Karnataka High Court
Sri Anwar Shariff vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:47735
WP No. 38062 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.38062 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. ANWAR SHARIFF
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1(a). SMT. SAYEEDA BANU
W/O LATE ANWAR SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
1(b). SMT. TABASSUM SHARIEFF
D/O LATE ANWAR SHARIFF
W/O SRI. FRANK SHARIEFF
1(c). SRI. USMAN SHARIEFF
S/O LATE ANWAR SARIFF
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND 1(d). SMT. TANJUM JAHAN ARA
CHAYA
Location: High D/O LATE ANWAR SHARIFF
Court of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
1(e). SMT. HUSNA BADE SABAH
D/O LATE ANWAR SHRIFF
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
1(f). SRI. SADDAM SHARIFF
S/O LATE ANWAR SHRIFF
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
ALL PETITIONERS ARE R/AT
NO.12/1, CLARKE ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:47735
WP No. 38062 of 2014
RICHARD TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 005.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU -560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARAPARK WEST,
BENGALURU -560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. H.T. BASAVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 12.06.2014 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ACT AS PER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 14.3.2014 AT ANNEXURE-C, AND
REMINDER DATED 12.5.2014 AT ANNEXURE-E, AND TO
DENOTIFY THE LAND ACQUIRED IN SURVEY NO. 87/2A
MEASURING 17 GUNTAS BELONGIGN TO THE PETITIONER
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:47735
WP No. 38062 of 2014
FROM THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 7.2.1978 FORTHWITH;
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the
Endorsement dated 12.06.2014 (Annexure-A) issued by
respondent No.3, inter alia, sought for quashing the Final
notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-B) as lapsed due to
efflux of time as possession of the land in question has not
been taken nor compensation has been paid to the petitioner,
and such other consequential benefits.
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the writ petition are that
the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the
property bearing Sy.No.87/2A measuring 17 guntas situate at
Tavarekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, as per
registered Sale Deed dated 18.12.1974. The petitioner, further
stated, that the revenue records stand in the name of the
petitioner. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the respondent -
NC: 2024:KHC:47735
authorities have issued Preliminary Notification dated
19.09.1977 showing the name of the original owner -
Munishamappa, S/o Perraiah and thereafter Final Notification
came to be issued on 07.02.1978 as per Annexure-B to the
Writ Petition.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that though the impugned
Notifications have been passed seeking to acquire the schedule
land belonging to the petitioner, however, no Award has been
passed determining the compensation nor possession of the
land has been taken by the respondent - authorities and it is
also stated in the Writ Petition that, no compensation is
deposited before the Civil Court and therefore, the entire
acquisition proceedings become lapsed on account of inaction
on the part of the respondent - authorities. Hence, the
petitioner has presented this Writ Petition, challenging the
Endorsement dated 12.06.2014, inter alia sought for setting
aside the acquisition proceedings as lapsed as the respondents
have abandoned the scheme of acquisition.
4. The petitioner herein having died during the year 2023,
has been represented by his legal representatives. I have heard
NC: 2024:KHC:47735
Sri. Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Sri. H.T. Basavaraju, learned counsel for the
respondent - BDA and Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
5. It is contended by Sri. Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned
counsel that though the Preliminary Notification and Final
Notification have been issued on 19.09.1977 and 07.02.1978
respectively, however, no Award has been passed by the
respondent - authorities, and therefore, the acquisition
proceedings have become lapsed since the petitioners are in
possession of the schedule land and accordingly, sought for
interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, Sri. H.T. Basavaraju, learned counsel
appearing for the BDA, reiterates the averments made in the
Writ Petition and contended that, the Writ Petition deserves to
be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and he further
contended that, the petitioner being not a notified khatedar as
on the date of passing the Preliminary Notification and
therefore, petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Writ
Petition except claiming compensation since the notified
NC: 2024:KHC:47735
khatedar was the vendor of the petitioner in terms of the
acquisition Notification and accordingly, sought for dismissal of
the Writ Petition.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate argued on
similar lines.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the
petitioner has purchased the property as per sale deed dated
18.12.1974 and the respondent - authorities have initiated
acquisition proceedings as per the Preliminary Notification
dated 19.09.1977. Final Notification was passed on 07.02.1978
and in these Notifications, name of the vendor of the petitioner
was shown as a khatedar. In the backdrop of these aspects, I
have carefully perused the original records produced by the
learned counsel appearing for the BDA, wherein it is stated that
no Award has been passed nor the land in question has been
transferred to the Engineering Section for further action in the
matter. Perusal of the statement of objections would further
make it clear, as per paragraph 7, that the petitioner is in
possession of the schedule land.
NC: 2024:KHC:47735
9. In that view of the matter, as no award has been passed
by the respondent - authorities nor possession of the property
has been taken and neither compensation determined and
deposited before the Civil Court pursuant to the acquisition
proceedings referred to above, and in view of the Judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS,
reported in ILR 2018 KAR 2144, the Writ Petition deserves to
be allowed and therefore, I find force in the submission made
by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
respondent - authorities have abandoned the land from the
purview of the impugned Notifications. It is also pertinent to
mention here that, even after more than four decades,
petitioner is in possession of the schedule land from the date of
issuance of the Preliminary Notification dated 19.12.1974 and
therefore, in view of the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of VIDYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 2
SCC 569, wherein it is held that the right to property is a
NC: 2024:KHC:47735
human right and no person shall be deprived of his property
save by authority of or procedure established by law. In the
said Judgment it is stated that delay and laches cannot be
raised in a case of continuing cause of action and therefore, the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for BDA cannot be
accepted with regard to the delay in challenging the impugned
Notifications.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Final Notification dated 07.02.1978
(Annexure-B) and the Endorsement dated
12.06.2014 (Annexure-A) are hereby quashed in
so far the land belonging to the petitioner is
concerned.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
sac
List No.: 1 S.No.:59
