Karnataka High Court
Mr T Rama Rao vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 6 June, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION No.17146 OF 2013 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
MR T RAMA RAO
S/O LATE THIMMAPPAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS
LEGAL HEIRS
1. RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE RAMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/AT SY.NO.36/1
HOUSE NO.49, 89FT RING ROAD
10TH MAIN, KRISHNA TEMPLE
MALLATHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 056.
2. JAYAPRAKASH B.R
S/O LATE RAMA RAO
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
SAROJA
HANGARAKI R/AT SY NO.36/1, HOUSE NO.49,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
89FT RING ROAD
Dharwad 10TH MAIN, KRISHNA TEMPLE
MALLATHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 056.
3. SATISH KUMAR B.R.,
S/O LATE RAMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT SY NO.36/1, HOUSE NO.49,
89FT RING ROAD
10TH MAIN, KRISHNA TEMPLE
2
MALLATHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 056.
4. MR. VASU B.R.,
S/O LATE RAMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OFFICE AT NO.03,
PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD
CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018.
5. SMT. SUDHAMANI
S/O LATE RAMA RAO
AGED MAJOR
R/AT RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
1ST CROSS, # 17/1 NEW NO.53
CHAMRAJPET,
BANGALORE - 560 018.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P.B. AJIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020.
3. SHRI R. MUNIYAPPA,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 16, GAJENDRA NAGARA,
3
AVALAHALLI, GEF POST,
BENGALURU - 560 026.
4. SHRI. G. S. SHANTHA KUMAR,
S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 185, 5TH MAIN,
11TH CROSS, NGEF LAYOUT,
NAGARBHAVI,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
5. SMT. N. PREMA KUMARI,
W/O SRI. PUTTAHONNEGOWDA M.Н.,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.537, 9TH MAIN,
M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
4 BENGALURU - 560040
6. SMT. CHAITRA S,
W/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 15, 1ST MAIN,
RHCS LAYOUT,
ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
7. SMT. R. JAYAMMA,
W/O. SRI T. MANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 702. "CHIRANJEEVI",
9TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
NAGARABHAVI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560072
8. DR. N.S.MAMATHA DEVI
W/O DR. MNJUNATH GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ANJANADRI, 2ND MAIN,
SIDDAGANGA LAYOUT,
TUMKUR-572 102.
4
9. MR. H.D.MOHAN KUMAR
S/O DHARANI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 21, 6TH CROSS,
PRIYADHARSHINI LAYOUT,
MUDALAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560 072
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S. KANNUR SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6;
SRI. SANTHOSH S. GOGI, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
SRI. G. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO DEMARCATE THE TOTAL EXTENT OF LAND IN
SURVEY NO.36/1, MEASURING 5 ACRES 28 GUNTAS OF
MALATHAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE
NORTH TALUK AND THE PETITIONER'S LAND [SCHEDULE
PROPERTY] IN SUCH SURVEY NUMBER MEASURING 5 ACRES 28
GUNTAS WHICH IS CONVERTED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE
VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUMS DATED 27.04.1989 BEFORE
EXECUTING ANY WORK IN PORTION OF LAND IN SURVEY
NO.36/1, MALLATHAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-A & B.
ALTERNATIVELY QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 9TH
SEPTEMBER 2003 AS PER ANNEXURE-D IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER'S LAND [SCHEDULE PROPERTY] MEASURING 5
ACRES 28 GUNTAS CONVERTED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE IN
SURVEY NO.36/1, MALLATHAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA
HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, WHICH IS CONVERTED FOR
RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUMS DATED
27.04.1989 BEFORE EXECUTING ANY WORK IN PORTION OF
LAND IN SURVEY NO.36/1, MALLATHAHALLI VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK VIDE
ANNEXURE A & B.
