Karnataka High Court
Muniraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
WP No. 14161 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 14161 OF 2011 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE DODDAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. PARVATHI,
W/O LATE MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
1(b) SRI.MANU.M,
S/O LATE MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
2. MUNICHANDRA,
S/O LATE DODDAIAH,
Digitally
signed by AGED 46 YEARS,
KIRAN
KUMAR R
3. MUNIYAPPA,
Location:
HIGH S/O LATE DODDAIAH,
COURT OF AGED 42 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/AT NO. 170,
PANTHRAPALYA, MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 039.
4. SMT. MADDURAMMA,
W/O LATE KARGAPPA,
AGED 68 YEARS,
5. K. RAVIKUMAR,
S/O LATE KARAGAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
WP No. 14161 of 2011
AGED 42 YEARS,
R-4 AND R-5 ARE R/AT NO. 168,
PANTHARAPALYA, MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 039.
6. K. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE KARAGAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
MANU CHETHAN.M.,
6(a) S/O LATE K.MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT No.221, 1ST CROSS,
NEAR HOLY CHILD SCHOOL,
PANTHARAPALYA, BANGALORE-560 039.
7. K. GOPAL,
S/O LATE KARAGAPPA,
AGED 36 YEARS,
8. K. MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE KARAGAPPA,
AGED 32 YEARS,
9. K. CHANDRA,
S/O LATE KARAGAPPA,
AGED 26 YEARS,
10. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA,
AGED 65 YEARS,
11. M. MUNIRAJU,
S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
12. M. MUNIYAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA,
AGED 43 YEARS,
13. M. MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
WP No. 14161 of 2011
AGED 32 YEARS,
14. M. MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA,
AGED 28 YEARS,
R-7 TO R-14 ARE R/AT NO. 168,
PANTHARAPALYA,
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 039.
15. M. RAMAIAH,
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
15(a) SMT. GEETHA.R.
D/O LATE M.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
15(b) SMT. VIJAYA,
D/O LATE M.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
15(c) SRI.MANU.R.,
S/O LATE M.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
15(d) SMT. SHOBHA.R.,
D/O LATE M.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
15(e) SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR.R
S/O LATE M.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT No.202, PANTARAPALYA,
MYSURU ROAD,BENGALURU-560 039.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.M.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
EXCEPT P-6(a);
SRI.T.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-6(a))
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
WP No. 14161 of 2011
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,T.
CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGLAORE-560 020.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BDA
COMPLEX, BSK II STAGE,
BANGLAORE-560 070.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI. JAYAKUMAR.S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.M., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DISPOSSESS THE
PETITIONERS OR DEMOLISH THE EXISTING BUILDING
INCLUDING PETROL BUNKS, GAS SUPPLY UNIT AND OTHER
COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS SITUATED IN SY.NO.15, 16 &
17 OF PANTHRAPALYA VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
EXCLUDING THE PORTION OF RING ROAD IN THE TOTAL
EXTENT OF 9 ACRE 6 GUNTAS, THE REMAINING EXTENT OF 6
ACRES AND ADD THESE SURVEY NUMBERS BELONGING TO
THE PETITIONERS., ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
WP No. 14161 of 2011
ORDER
1. The prayer in this petition is for issuing a writ of
mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction to
the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners or
demolish the existing building including petrol bunks, gas
supply unit and other commercial establishments situated
in Sy. No.15, 16 & 17 of Pantarapalya village, Bangalore
South Taluk by excluding the portion of ring road in the
total extent of 9 acres 6 guntas.
2. Further, a direction is sought to direct the
respondents to comply with the order and directions
issued by this Court in W.A. NO.9890/1996 & 1447/1997
Dated 13.08.1998.
3. Lastly, a direction is sought to be issued to the
respondent Nos.1 & 2 to de-notify the un-utilised
remaining extent of acquired land which was remained
with the petitioners after formation of outer ring road or
re-convey the same in terms of its resolution No.169/2001
by adjusting the value of the same from the amount of
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
compensation of awarded and lying with the respondent
No.2.
4. These facts are not in dispute :
On 22.12.1997 a notification was issued that the
Bangalore Development Authority ("the BDA") had
formulated a scheme for formation of 150 ft. width outer
ring road starting from High Transmission Tower near
Kanakapura Road, joining 26 ft. cross road in
Banashankari II State near Hosakerehalli to join Bangalore
- Mysore Road. After hearing objections and after
obtaining sanction of the Government, a declaration under
Section 19 was issued on 16.11.1998. In both these
notifications, the land bearing Sy. No.15 & 16 of
Pantharapalya village were included.
On 07.02.1990, a notification under Section 17 was
issued in respect of 5 guntas of land in Sy. No.17 along
with other survey numbers for the formation of 150 ft.
outer ring road after considering the objections and after a
sanction from the Government, a declaration under
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
Section 19 was issued on 11.01.1994 in respect of these
lands.
5. It is stated that in respect of these lands an award
was passed on 20.11.1990 and 26.09.2000 and the
compensation has been deposited before the Civil Court.
6. W.P. No.20950-51/1990 was filed by some of the
land owners who were aggrieved by the inclusion of their
lands in the said notification. By an order dated
20.09.1996, the said writ petitions were allowed in part.
The acquisition in so far as the lands for formation of ring
road was upheld. However, the BDA was directed to
consider the request of the petitioners to leave the extent
of land which lies on either side of the ring road and it
issued a direction that the same shall not to be utilized for
industrial purpose.
7. Being aggrieved, the land owners therein, have
preferred writ appeal before this Court in W.A.
