Karnataka High Court
Sri M Ramu vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9653
WP No. 1421 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 1421 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M RAMU
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT NO. 46, CHANCHAGUTTA MAIN ROAD
(SAPTHAGIRI CUTTING TOOL FACTORY ROAD)
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU 60 078
2. SRI. CHOWDAIAH @ CHOUDAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
3. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA
W/O LATE. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
Digitally
signed by
4. SMT. GOWRAMMA
KIRAN
KUMAR R
D/O LATE, CHIKKAMUNISWAMAPPA,
Location: AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
HIGH
COURT OF JATTIPALYA VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA
TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
5. SMT JAYAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
HARANGI ROAD, GOPAL CIRCLE,
KUSHALANAGAR-571234
COORG DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9653
WP No. 1421 of 2021
NO.2, & 3 ARE
RESIDING OF GUBBALALA VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER:
SRI. M RAMU,
1ST PETITIONER HEREIN ABOVE,
PARTIES ARE NOT CLAIMING
BENEFIT UNDER SENIOR CITIZEN
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NATARAJA H T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK,
BANGALORE-560020.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA K., HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. G.LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT,
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS FOR
FORMATION OF BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE LAYOUT, WHILE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD 07.11.2002 ISSUED BY THE
R-2 VIDE ANNX-C AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DTD
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9653
WP No. 1421 of 2021
09.09.2003 GAZETTE ON 10.09.2003, ISSUED BY THE R-2
VIDE ANNX-D NOTIFYING THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS AS
LAPSED UNDER SECTION 27 OF BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The prayer made in this petition is for quashing of a
notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore
Development Authority Act (for short, "the Act") dated
07.11.2022 and the declaration dated 09.09.2003 issued
under Section 19 of the Act on the ground that the scheme
had lapsed under Section 27 of the Act.
2. A prayer is also made for quashing of the award that
was passed subsequently on 12.12.2003.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very
outset, submits that the land in question i.e., Sy.No.48/3A
abuts the land in Sy.No.48/3B1 and the acquisition of the
said land was the subject matter of W.P.No.9246/2021. He
submits that this Court by order dated 18.08.2023 allowed
NC: 2024:KHC:9653
the said writ petition and quashed the preliminary
notification dated 07.11.2022 and the declaration dated
09.09.2003 insofar as it related to Sy.No.48/3B1 except
insofar as the road that was formed in Sy.No.48/3B1. He
submits that in view of the fact that the adjoining land was
brought outside the purview of acquisition, the petitioners'
land would become a small island incapable of any use for
formation of the layout.
4. Learned counsel also points out that as per the very
sketch produced by the Bangalore Development Authority
along with its counter, to the north in Sy.No.48/1, the
photograph indicates that it is completely built up and to
the south of Sy.No.48/3A, the photographs indicates that
structures have been put up and, therefore, in this isolated
island, it would be impossible for the Bangalore
Development Authority to form a layout.
5. Learned counsel for the Bangalore Development
Authority, per contra, submits that Sy.No.48/3A is vested
with the Bangalore Development Authority and even if it is
NC: 2024:KHC:9653
assumed that the scheme had lapsed, the acquisition
would still remain valid and the Bangalore Development
Authority would still be entitled to put the land to some
beneficial use.
6. He also submits that the Bangalore Development
Authority is contemplating to file an appeal against the
order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
respect of Sy.No.48/3B1 and therefore, there is no merit
in the arguments advanced by the petitioners.
7. This Court while disposing of W.P.No.9246/2021,
which related to land in Sy.No.48/3B1, has observed as
follows in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8:
"6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that it is
clear from the said directions issued by the Apex
Court that acquisition thereof cannot be justified on
the ground that small islands of acquired land could
be used as a stand-alone park or playground in
regard to a layout formed in a different unconnected
lands. In that view of the matter, the learned Senior
Counsel has taken this Court through the map
submitted at the hands of the respondent - BDA and
NC: 2024:KHC:9653
submits that it is clear from the map supplied by the
BDA and the photographs furnished at the hands of
the petitioner that all the lands surrounding the land
in question including that of Sri M.Sheshappa have
been left out of the acquisition proceedings. What
remains is only 2 acres and 24 guntas or even lessor
since a portion of the property belonging to the
petitioner was utilised for the purpose of formation of
road. Therefore, practically only about 1 acre 30
guntas of land may remain which belongs to the
petitioner and Sri M.Sheshappa and the
Commissioner has opined that the same can be
formed into a separate layout. This opinion of the
Commissioner would be contrary to the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
BONDU RAMASWAMY. Learned Senior Counsel
would further submit that in respect of the
neighbouring properties the BDA thought it fit to levy
betterment charges and not acquire the land for
formation of layout. Atleast three or four such
property owners gave up their claim in respect of the
land utilised for formation of road and accordingly
their lands are left out of acquisition proceedings
while levying and collecting betterment charges.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that same benefit
should have given to the petitioners and there is no
reason why only a small portion of property
measuring approximately 1 acre and 30 guntas are
NC: 2024:KHC:9653
sought to be utilised for formation of a layout.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that if directions
are issued by this Court, the petitioner is more than
willing to give up his claim regarding the property
utilised for formation of road and the petitioner may
be permitted to utilise the rest of the lands for
beneficial use, as was done in the case of other
neighbouring lands.