5
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
This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
'' (a). Directing the respondents to demarcate the total
extent of land in Sy.No.36/1 measuring 5 acres and 28
guntas of Malathahalli village, Yeshwantpura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk and the petitioner's land (schedule
property) in Sy.No.36/1, measuring 5 acres 28 guntas
which is converted for residential purpose vide official
memorandum dated 27.04.1989 before any executing
work in portion of the land instead of Sy.No. 36/1
Malathahalli village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk vide Annexure-A & B .
b) Alternatively issue Writ of Certiorari quashing the
Notification dated 9th September 2003 as per Annexure
'D' in so far as the Petitioner's land (Schedule Property)
measuring 5 acres 28 guntas converted for residential
purpose in Survey No.36/1, Mallathahalli Village,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, which is
converted for residential purpose vide Official
Memorandums dated 27.04.1989 in
B.DIS.ALN.SR(N)104/88-89 and
B.DIS.ALN.SR(N)131/88-89 before executing any work in
portion of land in Survey No.36/1, Mallathahalli Village,
Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, vide
Annexure A & B
c) To quash the endorsement dt:08.07.2022 in
No.BDA/LAO145/2022-23 as the Annexure-R by
Respondent No.1
d) For such other orders as deemed fit to be granted
in the facts and circumstances of the case to serve the
interest of justice and equity and
e) For Costs. ''
6
2. The case of the petitioner is;
(a). That he is the absolute owner in possession of a
residentially converted land bearing Sy. No.36/1,
measuring 5 acres and 28 guntas of Malathahalli Village,
Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore, North Taluk (hereinafter
referred to as 'subject land'). That by a notification dated
09.04.2003, issued under Section 17 of the Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to
as 'BDA Act'), respondent No.1-BDA had sought to acquire
certain lands including the subject land for the purpose of
formation of ''Sir M Vishweshwaraiah further extension
layout'' followed by final notification dated 10.09.2003
issued under Section 19 of the BDA Act.
(b). That on an earlier occasion by a notification dated
31.12.1987, respondent No.1-BDA had sought to acquire
subject land for the formation of layout called
''Malathahalli Layout''. The said notification was
withdrawn in view of respondent No.1-BDA resolving to
form a new layout called ''Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah further
extension Layout'' by excluding the lands which were
already converted for the residential purposes. As such,
the respondent No.1-BDA could not have issued the
present notification proposing to acquire subject land.
(c). That in the aforesaid notifications, the respondent No.1-
BDA had mentioned the extent of land in Sy.No.36/1 as 6
7
acres and 28 guntas, while the actual extent is only 5
acres 28 guntas. Petitioner had sought details of the land
which was acquired under the said notifications. In
response, respondent No.2-SLAO had issued an
endorsement dated 20.01.2004 affirming that the
residentially converted land of the petitioner in Sy.No.36/1
measuring 5 acres and 27 guntas was not part of the final
notification and that the Government had issued
notification dated 19.09.2003 for levy of development
charges as required under Section 20 of the BDA Act.
(d). That despite having issued the aforesaid endorsement
dated 20.01.2004, respondents illegally attempted to
enter upon the subject land. Petitioner therefore filed a
writ petition in W.P. No.19838/2004. During the pendency
of the said writ petition, respondent No.2-SLAO had issued
an endorsement dated 30.04.2004 informing the petitioner
that the earlier endorsement dated 20.01.2004 was
withdrawn. Consequently, the petitioner withdrew the said
writ petition with liberty to challenge the said endorsement
dated 30.04.2004.
(e). That the petitioner accordingly filed another writ petition
in W.P.No.31322/2004. During the pendency of the said
writ petition, respondent No.2-SLAO issued a notice dated
26.05.2006 in LAC No.88/2003-2004 under Section 20 of
the BDA Act, calling upon the petitioner to pay betterment
charges in a sum of Rs.95,39,640/- for an extent of 5
acres and 19 guntas. Even the said the writ petition was
8
disposed of by this Court on 11.12.2006, reserving liberty
to the petitioner to make a fresh representation in view of
there being an error in mentioning the extent of land in
Sy.No.36/1 both in the preliminary and the final
notifications.
