on 14 February, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Vijaykumar A Patil
-1-
WA No. 4567 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.4567 OF 2011 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. B BYRAPPA
S/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/O NO.227, ROYAL SHELTERS,
DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
IIM POST, BANGALORE - 560 076
2. KODANDARAMA REDDY
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
DEAD, REPRESENTED BY LR's
2a) GEETHA
Digitally signed W/O LATE KODANDARAMA REDDY
by MADHURI S AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 2b) SAGAR K
S/O LATE KODANDARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
BOTH 2(a) & 2(b) ARE
R/AT 138/1, I CROSS,
RUPENA AGRAHARA, NGR LAYOUT,
BASAPPAREDDY CIRCLE, MADIVALA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 068
2c) SANDHYA NAVEEN
D/O LATE KODANDARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
-2-
WA No. 4567 of 2011
R/AT 108, AKSHAYA CHARANA NILAYA,
OPP. TO FERNS MEADOWS,
BILESHIVALE,
BENGALURU - 560 077
(AMENDMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 14.02.2023)
3. RAMESH REDDY
S/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT 138/1, I CROSS,
RUPENA AGRAHARA, NGR LAYOUT,
BASAPPAREDDY CIRCLE,
MADIVALA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 068
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C.A.RAVINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR A1;
SRI. D.C.DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR LRs OF A2)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU - 560 020
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. AJAY KUMAR M, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
-3-
WA No. 4567 of 2011
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 04.03.2011 PASSED IN W.P.NO.26849/2010 BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,
EQUITY AND LAW.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.C.A.Ravindra, learned counsel for appellant
No.1.
Sri. D.C.Deepak, learned counsel for appellant
Nos.2(a) to 2(c).
Sri.B.Rajendra Prasad, learned HCGP for
respondent No.1.
Sri.Ajay Kumar M, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this intra court appeal, the appellant has
assailed the validity of the order dated 04.03.2011
WA No. 4567 of 2011
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.26849/2010 by which the writ petition preferred
by the appellant has been allowed in part and the
appellant has been held entitled to payment of
additional compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. on the
market value.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that the appellant is the owner of the
land bearing Sy.No.52/3A measuring 2 acres and 11
guntas situated at Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk. The aforesaid land as well as
other lands were required for the purpose of formation
of HSR Layout.
4. Thereupon, a preliminary notification dated
15.12.1984 was issued and thereafter, a final
notification was issued on 28.11.1986. However, after a
period of 24 years, an award was passed on
12.05.2010.
WA No. 4567 of 2011
5. The appellant challenged the validity of the
proceedings initiated for acquisition of his land by way of
a writ petition. Learned Single Judge inter alia held that
there was a delay in concluding the proceedings
pertaining to land in question and therefore, held that
the appellant is entitled to payment of additional
compensation at the rate of 12% on the market value.
In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has
been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the controversy involved in this appeal is squarely
covered by the judgment dated 01.02.2023 passed by
this Court in W.A.No.4583/2011 as well as other
connected matters. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the Authority submitted that even though there was
a delay in passing the award, the compensation of the
award has been taken on 22.07.2010.
WA No. 4567 of 2011
7. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the records.
8. The right to hold the property is a
constitutional right which is guaranteed under Article
300-A of the Constitution of India and no citizen can be
deprived of his property without following the due
process of law. It is well settled legal proposition that
where a statute does not provide for time limit for doing
an Act, such an Act has to be done within a reasonable
time, and what would be reasonable time has to be
decided in the facts and circumstances of the Act.
[See:'MEHER RUSI DALAL V UNION OF INDIA',
(2004) 7 SCC 362, 'P.K. SREEKANTAN V P.
SREEKUMARAN NAIR', (2006) 13 SCC 574 AND
'K.B NAGUR V UNION OF INDIA', (2012) 4 SCC
483].
WA No. 4567 of 2011
9. Thus from the aforesaid well settled legal
position, it is evident that the proceedings under the Act
have to be concluded within a reasonable time.
10. In the instant case, preliminary notification
was issued on 15.12.1984 whereas the final notification
was issued on 28.11.1986. However, after a period of
24 years, the award was passed on 12.05.2010. Thus,
there has been an inordinate delay in passing the award.
The proceedings under the land acquisition Act has not
been concluded within a reasonable time. The award
therefore insofar as it pertains to land in question held
by the appellant cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
11. It is pertinent to note that the possession of
the land in question has been taken on 22.07.2010.
However, no mahazar has been placed on record to
indicate that the possession of the land in question has
been taken. The Division Bench of this Court vide
WA No. 4567 of 2011
judgment dated 01.02.2023 has considered the question
of grant of relief to which the land owners are entitled.
12. For the reasons assigned in the judgment
dated 01.02.2023 passed in W.A.No.4583/2011, as well
as for the aforementioned reasons, the order dated
04.03.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.26849/2010 is hereby set aside. The preliminary
notification dated 15.12.1984, final notification dated
28.11.1986 as well as award dated 12.05.2010 insofar
as it pertains to land held by the appellant is hereby
quashed.
In the result, appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MDS