7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri K.Krishna
appearing for the respondent - BDA submits that on
a plain reading of the averments made in the writ
petition it does not disclose as to how the change in
the survey numbers of the property belonging to the
petitioner and Sri M.Sheshappa has come about.
Further it is submitted that the case of Sri
M.Sheshappa and others were considered on the
same lines and the Commissioner had also earlier
opined that the lands could not be dropped from the
acquisition proceedings. Sufficient reasons are found
in the order passed by the Commissioner. It is
therefore sought to be submitted that writ petition
cannot be maintained at the hands of the petitioner,
since Sri M.Sheshappa and others had already
approached this Court in respect of same property
i.e., Sy.No.48/3B1. Insofar as the opinion of the
Commissioner in the recent order dated 18.04.2023,
the learned counsel would submit that details of all
NC: 2024:KHC:9653
the neighbouring properties and the manner in which
they were dealt with has been elaborately given in
the order. The Commissioner has given acceptable
reasons as to why the land in question cannot be
dropped from the acquisition proceedings.
Moreover, it is submitted that award has been
passed in respect of the land in question and
therefore at this point of time the land in question
cannot be dropped from the acquisition proceedings.
8. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent
- BDA and having perused the petition papers, this
Court finds that having regard to the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BONDU
RAMASWAMY, the opinion of the Commissioner in
his order dated 18.04.2023 cannot be accepted.
Having regard to the map submitted by the BDA and
the photographs furnished at the hands of the
petitioner, it is clear that all the neighbouring
properties have been left out of the acquisition
proceedings and what remains is two small pieces of
property belonging to the petitioner and Sri
M.Sheshappa. The learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner has reasonably clarified the
position regarding the change in the survey number
and therefore there cannot be any doubt in the mind
of this Court regarding the ownership of the property
NC: 2024:KHC:9653
in question standing in the name of the petitioner.
The facts narrated in the order dated 18.04.2023 by
the Commissioner also supports the submission of
the learned Senior Counsel that the two properties
are distinct and different and there cannot be any
confusion about the land belonging to the petitioner
and Sri M.Sheshappa and others. However, the
opinion of the Commissioner that the two pieces of
land which on paper measures about 2 acres and 24
guntas could be formed as a stand-alone layout,
would be contrary to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BONDU
RAMASWAMY. A layout which is required to be
formed by the BDA should be a self contained layout.
The layout should contain residential sites,
commercial area, roads, civic amenities sites, parks,
playground etc. The proposition of forming island
layout in small pieces of property has been
deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In that view
of the matter, this Court would not hesitate to hold
that the opinion of the Commissioner in his order
dated 18.04.2023 would be contrary to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BONDU
RAMASWAMY. When it is clear that all the
neighbouring properties surrounding the lands in
question have not been utilised for formation of a
layout, it would be impermissible for the BDA to form
a separate layout in the land in question. The
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9653
directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of BONDU RAMASWAMY more particularly
clause(ii) of paragraph No.160 would apply on all
fours to the facts and circumstances of this case."
8. As could be seen from the above, this Court took
note of the order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the
Commissioner, in which, he had admitted that apart from
the land belonging to Sheshappa (brother of the 1st
petitioner) and who was the erstwhile owner of
Sy.No.48/3A and the land of B.Vijaykumar, the petitioner
therein, who was the owner of Sy.No.48/3B1, all other
surrounding lands have been given up from the purview of
acquisition.
9. The Co-ordinate Bench also rejected the contention
urged by the Bangalore Development Authority that these
two pieces of land which measured 2 acres 24 guntas
could be formed as a stand alone layout, on the ground
that it would be contrary to the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY Vs. BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2010) 7 SCC 129. This Court
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9653
took a specific view that the layout could not be formed in
2 acres 24 guntas as the same would be contrary to the
judgment rendered in Bondu Ramaswamy's case,
especially when it was clear that all the neighbouring lands
had not been utilized for forming a layout and it would be
improper to form a separate layout.
10. In my view, the reasoning of the Co-ordinate Bench
in respect of abutting land bearing Sy.No.48/3B1 would
also aptly apply to this petition land i.e., Sy.No.48/3A. In
that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and
the impugned notification dated 07.11.2002 issued under
Section 17 of the Act and the declaration dated
09.09.2003 insofar as the petition schedule land i.e.,
Sy.No.48/3A and measuring 1 acre 16 guntas of Gubbalala
Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, are
hereby quashed.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have not withdrawn the compensation stated to
have been deposited by the Bangalore Development
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9653
Authority in the Civil Court in respect of lands in question.
In that view of the matter, the Bangalore Development
Authority would be entitled to withdraw the amounts, if
any, deposited before the Civil Court in respect of the
petition schedule property.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PKS
