Sri D Sundararami Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 4387 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri D Sundararami Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2025

Author: M.G.S. Kamal

Bench: M.G.S. Kamal

                            1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                        BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

     WRIT PETITION No.44502 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

SRI D SUNDARARAMI REDDY
S/O D VENKATA SUBBA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 275
13TH CROSS, RMV II STAGE
BANGALORE-560 029.
                                     ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. PRATHITH H.S.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
     URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
     M S BUILDING
     BANGALORE-560 001.

2.   THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
     SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 029
     REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
     SANKEY ROAD
                               2


     BANGALORE-560 029.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R1;

SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN PURSUANCE OF THE PRLY. NOTIFICATION DATED 15.11.2000 & FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 21.08.2001, TRUE COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANN-C & D RESPECTIVELY IS LAPSED SINCE POSSESSION IS NOT TAKEN & NO AWARD HAS BEEN PASSED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF FINAL DECLARATION & THE LAND IS FREE FROM ACQUISITION.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

                        CAV ORDER

Petitioner claiming to be the absolute owner of property in

Sy.No.16/1 measuring 8.5 guntas situated at Ganakallu Village,

Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk which he claimed to have

purchased in terms of a deed of sale dated 26.04.2002 from

one Smt. Venkatanarasamma wife of late Srikantappa and

children of Sri. Nanjundappa is before this Court seeking

following reliefs:

"(i) DECLARE that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the schedule property in pursuance of the preliminary notification in No. 15.11.2000 BDA:SLAO:A4-PR:192:2000-01 dated Notification Final and in No. UDD/274/MNX/2001, Bangalore dated 21.8.2001 true copies of which are produced at ANNEXURES C&D respectively is lapsed since possession is not taken and no award has been passed within five years from the date of final declaration and the land is free from acquisition.

(ii) FORBEAR the respondents from implementing any development scheme so far as the petitioner's land is concerned since Section 36 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, is inoperative in respect of the schedule land.

(iii) ISSUE a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to delete the petitioner's land or de-

notify the petitioner's land from acquisition as an alternative relief".

2. The case of the petitioner is that husband of one Smt.

Venkatanarasamma namely Srikantappa had acquired the

aforesaid property in terms of a deed of sale dated 24.03.1969

and that the said Srikantappa had executed a will dated

27.07.1985 bequeathing the aforesaid land in favour of his wife,

the vendor of the petitioner herein. After the purchase of the

aforesaid property the name of the petitioner was mutated in

the revenue records, thus he had became absolute owner in

possession and enjoyment of the same. That the respondent-

authorities had proposed to acquire the aforesaid property for

the formation of Banashankari 6th Stage layout in terms of a

preliminary notification dated 15.11.2000 followed by a final

notification dated 16.08.2001. Though, land had been acquired,

final notification issued, neither the possession has been taken

nor the compensation is paid till date. Even the lands

surrounding the subject land have not been acquired. That in

terms of Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority

Act, 1976 since the land acquired not having been utilised for

implementation of the scheme the same has lapsed. Contending

as above the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Sri. C.H. Jadhav, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.

Prathith H.S., learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the

averments and the grounds urged in the petition submitted that

the total extent of land comprised in Sy.No.16/1 which was

notified under the preliminary notification dated 15.11.2000

measures 13 acres and 16 guntas. In the final notification

respondent-BDA had notified only 10 acres and 26 guntas,

giving up an extent of 2 acres and 30 guntas. Further, referring

to the said notifications learned Senior counsel submitted that

only the name of Srikantappa has been reflected and the name

of his wife Smt. Venkatanarasamma has not been shown. He

submits Srikantappa passed away on 08.04.1997 while the

notifications for acquisition have been issued on 15.11.2000

and 21.08.2001 respectively, that is, subsequent to the demise

of said Srikantappa. It is his contention that the respondent-

authority ought to have issued notifications in the name of

Smt.Venkatanarasamma and since no notice has been issued in

her name the acquisition is bad in law. He submitted that non-

issuance of notice as required under the Statute has deprived

an opportunity of filing objection to acquisition.

4. It is his further submission that the petitioner who

purchased 8.5 guntas of land in terms of deed of sale dated

26.04.2002 is a bona-fide purchaser inasmuch as name of his

vendor Smt.Venkatanarasamma has not been reflected in the

notification. Learned Senior counsel further referred to a letter

dated 04.06.2022 issued by BBMP addressed to the petitioner

to contend that the said letter evidences the fact of petitioner

being in possession of the land, even to this date.

5. He referred to a mahazar dated 08.02.2002 produced at

Annexure-R2 in the statement of objection filed by the

respondent-BDA to contend that even according to said

mahazar only 10 acres and 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.16/1 has

been taken and remaining extent of 2 acres and 30 guntas still

continues to be in possession of the respective owners. That an

extent of 8.5 guntas of land that was purchased by the

petitioner forms part of the said 2 acre 30 guntas of land.

6. It is his contention that the mahazar dated 08.02.2002 is

printed on a blank paper without any details including the

details of the witnesses, as such the said mahazar is not credit-

worthy. He further contended that the Deputy Commissioner

by order dated 24.02.2003 had accorded permission for change

of land usage from agriculture to non-agriculture purposes in

respect of the land belonging to the petitioner. He also

contended the lands situated adjacent to the land belonging to

the petitioner have been dropped from acquisition in terms of

the order passed in W.P.No.19708/2014, on the premise of the

possession of the said lands not having been taken within the

time specified resulting in lapsing of acquisition. He relies upon

the following orders in support of his submissions:

(1). Smt. K. Lakshmamma by Lrs Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors in W.P.No. 20398/2014.

