Karnataka High Court
The Bangalore Development ... vs Sri.B.S.Venugopal on 10 July, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Anant Ramanath Hegde
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:23636-DB
WA No.1027 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT APPEAL NO.1027 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
Digitally 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
signed by THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RUPA V KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDIAH ROAD
Location: BENGALURU-560020.
High Court ...APPELLANTS
of Karnataka
(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. B.S. VENUGOPAL
S/O M L SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
2. SRI. M.L. SHANKAR
S/O LATE M S LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 97 YEARS.
3. SRI. B.S. GIRISH
S/O M L SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
4. SMT. B.S. GEETHA
D/O M L SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:23636-DB
WA No.1027 of 2021
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH, ADV., FOR C/R1
SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL
FILED BY THE APPELLANTS THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.57912/2018 (LA-BDA) DATED 23/12/2020 AND THEREBY
DISMISS THE SAID PETITION. TO AWARD COSTS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal is filed against an order
dated 23.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge by
which writ petition preferred by respondents - owners of
the land has been allowed and the proceeding initiated
by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Authority') for acquisition of land has
been held to be lapsed under Section 27(1)(b) of the
Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act').
NC: 2023:KHC:23636-DB
WA No.1027 of 2021
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that the landowners are owners of land
measuring 8 acres 38 guntas situated at Vasanthapura
Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The
aforesaid land along with other lands were required by
the Authority for formation of Banashankari 5th Stage
Layout. Thereupon, the proceeding for acquisition of
land under the Act was set in motion. A preliminary
notification under Section 17(1) of the Act was issued on
13.04.1989 and first final notification under Section
19(1) of the Act was issued on 18.05.1994 whereas,
second notification was issued on 17.09.1997.
3. The land owners challenged the aforesaid
notifications in a writ petition namely
W.P.No.33086/1997 which was dismissed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated
23.10.1998. Thereafter, the owners of the land filed a
NC: 2023:KHC:23636-DB
WA No.1027 of 2021
petition seeking a declaration that the scheme framed
by the Authority has lapsed under Section 27 of the Act
as the same has not been implemented. The said writ
petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by an
order dated 23.12.2020. In the aforesaid factual
background, this appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated
that subsequent petition filed by the landowners was
barred by principles of res judicata. Therefore, the
finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that
subsequent writ petition filed by the owners of the land
is either barred by the principles of res judicata or
constructive res judicata, is perverse.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
landowners has supported the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
NC: 2023:KHC:23636-DB
WA No.1027 of 2021
6. When a query was put to the learned counsel for
the Authority, he fairly submitted that no award has
been passed. A Division Bench of this Court vide
judgment dated 23.03.2022 passed in
W.A.No.557/2021 in 'KIADB & ANR. Vs.
K.H.SHIVANNA & ORS.' has considered the fact of not
passing an award for a long period of time and
observing that the same amounts to infraction of Article
300A of the Constitution of India, has held as under:
"6. 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.
NC: 2023:KHC:23636-DB
WA No.1027 of 2021
SREEKANTAN V P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR',
(2006) 13 SCC 574 AND 'K.B NAGUR V
UNION OF INDIA', (2012) 4 SCC 483].
Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have to
ascertain whether the Notification under Section
28(1) of the Act stands vitiated in law on
account of the delay caused in issuing the final
notification under Section 28(4) of the Act
within reasonable time, in the light of
submission made by learned senior counsel for
respondent no. 2.
7. In the instant case, the preliminary
notification was issued on 07.08.2006. It is
pertinent to mention here that the appellants did
not file objections before the learned Single
Judge to explain the delay caused in land
acquisition proceeding. In the absence of any
explanation on behalf of the appellant, the
learned Single judge has rightly held that there
was an inordinate delay in completion of the
proceedings and even after a lapse of 14 years,
neither final notification has been issued nor
any steps were taken to complete the land
acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the learned
NC: 2023:KHC:23636-DB
WA No.1027 of 2021
Single judge in the facts of the case and in the
absence of any explanation on behalf of the
appellant about the delay in concluding the land
acquisition proceeding has rightly held that the
notification dated 07.08.2006 issued under
Section 28(1) of the Act insofar as it pertains to
the land of Respondents 1 to 3 stood lapsed on
account of efflux of time and has rightly
quashed the same. For the aforementioned
reasons, we do not find any ground to differ
with the view taken by learned Single Judge."
7. The aforesaid judgment passed by this Court
has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
special leave petition namely SLP(C)` No.22081/2022
which has been dismissed.
8. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is
evident that in the instant case, there is no inordinate
delay in passing the award for which no reason has
been offered.
NC: 2023:KHC:23636-DB
WA No.1027 of 2021
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the order
passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any
interference.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
