Karnataka High Court
Sri. C. H. Venkata Hanumaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2024
-1-
WA No.2660 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO.2660 OF 2018 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. C.H.VENKATA HANUMAIAH,
S/O SRI. HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
2. SRI. C.H. HANUMANTHU,
S/O SRI. HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
3. SRI. C.H. JAYARAMU,,
S/O SRI. HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
4. SRI. C.H. MUTTHAIAH,
S/O SRI HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.315,
CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE,
KUMBALAGODU POST,
KENGERI HOBLIG,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 074.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
URBAN DEVELOPMEMNT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
-2-
WA No.2660 of 2018
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMAR PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMAR PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3 )
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 16.04.2018, PASSED IN W.P.NO.61186/2016 (LA-BDA) BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITON NO.61186/2016 AS
PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.11.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, UMESH M ADIGA J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
This intra Court appeal filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act,1961, is directed against the order
dated 16.04.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.61186/2016 (LA-BDA), dismissing the writ
petition filed by the appellants.
2. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for
both side and perused the materials on record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, for the purpose of
formation of `Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout', respondent
Nos.2 and 3 herein acquired certain lands by issuing the
Notifications dated 21.05.2008 and 18.02.2010 respectively
under Section 17(1) and (3), as well as Section 19(1) of
Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short,
`BDA'). Thereafter, BDA passed consent award with writ
petitioner No.1 - Hanumaiah, vide agreement dated
06.12.2012, under Section 11(4) of Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and compensation of Rs.1,70,00,000/- was determined
in respect of Survey No.46/1 of Challaghatta village,
measuring 6 acres 13 guntas, which was notified for
acquisition. The writ petitioners did not approach the BDA to
receive the said compensation amount. Therefore, the BDA
as per law, deposited the amount of award before Principal
City Civil & Sessions Judge's Court, Bengaluru. The issuance
of Preliminary and Final notifications, as well as consent
award passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 were challenged
before the learned Single Judge in the impugned Writ
Petition No.61186/2016, on the ground that the said
Notifications were bad in law and the writ petitioner No.1
Hanumaiah was not the absolute owner of the said property
to enter into an agreement with BDA. Therefore, he had no
right to sign on the consent agreement on behalf of other
writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge considering their
contentions, dismissed the writ petition.
4. It was also urged before the learned Single Judge
that batch of the matters wherein the Preliminary, as well as
Final Notifications were challenged, has been pending in Writ
Appeal No.1783/2014, which was filed by the BDA against
the orders of the learned Single Judge, wherein the said
Preliminary and Final Notifications were quashed by order
dated 22.02.2024. The learned Single Judge after
considering all the facts contended above, by the impugned
order, dismissed the writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued on
the lines mentioned in the grounds of appeal in the appeal
memo.
6. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3
submitted that the matters in the connected writ appeals are
totally different from the facts of the present case. In this
case, the original owner had agreed to receive the
compensation and accordingly, consent award was passed
and the amount of the consent award has been deposited in
the Civil Court since none of the appellants came forward to
receive the amount. Their contention that they had filed a
suit for partition and the same is still pending before the
Court is nothing to do with the acquisition proceedings. The
persons who succeeded in the said partition suit, may take
share in the award amount deposited before the Civil Court.
Therefore, there is no need for the learned Single Judge to
wait for the decision in the Writ Appeal No.1783/2014
pending before the Division Bench of this Court. The
grounds of writ appeal are not sustainable and there are no
reasons to interfere in the findings of the learned Single
Judge. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
7. Learned counsels for both side have not disclosed
regarding the result in Writ Appeal No.1783/2014. On
perusal of web page of this Court, it is found that the said
batch of writ appeals were disposed of by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, wherein orders passed by the learned
Single Judge in the writ petition impugned in the said Writ
Appeal No.1783/2014 were set aside and the Preliminary and
Final Notifications issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 were
upheld. It is not clear as to whether any further challenge
has been made in respect of the said order passed in Writ
Appeal No.1783/2014. Therefore, the main ground urged by
learned counsel for the appellants that when the similar
matters were pending before the Appellate Court, in respect
of the very same subject matter, then the learned Single
Judge ought not to have disposed of the writ petition, is not
available to appellant at present.
8. In the writ petition prayer column, the appellants
prayed for quashing of Preliminary and Final Notifications on
the ground that possession of the properties were not taken
by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the scheme itself was lapsed.
Since the said Notifications are upheld in the order passed in
Writ Appeal No.1783/2014 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, therefore reconsideration of the same by this Court is
not required.
9. The land was acquired by respondent Nos.2 and 3
by issuing Notifications. The writ petitioner No.1 Hanumaiah
agreed to receive Rs.1,70,00,000/- as the compensation and
accordingly, the consent award was passed and he had
signed on the consent agreement, that is not in dispute.
According to the appellants, he was not the absolute owner
of the property, therefore, he had no right to consent for
payment of compensation for and on behalf of the
appellants. As observed by the learned Single Judge, he was
karta of the family and it is not the case of appellants that
for immoral purpose, he consented for the said award. The
lands were already acquired. If he had not consented, then
respondent Nos.2 and 3 could have passed general award.
It is repeatedly submitted by learned counsel for respondent
Nos.2 and 3 that as per the consent award, Rs.1,70,00,000/-
has been deposited before the Prl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge's Court at Bengaluru. Petitioners can get their share
from said amount. The said contention is tenable.
If appellants succeed in the partition suit, they may get
share in the amount deposited in the Court by filing
appropriate application before the Court. It will not come in
the way of rights of the appellants. On that count,
Notifications issued by BDA cannot be quashed.
Therefore, appeal does not merit consideration. Hence,
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
bk/