(2). N. Nagaraju Vs. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and another in W.P.No.19792/2010.

(3). Sri. H. Chikka Puttaiah Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others in W.P.No.16216/2016.

(4). Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Bangalore Development Authority reported in (2011) 3 SCC

Hence seeks for allowing of the petition.

7. Sri. B.S. Sachin, learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.2 and 3 referring to the statement of objections

vehemently contended that the petitioner is neither a notified

khatedar nor has he acquired any title in respect of the acquired

land. As such, he has no locus-standi to question the

acquisition in this writ petition. He submitted that the

preliminary notification was issued on 15.11.2000 and the final

notification was issued on 21.08.2001, award has been passed

on 10.01.2002 and the notification as contemplated under sub-

section (2) of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has

been issued on 16.02.2002. Thus he submitted issuance of the

notification under sub-section (2) of Section 16 the presupposes

completion acquisition and vesting of land with the

respondent. Whereas the petitioner claim to have purchased

the property on 26.04.2002, which is subsequent to completion

of the acquisition. Thus he submitted that a purchaser of a

land, subsequent to the acquisition has no locus-standi to

maintain the petition. He relies upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiva Kumar vs. Union of

India reported in (2019) 10 SSC 229

8. As regards the merits of the case that learned counsel

for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the entire

scheme has been substantially implemented, even if a portion

of the land as claimed by the petitioner is vacant the same does

not result in lapsing of acquisition under Section 27 of the Act.

Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition.

9. Heard and perused the records.

10. There is no dispute of the fact that the land being

claimed by the petitioner amongst other was the subject matter

of the acquisition by the respondent-BDA in terms of

preliminary notification dated 15.11.2000 followed by the final

notification dated 16.08.2001. Though the petitioner has

contended that the award has not been passed, compensation

has not been paid and the possession as contemplated under

law has not been taken and that he continues to be in

possession of the land, as seen from the statement of objection

filed by the respondent-BDA and as contended by the learned

counsel for the respondent-BDA award has been passed on

10.01.2002 and a notification under sub-section (2) of Section

16 of the Act, 1894 has been issued on 16.02.2002 and the

proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894 have

been initiated and the amount is stated to have been deposited

before the City Civil Court on 22.05.2003.

11. Though it is contended by the learned Senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner that the name of vendor of the

petitioner namely Smt. Venkatanarasamma was not notified

and that no notice was issued to her inasmuch as her husband

Srikantappa who was the khatedar of the property had passed

away on 08.04.1997, no material is placed on record with

regard to name of the vendor of petitioner having been mutated

in the revenue record subsequent to demise of said Srikantappa

as stated above. It is settled position of law that the acquiring

authorities need not conduct a rowing enquiry in respect of the

names of the khatedar at the time of issuance of the

preliminary notifications. Admittedly since the revenue records

stood in the name of Srikantappa, no fault can be found with

the respondent-authorities in notifying the property in his name

and not mentioning the name of his wife-

Smt.Venkatanarasamma.

12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein purchased

the property in terms of a deed of sale dated 26.04.2002, which

is much after issuance of notification under sub-section (2) of

Section 16 of the Act, 1894. It is settled position of law, upon

issuance of a preliminary notification transaction made

subsequent thereof are void-ab-initio and the same does not

confer any right, title or interest in favour of the purchaser

except seeking a relief in the nature of compensation [Shiva

Kumar vs. Union of India reported in (2019) 10 SSC 229].

In that view of the matter, petitioner cannot claim to have any

locus-standi to maintain the petition and to urge the grounds as

sought to be made out in the writ petition.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner purchased the subject

property on 26.04.2002, while the award has been passed on

10.01.2002 and notification under sub-Section (2) of Section 16

of the Act, has been published on 16.02.2002. Thus the deed

of sale under which the petitioner has purchased the property is

subsequent to the aforesaid events. In view of provisions

contained under Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Land

(Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991, the petitioners could not

have purchased the property. The provisions of Sections 3 and

4 of the Act, 1991 reads as under:

''3. Prohibition on transfer of lands acquired by Government.- No person shall purport to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof situated in any urban area which has been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) or any other law providing for acquisition of land for a public purpose.

4. Regulation of transfer of lands in relation to which acquisition proceedings have been initiated.- No person shall, except with previous permission in writing of the competent authority, transfer, or purport to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof situated in any urban area which is proposed to be acquired in connection with the Scheme in relation to which the declaration has been published under Section 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 or section 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. ''

14. In the light of the aforesaid specific prohibition contained

in the Act, 1991, the reliance placed on by the learned Senior

counsel for the petitioner on to the orders passed in

(1).W.P.No.20398/2014, (2).W.P.No.19792/2010, (3).W.P.No.

16216/2016 and (4) to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Offshore Holdings (Supra) are of no avail

under the facts situation of the matter.

15. Another aspect of the matter is that in order to invoke

provisions of Section 27 of the Bangalore Development

Authority Act, 1976, the petitioner is required to aver that the

scheme has not been substantially implemented on account of

derelictions of duty on the part of the respondent-authorities as

held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

KANTHAMMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA

AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 1984 KAR. 1494. Merely

because a portion of the property being claimed by the

petitioner is vacant it cannot be said to that the scheme has not

been implemented.

This Court, therefore is of the considered view the

petition lacks merits and same requires to be dismissed and

accordingly same is dismissed.

Sd/-

(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

RL