Karnataka High Court
Indradhanush Properties Private Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2024
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit, M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9576
WP No. 20203 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 20203 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
INDRADHANUSH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
APARTMENT NO.L-104,
GRUHALAKSHMI APARTMENT,
NO.13/2, S.M.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 015.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI.G.SRIDHAR,
S/O B.GOVINDARAJAN.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
by CHETAN B
C
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9576
WP No. 20203 of 2023
3. THE LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER,
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU 560020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRINCE ISAAC, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SRI.SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADV FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 19/08/2022, BEARING
NO. BDA/DC(LA)/67/2022-23, ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND FINAL NOTIFICATION
DATED 18/10/2022 BEARING NO.UDD/265/MNX/2022(E)
ISUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, (ANNEXURE-B) INSOFAR AS
IT PERTAINS TO ACQUISITION, OF LAND IN SY.NO.37/1
MEASURING 01 ACRE, SY.NO.37/3, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS
AND SY.NO.37/3 MEASURING 18 GUNTAS, ALL THE LAND ARE
SITUATED AT SOMASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE, YESWANTHPURA
HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BELONGS TO PETITIONER,
BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
KRISHNA S DIXIT J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition seeks to lay a challenge to the
acquisition of land vide Preliminary Notification dated
19.8.2022 followed by the Final Notification dated
18.10.2022, both issued by the 2nd respondent-BDA to the
extent they comprise the petition lands.
NC: 2024:KHC:9576
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
argues that: the Notifications do not mention the name of
petitioner who is the registered owner of the lands in
question; the subject lands having been converted to non-
agricultural user are exempted from acquisition process
vide JUNJAMMA vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, ILR 2005 KAR 608; the BDA having given
NOC for conversion, cannot seek acquisition of the said
lands; when the purpose for which lands are sought to be
acquired would be served by the land owners themselves
developing the case.
3. After service of notice, the State has entered
appearance through the learned AGA and BDA & its LAO
have entered appearance through their Panel Counsel.
Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents
vehemently opposes the petition controverting the
propositions which the counsel for the petitioner
strenuously has put forth as mentioned above. He adds
that, this acquisition is being finalized pursuant to
NC: 2024:KHC:9576
direction of the Apex Court in BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Miscellaneous
Application Nos.1614-1616/2019 in C.A.Nos.7661-
7663/2018 and that there is no discretion to disobey the
mandate in the judgment. He also contends that there
being no dropping of the proceedings in terms of section
48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no relief can be
granted to the petitioner.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline
indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the
submissions made by the learned Advocate General. Our
discussion is as under:
(a) Firstly, the power of eminent domain which is
constitutionally recognized even by Article 300A is an
attribute of a sovereign State. Any private property
notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee can be taken
by the government for public purpose on payment of
NC: 2024:KHC:9576
compensation vide K.T.PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2011) 9 SCC 1. The bonafide of
acquisition is not in challenge. The vehement submission
of learned counsel for the petitioner that once the land is
converted to non-agricultural purpose, the same enjoys
immunity from acquisition, is difficult to agree with. Such
a proposition does not find support from JUNJAMMA supra.
The court in that case has only noted as to why a large
chunk of notified land was dropped from acquisition
process and one of the reasons was that the lands were
converted to non-agricultural user. That does not mean
that in all cases where land is converted to non-
agricultural purpose, there can be no acquisition of the
same. It hardly needs to be stated that even the lands
belonging to temple, mosque or church are immuned from
acquisition. Courts have upheld even acquisition of
graveyards for public purpose. An argument to the
contrary would run counter to a century old acquisition
jurisprudence.
NC: 2024:KHC:9576
(b) The second contention that the BDA had
granted NOC for conversion of the land u/s 95 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and therefore, it is
estopped from acquiring the land, is too farfetched an
argument. NOC as a matter of protocol is insisted upon
whilst processing the application for conversion of land to
non-agricultural user. However, that does not immune
future acquisition of such land. Not even one sporadic
ruling has been cited to support contention of the
petitioner. That apart, power of eminent domain is a
statutory power and it has constitutional trappings as well.
In recognition of its enormity and necessity, the
fundamental right to property guaranteed u/a 19(1)(f) has
been relegated to only a constitutional guarantee vide
under Article 300A post 44th Amendment. This aspect of
the matter has been elaborately discussed by the Apex
Court in K.T.PLANTATION supra. Added, there can be no
estoppel against the exercise of statutory power, that too
in public interest.
NC: 2024:KHC:9576
(c) The next contention that the entire acquisition
is vitiated since name of the petitioner was not notified in
the acquisition Notifications, is again difficult to sustain.
The provisions of BDA Act provide for notifying the land for
acquisition in the name of person as figuring in the
property records. If petitioner-Company had failed to get
its name entered in the property records pursuant to sale
deeds, fault cannot be attributed to the State in notifying
the land for acquisition in the name of persons as per the
records. Even otherwise, this arguable lacuna pales into
insignificance since the petitioner admittedly has filed his
objections in terms of legal notices opposing the
acquisition. Added, this acquisition is being done as per
the mandate of the Apex Court in BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY case supra and the
respondents had no discretion to disobey the said
mandate.
(d) The last contention of the petitioner that the
purpose for which lands are being acquired and the
NC: 2024:KHC:9576
purpose of developing the lands by the petitioner itself are
one and the same and therefore, the acquisition would not
serve the true purpose of law, is again difficult to agree
with. This argument at the first blush appears attractive;
however, a deeper examination shows its hallowness. The
purpose for which the lands are being acquired is to
provide residential accommodation to the needy public at
a reasonable price. That would be served only by
acquisition of private land in public interest. Therefore, the
private interest of the petitioner has to yield to the public
interest at large.
In the above circumstances, the petition being devoid
of merits, is liable to dismissed & accordingly it is, costs
having been made easy.
We make it clear that nothing herein shall be
construed as depriving the true owner of the subject
properties for laying a claim for compensation or such
NC: 2024:KHC:9576
other benefits that would usually follow acquisition of
private land.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CBC