(f). That the respondent No.1-BDA did not intend to acquire
the subject land as the requirement was for a small extent
of land to build a road for proposed further extension of
Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout and as such the
respondents issued notification excluding the subject land,
which is clear from the resolution dated 17.01.2003 of the
respondent No.1-BDA.
(g) That subsequent to disposal of the aforesaid writ petition,
though petitioner repeatedly approached the respondents
contending that the total extent of the subject land is only
5 acres and 28 guntas and had even sought clarification
with regard to the actual extent of land in Sy.No.36/1, he
was informed that the appropriate decision for survey of
land in Sy.No.36/1 would be taken pursuant to the Order
of this Court dated 11.12.2006 passed in
W.P.No.31322/2024.
(h). That since the respondents were precipitating their
unlawful acts of entering upon the subject land asserting
that the land in Sy.No.36/1 measures 6 acres and 28
guntas of which 1 acre and 1 gunta was acquired, without
9
taking any decision on the representations, the petitioner
filed the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
3. That during the pendency of the present writ petition,
respondents had issued an endorsement dated 08.07.2022
stating that the endorsement dated 30.04.2004 was withdrawn
as the earlier endorsement dated 20.01.2004 and the survey
that was conducted on 09.10.2013 disclosed that an extent of 1
acre and 1 gunta of land has been acquired out of 5 acres and
28 guntas of land and the representation of the petitioner
seeking no objection to the extent of 5 acres and 27 guntas had
been rejected. In view of the endorsement dated 08.07.2022,
petitioner sought for amendment of the writ petition seeking
deletion of prayer column No.(a) and addition of prayer No.(c)
which was allowed. Accordingly, the original prayer column
No.(a) was deleted and the petitioner restricted the writ petition
to the reliefs at column Nos.(b) and (c) as extracted herein
above.
4. In the meanwhile original petitioner passed away and is
represented by his legal representatives. Subsequently on
17.03.2023 on their instructions learned Senior counsel
submitted that they would not seek any prayer as against the
10
allottees of land who are impleaded, which was placed on
record. However an application under Section 151 of CPC in
I.A.No.3/2024 is filed seeking modification of the said order
dated 17.03.2023. Objection statement to the said application
has been filed.
5. Statement of objections has been filed by the
respondent No.1-BDA contending that:
(a). An error had occurred while notifying the land both in
the preliminary notification dated 09.04.2003 and the
final notification dated 10.09.2003, in that, instead of
mentioning the total extent of land in Sy.No.36/1 as 5
acres and 28 guntas, the extent is shown as 6 acres
and 28 guntas. The respondent No.1-BDA has rectified
the said mistake by issuing an Erratum Notification
published in the Gazette on 03.06.2004 showing the
actual extent of land as 5 acres and 28 guntas out of
which an extent of 1 acre and 1 gunta has been
acquired.
(b). That the endorsement dated 20.01.2004 that had been
issued to the petitioner calling upon him for payment of
betterment tax was withdrawn by the respondent No.1-
BDA. Further, in the light of the order dated 11.12.2006
passed by this Court in W.P.No.31322/2004 to consider
the representation of the petitioner, on 09.10.2013
11
respondent No.1-BDA had conducted a survey of the
land to find out the factual position as to how much of
the land had been utilized for the purpose of road and
for formation of layout. That as per the report out of 5
acres and 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.36/1, 7 guntas of
land was kharab and of the remaining 5 acres and 21
guntas of land, an extent of 1 acre and 1 gunta of land
has been utilized for formation of road and the layout.
(c). That the said extent of acquired land has already been
notified in the preliminary notification dated 09.04.2003
and the final notification dated 10.09.2003. Award is
passed on 29.12.2003 to an extent of 1 acre and 1
gunta of land in a sum of Rs.8,77,252/- per acre, which
has been deposited before the City Civil Court,
Bengaluru on 07.12.2012. The possession of the
acquired land has been taken in terms of Section 16(2)
of the BDA Act and the same has been handed over to
the Engineering Section on 09.01.2004. Layout and the
road have already been formed in the said acquired
land. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. Respondent Nos.3 to 9 were impleaded subsequently.
Respondent Nos.3 to 6 filed their statement of objection
on 16.08.2022, contending;
(a). That in the land measuring 1 acre and 1 gunta that was
acquired by the respondent-BDA from and out of total
12
extent of 5 acres and 28 guntas of land being claimed by
the petitioner, the Respondent No1-BDA has formed sites
and the respondent Nos.3 to 6 have been allotted sites
and the deeds of sale in that regard have been executed
in their favour.
(b). That Khathas have been registered in their name in the
records of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and that
they have been paying the property taxes. Thus, they
have been in possession and enjoyment of the sites
allotted by the respondent No.1-BDA in their favour.
(c). That earlier the petitioner himself had formed a layout
consisting of sites in 1 acre and 1 gunta of land out of 5
acres and 28 guntas and sold the same in favour of
various purchasers. That after issuance of impugned
notifications petitioner had made representation to the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 for himself and on behalf of said
site owners seeking payment of compensation in lieu of
acquisition of the said land. Respondent Nos.1 and 2
passed award and had issued notices under Sections
12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That the
petitioner has suppressed and concealed these aspects of
the matter. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner
7. Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court extensively
13
through the averments made in the writ petition and the
documents produced therewith, submitted;
(a). That the subject land was converted from agricultural to
non-agricultural residential purposes vide Official
Memorandum dated 27.04.1989. That the subject land
had earlier been notified for formation of ''Mallathahalli
Layout'', vide notification dated 31.01.1987. That the
respondent No.1-BDA in its meeting held on 17.01.2003
vide subject No.54/3 had resolved to withdraw the earlier
notification and to continue with acquisition of 700 acres
of lands, for the purpose of formation of "Sir M.
Vishweshwaraiah further extension Layout" by excluding
the lands consisting of unauthorized constructions,
private layouts and converted lands. Thus, respondent
No.1-BDA could not have issued impugned notifications,
notifying the subject land.
(b). That in the preliminary notification extent of land in
Sy.No.36/1 is shown as 6 acres and 28 guntas while in
the final notification only an extent of 1 acre and 1 gunta
is shown to have been acquired. Thus, an extent of 5
acres and 19 guntas has been left out from acquisition.
(c). Referring to the endorsement dated 20.01.2004 at
Annexure-E, learned Senior Counsel insisted that there is
a specific reference to exclusion of 5 acres and 27 guntas
of land in said Sy.No.36/1 and to the provisions of
14
Section 20 of the BDA Act requiring payment of
betterment charges thereon.
(d). That by the endorsement dated 30.04.2004 the earlier
endorsement dated 20.01.2004 has been withdrawn,
which constrained the petitioner to file writ petition in
W.P.No.31322/2004. Referring to paragraph No.3 of the
Order dated 11.12.2006 passed in the said writ petition,
he emphatically submitted that even according to the
respondent No.1-BDA only a portion measuring 1 acre
and 1 gunta of land has been acquired for the purpose of
formation of a road and not entire extent of 5 acres and
28 guntas.
(e). Referring to erratum dated 01.06.2004 learned Senior
counsel submitted that same is not in compliance with
the provisions as contemplated either under Section 17 or
Section 19 of the BDA Act. In that, he submitted that the
said erratum is not preceded by any resolution by the
respondent No.1-BDA but it is only signed by the
Commissioner. No sanction is obtained by the
Government for change of extent of land. The said
document is contrary to Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act as it is not in accordance with provisions of
Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the BDA Act. Therefore, the
same is nullity and nonest in the eye of law.
