Sri G C Narayanappa vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1036 Kant

                          1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

                      PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                         AND

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

           W.A. No.1080 OF 2006 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:

    SRI. G.C. NARAYANAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
    SON OF LATE RAMAIAH
    RESIDING AT NO.386, 57TH CROSS
    III BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
    BANGALORE - 560 010.

    SINCE APPELLANT IS DECEASED
    REP. BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

1(a). SMT. S. UMA
      W/O LATE G.C. NARAYANAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

1(b). SRI. AVIRAT
      S/O LATE G.C. NARAYANAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

    BOTH ARE R/AT NO.386
    57TH CROSS, III BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
    BENGALURU-560 010.

                                     ... APPELLANTS

(BY MR. S. CHENNARAYA REDDY, ADV., FOR LR'S OF
DECEASED APPELLANT ON IA 1/18, IA 2/18 & IA 3/18
                                2



  SRI. G. KRISHNA MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
  SRI. HARIDAS BHAT, ADV., FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANT IN IA 4, IA 5/18 & IA 6/18)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
       M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.     THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       KUMARA PARK WEST
       BANGALORE - 560 020
       REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1
  MISS. ANANYA RAI &
  MRS. LATHA S.S. ADVS., FOR
   MR. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV., FOR R2 & R3)

                              ---

       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 No.9925/2004
DATED 06/06/2006.

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



                      JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed against

order dated 06.06.2006 passed in W.P.No.9925/2004,

by which writ petition preferred by the appellant has

been dismissed along with other connected writ

petition.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that the appellants are the owners of

land bearing Sy.No.5/4 measuring 3 acres and 20

guntas situate at Village Talaghattapura, Bangalore.

On the basis of the sale deed executed in favour of the

appellants, their name was mutated in the revenue

records. The appellants approached the Bangalore

Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Authority' for short) with a request to change the land

use from commercial to residential purpose. The

Authority by an endorsement informed the appellants

that it is permissible to use the land for residential

purpose. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner by an

order dated 04.10.2001 granted sanction for

conversion of lands in question from agricultural to

non agricultural purposes.

3. After the conversion, land held by the

appellants was assessed to tax by Talaghattapura

Village Panchayat and the appellant also paid the

property tax for the year 2001-02.

4. The Authority issued a preliminary

notification under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore

Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred

to as 'the Act' for short) proposing to acquire land

measuring 5 acres and 10 guntas of Sy.No.5/4 for the

purpose of formation of the layout viz., (further

extension of Banashankari 6th Stage). The appellants

filed objections to the preliminary notification inter

alia on the ground that his name was not mentioned

in the preliminary notification and the land in

question is not an agricultural land but has been

converted to for non agricultural purposes. It was also

stated that other converted lands were left out of the

acquisition. Thereafter, the appellants were asked to

appear before the Land Acquisition officer on

05.02.2003 and 17.02.2003 and to submit all the

relevant documents relating to their claim for de-

notification of the land.

5. The Authority passed a resolution on

28.06.2003, in which it was decided to delete the

converted lands from the land acquisition proceeding.

Thereafter, a final notification under Section 19(1) of

the Act was issued notifying entire 5 acres and 10

guntas of land of Sy.No.5/4 including the land of the

appellant. Thereafter, land measuring 20 acres and

25 guntas was de-notified from acquisition only on the

ground that the same was a converted land.

6. The appellants filed writ petition

challenging the preliminary notification as well as

final notification dated 07.11.2002 and 09.09.2003.

The learned Single Judge by a common order dated

06.06.2006 inter alia held that the case of the

appellants seeking de-notification of the land has not

been independently considered. It was further held

that the Authority has practiced discrimination while

de-notifying the lands. The learned Single Judge

granted the liberty to seek de-notification of the lands

to the land owners who held converted lands. The

land owners were permitted to make an appropriate

application within three months and the Authority

was directed to take a decision on the said

application. However, challenge to the land

acquisition proceeding was repelled. Accordingly, the

writ petition was disposed of. In the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal has been filed.

7. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant

submitted that neither any award was passed nor

possession of the land in question has been taken. It

is therefore, contended that the proceeding initiated

for acquisition of land has lapsed. It is however

pointed out that in pursuance of the liberty granted

by learned Single Judge, the appellants have

submitted an application seeking de-notification of the

land, which is still pending before the Authority. In

support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been

placed on decisions in

8. Learned counsel for the Authority

submitted that the final notification was issued on

09.09.2003 and thereafter, a writ petition was filed on

27.07.2004, in which an interim order was granted. It

is also submitted that this writ appeal is pending

since, 2006 and on account of pendency of the

litigation, the Authority did not pass the award.

9. We have considered the submissions made

on both sides and have perused the record. The Act is

a self contained Code and is enacted with an object of

land development under the schemes made by the

Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

The proceeding for acquisition of land has been

initiated under the provisions of the Act. The

provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 do not apply to an acquisition initiated under

the Act. [See: 'OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VS.

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND

OTHERS', (2011) 3 SCC 139]. The Act does not

prescribe for any timelines for passing the award.

10. 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].

11. In the light of aforesaid well settled legal

position, we may advert to the facts of the case in

hand. In the instant case, preliminary notification was

issued on 07.11.2002, whereas, final notification was

issued on 09.09.2003. The appellant filed a writ

petition on 27.07.2004, challenging the validity of

preliminary as well as final notification. In the said

writ petition, an interim order of stay was granted on

19.03.2004. The writ petition was decided by a

common order dated 06.06.2006.

12. In pursuance of the liberty granted by the

learned Single Judge, the appellants submitted an

application seeking de-notification of the land and

have filed this appeal, which is pending since 2006. In

the said writ appeal, an interim order was passed on

08.08.2007. Thus, on account of interim orders

passed by learned Single Judge as well as division

bench of this court, the Authority could not have

passed an award. Therefore, it can safely be

concluded that there is no delay in passing the award

as the same could not be passed on account of

interim orders in the writ petitions as well as writ

appeal filed by the appellants. Therefore, the

proceeding initiated for acquisition of land do not

suffer from any infirmity on the ground that award

has not been passed.

13. From the perusal of the order dated

04.10.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is

evident that the land held by the appellants is a

converted land. The Authority itself has passed a

resolution on 28.06.2003 by which it has decided to

delete the converted lands from the acquisition. The

learned Single Judge has also found that authority

has practiced discrimination while de-notifying the

converted lands. In pursuance of the liberty granted

by the learned Single Judge, the appealnts have

already submitted an application seeking de-

notification of the land, which is pending adjudication

before the Authority.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the

case, the Authority is directed to take a decision on

the application submitted by the appellants seeking

de-notification by taking into account the following

facts:

(i) The land held by the appellants is a converted

land.

(ii) The Authority itself has passed a resolution

on 28.06.2003, by which it has resolved to delete the

converted lands from the acquisition proceeding.

(iii) After publication of the final notification

dated 09.09.2003, the Authority has de-notified land

measuring 22 acres and 25 guntas on the ground that

the same is converted land.

14. The Authority while taking a decision shall

advert to the aforesaid facts and pass a speaking

order within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of this order.

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed in

W.P.No.9925/2004 is modified.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS