Karnataka High Court
Mrs Sharmila Bhaktaram vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43503
WP No. 16753 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.16753 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. SHARMILA BHAKTARAM
D/O LATE C.J. BHAKTARAM,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT APARTMENT NO.2104,
SVASA HOMES,
OFF BULL TEMPLE ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
2. MR. VIVEK BHAKTRARAM
S/O LATE C. J. BHAKTARAM,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO.101,
VISTAKEWGARTH, NO.4/1,
POLICE STATION ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004,
Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA HOLDER AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
Location: High Court MRS. SHARMILA BHAKTARAM.
of Karnataka
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43503
WP No. 16753 of 2024
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT
OF THE LAND SY NO.36/2 MEASURING 10 ACRES (INCLUDING
1 ACRE AND 24 GUNTAS OF KHARAB LAND) IN YEDIYUR
NAGASANDRA VILLAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, HAS
LAPSED AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing Preliminary
Notification dated 27.11.1959 (Annexure-A) and Final
Notification dated 22.04.1964 (Annexure-B), issued by the
respondent No.1, inter alia, sought for direction that the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question has
NC: 2024:KHC:43503
been lapsed, and also sought for quashing the letter dated
11.03.2024 (Annexure-D) and letter dated 09.05.2024
(Annexure-F) issued by respondent No.2 and such other reliefs.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners are
the children of late C.J. Bhaktaram and late Mrs. Leela
Bhaktaram. Petitioners claim to be the owners of the converted
industrial land bearing Sy. No.60/1, measuring 1,73,742.75 Sq.
ft. (equivalent to 3 acres 39.5 guntas) situate at 2nd Cross,
Tyagarajanagar, Bengaluru. It is stated that the original owner
of the property - Mrs. Nagamma bequeathed portion of the land
to Mr. C.J. Bhaktaram. It is further stated in the petition that,
the respondent - BDA acquired portion of the schedule property
as per Preliminary Notification dated 27.11.1959 (Annexure-A)
and Final Notification dated 22.04.1964 (Annexure-B), for the
purpose of formation of a linking road of 80 ft. to connect II
and III Stage of Banashankari. It is further stated in the writ
petition that the petitioners are in possession of the schedule
property and no award has been passed by the respondent -
authorities and that apart, except issuance of the impugned
Notifications, no compensation has been paid to the claimants /
petitioners and as such, the erstwhile City Improvement Trust
NC: 2024:KHC:43503
Board has given up the proposed acquisition and therefore, the
petitioners have presented this writ petition challenging the
impugned Notifications.
3. I have heard Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri. George C. Joseph, learned counsel
for the petitioners, Sri. Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel
appearing for the BDA and Sri. Manjunath K., learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
4.. Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, contended that, though the impugned Notifications
have been issued by erstwhile CITB, for more than six decades
ago, the proceedings have not reached the logical conclusion by
issuance of Award, nor the respondent - authorities have taken
possession of the schedule property and therefore, learned
Senior Counsel contended that, the respondent - authorities
have abandoned the acquisition proceedings. It is also
contended by the learned Senior Counsel by inviting the
attention of the Court to Annexure-D dated 11.03.2024 and
letter dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure-F), that the respondent -
authorities have accepted the fact of conversion of the land for
NC: 2024:KHC:43503
the purpose of running industry and as such, it is contended
that the impugned Notifications are liable to be quashed and
acquisition proceedings are to be held as lapsed. In order to
buttress his arguments, learned Senior Counsel refers to the
Judgment of this Court in the case of MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH
Vs. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2011 KAR 574, in the case of
COMMISSIONER OF BDA Vs. MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH in Writ
Appeal No.4824/2010 disposed of on 01.03.2014, and in the
case of DR. A. PARTHASARATHY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2017 KAR 3489 and contended
that, the impugned Notifications in the present case are liable
to be quashed as the respondent - authorities have abandoned
the acquisition proceedings.