(f). Referring to paragraph No.5 of the order dated
11.12.2006 passed in W.P.No.31322/2004, learned
15
Senior Counsel submitted that a specific direction had
been given to the respondents to consider the
representations to be filed by the petitioner in accordance
with law expeditiously. He further referred to a notice
dated 26.05.2006 produced at Annexure-J, which was
issued during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition,
wherein the respondent-BDA had called upon the
petitioner to pay the betterment charges in respect of 5
acres and 19 guntas of land. He also referred to the
representations produced at Annexure-K1 dated
27.03.2012, given by the petitioner, wherein the
petitioner had again raised the issue with regard to the
actual measurement of the land in Sy.No.36/1, being 5
acres and 28 guntas and not 6 acres and 28 guntas. Thus
referring to these documents he submitted that
Respondents 1 and 2 could not have declined the request
of the Petitioner to issue no objection in respect of
subject land.
(g). In support of the application in I.A.No.3/2024, learned
Senior counsel submitted that submission/undertaking as
recorded by this Court on 17.03.2023 was given on
mistake of facts. He further submitted that from
details/documents that are produced along with memo of
compliance that was filed by the respondent No.1-BDA
after conducting the survey as per the order passed by
this Court on 17.03.2023, it is clear that subject land in
Sy.No.36/1 totally measures 5 acres and 28 guntas
16
including 7 guntas of Kharab and that only a portion of
the subject land is used only for the purpose of formation
of road and no sites have been formed in the said land.
(h) That the present writ petition was filed on 15.04.2013
and the interim order restraining respondents from
dispossessing the petitioner was passed on 24.06.2013.
That the details of the sale deeds in respect of the seven
sites which are mentioned in the report indicate that they
are executed subsequent to the date of the interim order
granted by this Court.
(i). Referring to the layout plan enclosed to the compliance
memo, he submitted that the said layout plan is of the
year 2015 which was challenged in writ petitions in
W.P.Nos. 34009/2017, 4480/2017, 35396/2016, and that
by order 23.07.2021 said layout plan has been quashed,
as such no sites are formed in the land of the petitioner.
That except the road formed by the respondent No.1-BDA
there is nothing existing on the land of the petitioner.
(j). He also referred to the mahazar dated 09.01.2004
produced at Annexure-R6 to the statement of objection of
the respondent Nos.3 to 6 to contend that there has been
no witnesses to the said mahazar. As such, the said
mahazar cannot be believed. Thus he submitted that the
possession of the subject land has always remained with
the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the concession
that was given as recorded by this Court in its order
17
dated 17.03.2023 was one under mistake of facts. As
such, the same is sought to be withdrawn.
(k). In support of his aforesaid submissions, learned Senior
counsel relied upon the following judgments:
(a). Narendrajit Singh and another Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another reported in
(1970) 1 SCC 125,
(b). B.K. Srinivas and others Vs. State of
Karnataka and others, reported in (1987) 1
SCC 658,
(c). Ms. Asiya Mariyan Vs. The Secretary to the
Government of Tamil Nadu reported in
(2000) (iv) CTC 125,
(d). The State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Istal
Ahmed Mohammad Saheb reported in ILR
2016 KAR 98
(e). Gautham Kamath Hotels Pvt. Ltd., and others
Vs. BDA Rep. by its Commissioner and others
reported in ILR 2016 KAR 98
(f). Dr. A. Parthasarathy and Others Vs. State of
Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2017
KAR 3489.
(g). State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Srinivas
Nayak and Another reported in (1982) 2 SCC
463.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent- BDA
8. Sri. G.S. Kannur, learned Senior counsel appearing for
learned counsel for respondent No.1-BDA submitted that;
18
(a). That the actual extent of land in Sy.No.36/1 as per of
revenue record is 5 acres and 28 guntas and said extent
has been admitted by the petitioner himself in the
representation dated 27.03.2012 produced at Annexure-
K1.
(b). Referring to paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the order dated
11.12.2006 passed by this Court in W.P.No.31322/2004
learned Senior counsel submitted that though in the
notifications, extent of land is erroneously shown as 6
acres and 28 guntas, said error has been rectified by
issuing as erratum dated 01.06.2004 which is taken note
of by this Court making it clear that in the erratum the
extent of the land of the petitioner is shown to be
measuring 5 acres and 28 guntas. That since the same is
admitted by the petitioner no prejudice is caused to the
petitioner.
(c). The petitioner is though aware of issuance of the
erratum even when the order dated 11.12.2006 was
passed in W.P.No.31233/2004, but has not challenged
the same till date.
(d). Referring to the award produced at Annexure-R8 to the
statement of objection filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 6,
learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioner has
filed his statement of objection on 25.05.2003 seeking
deletion of revenue sites/land from the acquisition
proceedings. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land
19
Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued after issuance of the
final notification. In response to the said notices,
petitioner along with others filed claim applications and
there was no objection for acquisition of 1 acre and 1
gunta of land. That the award has been passed to the
extent of 1 acre and 1 gunta of land and the notice of the
award has been served on the petitioner.
(f). Referring to award notices dated 07.01.2004 issued
under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as
produced at Annexure-R45 series addressed to the
petitioner and other site owners he submitted that there
has been complete compliance with the requirement of
law in acquiring 1 acre and 1 gunta of land and award
determining the compensation in sum of Rs.8,77,252/-
has been passed and the land has been acquired and
possession has been taken in accordance with law. That
the present writ petition is filed after lapse of 10 years
after the receipt of the award notice.
(g). Referring to the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in
W.P.No.34009/2017 and connected matters, learned
Senior counsel submitted that the said order quashing
the modified plan was only in respect of land in
Sy.Nos.49/1, 49/2 and 49/3 and the said order is in
challenge in W.A.Nos.52/2025, 1029/2021, and
1003/2023.
20
(h). That earlier the petitioner has approached this Court by
filing writ petitions in W.P.No.19838/2004 and
W.P.No.31322/2004. The present writ petition
challenging the acquisition would not survive. Hence,
sought for dismissal of the petition.
Submission on behalf of private respondents:
9. Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.3 to 6 submitted that;
(a). That the petitioner has approached this Court by
suppressing true and actual facts. That apart, the writ
petition suffers from delay and laches.
(b). That the petitioner after obtaining conversion of subject
land had formed a layout and sold sites, executed deeds
of sale during the month of August, 1990-91 in favour of
various persons referred to at paragraph No.5 of the
written submissions. The purchasers of such sites have
filed statement of objections specifically contending that
they are the registered owners of the sites purchased
from the petitioner, in terms of registered deeds of sale.
That the award notices have been issued to the petitioner
as well as the said purchasers as per Annexure-R45
series. Proceedings were conducted after filing of the
objections by the petitioner and the award was passed.
That a sum of Rs.8,77,252/- was awarded and the same
has been deposited as required under Section 30 of the
21
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in LAC No.140/2003-2004 and
the same is evident from Annexure-N produced by the
petitioner along with his rejoinder to the writ petition.
(c). That there was no need for respondent-BDA to acquire
only 1 gunta of land as sought to be made out by the
petitioner. The award has been passed in respect of
entire 1 acre and 1 gunta of land.
(d). That since the sites forming part of acquired land were
sold by petitioner himself during the year 1990-91 and
acquisition was during the year 2003 the petitioner was
not owner of the acquired lands as on the date of the
notifications.
(e). That in the first writ petition in WP No.19838/2004, the
relief sought was only restraining the respondents 1 and
2 from proceeding to form sites and roads and there is no
challenge to the acquisition and the said writ petition was
withdrawn as not pressed. In the second writ petition in
WP No. 31322/2004, the challenge was to the
endorsement dated 30.04.2004, as per Annexure-F. Even
in the said writ petition there is no challenge to the
acquisition. As seen at para Nos.1 to 5 of the said order
the issue was only with regard to error in mentioning the
measurement of the land and with regard to issuance of
the Erratum. That even in the said writ petition there is
no challenge or question with regard to the acquisition of
the subject land.