No.9890/1996 and WA No.1447/1997. This Court, after
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
hearing, proceeded to dispose of the appeal in the
following terms:
"JUDGMENT
The notification issued for acquiring
the lands of the appellants for the
purpose of formation of a ring road
starting from High Transmission tower
near Kanakapura Road in Banashankari II
stage and Hosakerehalli to Bangalore -
Mysore Road, was challenged by the
appellants mainly on the ground that the
said lands though originally acquired for
formation of the ring road were being
utilized for the formation of industrial
sites on either side of the road, the
purpose not initially notified. Writ
petitions filed by the appellants were
disposed of holding that the lands
acquired were only for purpose of
formation of outer ring road, which was
admittedly a public purpose. Regarding
rest of the land not utilized for the
purpose of formation of the ring road, the
learned single Judge directed the BDA to
consider the request of the petitioners to
leave the extent of the land which lie on
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
either side of the ring road and not to
utilize it for industrial purpose.
The BDA has filed a memo stating
therein that the decision in pursuance of
the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge shall be taken and intimated
to the State Government. They have
filed a statement showing the extent of
the land which is required to be utilized
for the purpose of the ring road. The
court has been assured by the
respondents that no part of the acquired
land will be utilised for industrial purpose.
It is further stated that decision with
respect of the land not required for the
ring road shall be communicated by the
BDA to the State within a period of two
months.
Under the circumstances, the
appeals are disposed of by recording the
memo filed and the statement made at
the bar with a further direction that after
the BDA intimates the respondent - State
about the excess land not required for
the purpose of ring road, CD works and
flyover, the respondent - State shall pass
appropriate orders in terms of the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
directions of the learned Single Judge
holding the appellants entitled to such
excess land."
8. As could be seen from the said order, the BDA itself
has filed a memo stating that it would act upon the
directions issued by the learned Single Judge and intimate
the same to the Government and it is also stated therein
the extent of land which is required to be utilized for the
purpose of ring road and assurance was given to the Court
that no part of the acquired land would be utilized for the
industrial purpose. It was also stated that the decision in
respect of the land which was not required for formation of
ring road which would be communicated by the BDA to the
State within a period of two months. This indicates that
the BDA was clearly not willing to acquire the lands for the
purpose of formation of industrial sites and it had also
agreed to inform the same to the State.
9. The Division Bench, acting upon the said memo went
on to direct that the excess land which was not required
for the purpose of ring road, CD works and fly over the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
State should pass orders in terms of the directions of the
learned Single Judge holding that the land owners were
entitled to such excess lands.
10. In other words, the Division Bench upheld the
direction of the learned Single Judge holding that the
extent of land which was not utilized for formation of ring
road was required to be returned to the land owners. In
fact, the Division Bench has issued a specific direction to
the State Government to pass order in terms of the order
of the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, this order of the
Division Bench has been accepted not only by the State,
but also by the BDA and it had thus attained finality.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners also points
out that some of the land owners have preferred a writ
petition in W.P. No.12202 & 12363-12365 of 2016 seeking
for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in
relation to the very same formation 150 ft. outer ring road
was unenforceable and null and void, and this Court by an
order dated 03.05.2016, by placing reliance on the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
decision rendered in W.A. No.3131/2012 dated
02.12.2014, by which the Division Bench had quashed the
acquisition proceedings, allowed the writ petition and
declared that the acquisition proceedings in so far as the
lands therein were concerned had been abandoned and
lapsed, and it accordingly quashed the said acquisition
proceedings. This Court further directed the land owners
therein to refund the compensation amount that they had
received, corresponding to the untilised land within a
period of eight weeks along with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum. It is also pointed out that this order passed
by the learned Single Judge was accepted by the BDA and
an NOC was issued on 21.06.2016 in respect of the
subject matter of lands in the aforesaid writ petition. The
copy of endorsement to that effect is also produced at
Annexure-"Z20" to the writ petition.
12. In view of the decision rendered by the Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No.9890 of 1996, it is obvious that in
respect of the unutilized land, i.e., the land, which have
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
not been used for the formation of the ring road, will have
to be necessarily returned to the land owners.
13. Today, a status report has been filed by the
Bangalore Development Authority, in which it is stated
that in respect of Sy.No.15 out of the notified land to an
extent of 2 acres 24 guntas, only 0-30 guntas has been
utilized and the remaining 01 acre 34 guntas has not been
utilized.
14. In respect of Sy.No.16, out of the notified extents of
01 acre 20 guntas and 0-24 guntas, it is stated that 01
acre 01 gunta and 15½ guntas have been utilized and the
remaining 19 guntas and 0-08½ guntas had remained
unutilized.
15. In respect of Sy.No.17, it is has been stated that the
entire notified extent of 0-14 guntas has been utilized. A
sketch is also enclosed to said memo indicating the utilized
part and the unutilized part.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
16. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in Writ Appeal Nos.9890 of 1996 referred to above,
it is obvious that the remaining extent of 1 acre 34 guntas
in Sy.No.15 and 0-19 guntas and 0-08½ gunats in
Sy.No.16 cannot be retained by the BDA and will have to
be necessarily returned to the land owners.
17. As a consequence, this writ petition is disposed of by
directing the BDA to return the extent of 01 acre 34
guntas in Sy.No.15 to the land-owners and also an extent
of 0-19 guntas and 0-08½ guntas in Sy.No.16 to the land
owners, and these land owners who have received the
compensation in respect of these extents will have to
refund the compensation along with interest at six per
cent per annum from the date of receipt of the said sum to
the BDA within a period of eight weeks.
18. The BDA shall execute/issue the necessary
documents stating that the lands were being returned to
the land owners.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8079
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VK
RK