5. Per contra, Sri. Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent - BDA sought to justify the
impugned Notifications and contended that, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It
is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent by
referring to Section 27 and 36 of the Bangalore Development
Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), that the
NC: 2024:KHC:43503
respondent - authorities have implemented the scheme
substantially and therefore, no interference be called for in this
writ petition. In this regard, he refers to the Judgment of this
Court in the case of SMT. B.L. RAMADEVI AND OTHERS Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA in Writ Appeal No.301/2023 disposed of
on 27.09.2023.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. Manjunath
K., argued on similar lines of the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for BDA.
7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the
portion of the land bearing Sy.No.36/2 of Yediyur Nagasandra
Village, Bangalore South Taluk to an extent of 1 acre 24 guntas
was notified for the purpose of acquisition by the respondent -
Government as per Annexure-A dated 27.11.1959 and the Final
Notification dated 22.04.1964 (Annexure-B) issued under
Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively,
for public purpose for formation of a Layout in the southern
side of Mount Joy and the said acquisition was made in favour
of City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, being beneficiary
NC: 2024:KHC:43503
of the acquisition. It is forthcoming from the writ papers that
the respondent No.2 vide Board Resolution No.797/87-88 dated
11.12.1987 (Annexure-U), approved a development plan for
Group Housing on the schedule property in favour of the father
of the petitioners. However, the father of the petitioners has
not developed the property. It is also forthcoming from the
writ papers that, the petitioners have made application for
change of land use from industrial to residential purpose on the
ground that the respondent - authorities have not taken
possession of the schedule property and no compensation has
been awarded in favour of father of the petitioners or the
petitioners subsequently. It is an undisputed fact that, no
document has been produced by the respondent - Government
and BDA evidencing the taking possession as well as transfer of
the land by the State Government, after acquisition
proceedings in favour of the beneficiary - BDA (erstwhile CITB)
and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the
learned Senior Counsel that the acquisition proceedings has
not reached to its logical end. It is also pertinent to mention
here, by looking to letter dated 27.03.2001 (Annexure-T)
wherein the BDA has addressed letter to the petitioner to
NC: 2024:KHC:43503
approach the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, for
sanctioning of the building plan as well as change of nature of
the land in question.
8. The aforementioned letter itself is self explanatory and
makes it clear that the respondent - BDA has abandoned the
schedule property and therefore, the acquisition proceedings
are liable to be quashed.
9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents argued that the Writ Petition deserves to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, however, no
award has been passed determining the compensation to be
payable to the claimants nor possession has been taken by the
respondent - authorities. In that view of the matter, following
the declaration of law made by this Court in the case of DR. A.
PARTHASARATHY (supra), I am of the view that, the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent - BDA
referring to Section 27 and 36 of BDA Act would become
inoperative. It is also to be noted that recently, this Court,
under similar situation, in W.P. No.8504/2024 disposed of on
31.07.2024, was pleased to hold that the acquisition
NC: 2024:KHC:43503
proceedings are liable to be quashed if the same has not
reached logical end. In that view of the matter, the Judgment
referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent - BDA,
namely, SMT.B.L. RAMADEVI (supra) is not applicable to the
case on hand, as in the said case, mahazar was drawn as per
Annexure-R6 by the respondent - authorities and in the present
case, no award has been passed nor possession was taken by
the respondent - authorities and that apart, no document has
been produced by the respondent - Government to substantiate
the transfer of land by State Government in favour of the
respondent - BDA and therefore, following the declaration of
law made by this Court in DR. A. PARTHASARATHY (supra) and
in the case of MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH (supra), the writ
petition is liable to be allowed.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Preliminary Notification dated 27.11.1959 (Annexure-
A) and Final Notification dated 22.04.1964 (Annexure-B),
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43503
issued by the respondent No.1 are hereby quashed, in so far as
the land of the petitioners is concerned.
(iii) Letter dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure-D) and letter
dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure-F) issued by respondent No.2 are
hereby set aside.
(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the
application dated 28.11.2022 (Annexure-C) and representation
dated 10.04.2024 (Annexure-E) for change of land use and
take appropriate decision within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SAC