22
(f). That the layout plan originally approved on 02.02.2009,
in respect of land in Sy. Nos. 47, 48, 49, 36 and 38. Only
the size of sites were modified, as per the modified plan
dated 04/5.11.2015. Writ petitions in W.P.Nos.
34009/2017 and 4480/2017 were challenging the
modified plan insofar as Sy.No.49 and the land in
Sy.No.36/1 was not subject matter of the said writ
petitions. That even if the modified layout plan is
quashed, the acquisition would remain intact.
(g). That the concession given by learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner as noted in the order dated 17.03.2023,
cannot be withdrawn or modified as there was no any
mistake of facts. Further, based on the said concession
a detailed order dated 13.10.2023, has been passed
which is not questioned. As such, order dated
17.03.2023 cannot be modified. Hence, seeks for
dismissal of the petition.
10. Sri. Santhosh S Gogi, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.7 adopting the submissions made by Sri. G.S.
Kannur, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent-BDA
as well as the submissions of Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6 submitted that
petitioner has no locus-standi to maintain the petition as he
himself sold the sites forming part of the acquired land. The
23
modification as sought for to the order dated 17.03.2023 cannot
be granted as there is no mistake of any facts.
Discussion and Analysis
11. Heard and perused the records. Before adverting to the
merits of the case, necessary to take note of certain undisputed
facts, which have emerged from the pleadings, written
submissions and documents produced by the parties as
encapsulated hereunder;
(a). That petitioner was the owner of the subject land which
measures 5 acres and 28 guntas.
(b). That even as per the revenue records the actual extent of
land in Sy. No. 36/1 is 5 acres 28 guntas and not 6 acres
28 guntas.
(c). That though in the preliminary notification dated
09.04.2003, the respondent No.1-BDA has shown the
extent of land sought to be acquired in Sy.No.36/1 as 6
acres and 28 guntas, as per the final notification dated
10.09.2003, it acquired only 1 acre and 1 gunta of land.
(d). That the error in showing the extent of land proposed to
be acquired in the notifications has been brought to the
notice of respondent No.1-BDA by none other than the
petitioner himself.
24
(f). That the Erratum dated 01.06.2004 has been issued by
the respondent No.1-BDA rectifying the error in
mentioning the extent of land proposed to be acquired.
There is no change or alteration in the extent of land
actually acquired.
(g). That the petitioner had earlier formed the sites in 1 acre
and 1 gunta of land out of his 5 acres 28 guntas of
converted land and had sold such sites in favour of several
purchasers. Details of some of them as mentioned in the
written submission of Respondents 3 to 6 are;
1. B.S. Umesh Rao under deed of sale dated
08.08.1990.
2. B.S. Srinivas under deed of sale dated
08.08.1990.
3. Smt. Vimala Raghu Kumar, under deed of sale
dated 09.08.1990.
4. Smt. Hema Vishwanath, under deed of sale dated
09.08.1990.
5. 5. Smt. Rajalakshmi, under deed of sale dated
01.09.1990.
6. Sri D.R. Y.R. Jayaram, under deed of sale dated
29.10.1990.
7. Smt. M.P. Meenakshi, under deed of sale dated
17.09.1990.
8. Smt. Geetha Jayaram, under deed of sale dated
19.08.1990.
9. Smt. Suganamma.
10. B.S. Gopala Rao,
25
11. Sri Lakshmikanthaiah and others.
(h). Contents of document produced at Annexure-R8 namely
the award proceedings under Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 reveal that, after issuance of the
preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the BDA
Act, notices were served on the petitioner. Petitioner had
filed his statement of objections on 25.05.2003 seeking
deletion of revenue sites/lands from acquisition
proceedings. Along with the petitioner, aforesaid persons
claiming to be the purchasers of the revenue sites from
the petitioner had also sought deletion of their revenue
sites from the acquisition proceedings. After sanction of
the scheme by the Government under Section 18(3) of the
BDA Act vide order dated 04.09.2003 a declaration
required under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act in terms of
the final notification dated 10.09.2003 had been
published. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 have been issued to the petitioner.
The petitioner along with some of the aforesaid
persons/purchasers namely Hema Vishwanath, Vimala. R,
Srinivasmurthy, Rajalakshmi, B.S. Umesh Rao, Y.R.
Jayram and B.S. Srinivas had filed their claim applications.
Award proceedings have been conducted and award has
been passed on 09.11.2003, awarding compensation of
Rs.8,77,252/- per acre.
(i). The award notice dated 07.01.2004 as required under
Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued to
26
the original petitioner (T. Ramarao) has been served/left
on the land on 09.01.2004 as seen at Annexure-R9 to the
impleading application dated 22.06.2024 filed by the
additional respondent No.6 in I.A.No.1/2024. Another
notice addressed to the petitioner has been served on his
son B.R Jayaprakash on 14.01.2004 as seen at Annexure-
R45, page No.194 of the statement of objections filed by
the respondent Nos.3 to 6. Similar notices have been
issued on aforesaid purchasers of sites from the petitioner
as seen at Annexures-R45 series of the statement of
objections.
(j). Award amount has been deposited before the Civil Court
vide Cheque dated 12.08.2013 in LAC.No.49/2013 in
respect of land measuring 1 acre and 1 gunta for
adjudication under Section 30 and 31(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and the possession was taken
29.12.2013 as per Annexure-N.
12. From the foresaid undisputed facts it is clear that as on the
date of the issuance of impugned notifications petitioner had
sold the portion of subject land. He and the purchasers of the
sites had filed objections and had even participated at every
stage of award proceedings.
13. Notwithstanding the aforesaid admitted/undisputed factual
aspect of the matter, in view of the grounds urged in the writ
27
petition, averments made in the objection statement and the
oral and written submissions made on behalf of the parties
following points arise for consideration in the matter ;
(1) Whether the Respondent No.1-BDA, having
passed the resolution dated 17.02.2003 to exclude
the converted lands from acquisition and thereafter
having called upon the Petitioner to pay the
development charges by issuing notice dated
26.05.2006 as per Annexure "J" in respect of subject
land is estopped from acquiring the same?
(2) Whether the error in showing the extent of
subject land in the impugned Preliminary and Final
Notifications dated 09.04.2003 and 10.09.2003
respectively and issuance of Erratum dated
01.06.2004 rectifying the same is contrary to the
provisions of Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the BDA Act,
vitiating the acquisition process?
(3) Whether in view of quashing of the modified
layout plan dated 04.11.2015 by order dated
23.07.2021 passed in writ petition in WP No.
34009/2017 and connected matters, the Respondent
No.1- BDA could not have allotted the sites to the
Private Respondents?
28
(4) Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed
for suppression of material facts, delay and laches as
contended by the respondents?
Reg. Point No.1:
14. Doctrine of estoppel is based on equity. It is applicable only
in cases where a party has changed or altered his position
relying upon the representation so made by the other party.
Authority cannot be prevented from doing something which is
otherwise permissible and or authorised under law.
15. No specific provision of law has been brought to the notice of
this Court by the learned Senior counsel for petitioner which
prohibits respondent No.1-BDA from acquiring converted land.
In fact in the case of Junjamma and others V. The Bangalore
Development Authority and others 2004 (7) Kar.L.J 677
involving the acquisition of land for formation of Sir M
Visweswaraiah Layout, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while
answering point No.9, has specifically held that there is no
prohibition for acquiring a land for the purpose of formation of a
layout, which is converted from agricultural to any other use.
16. Further even though notice dated 26.05.2006 has been
issued by the respondent N0.1-BDA calling upon the petitioner
29
to pay betterment charges, nothing is brought on record to
demonstrate if the petitioner had complied with the said demand
thereby he having altered his position providing ground to raise
plea of estoppel.
17. Another aspect of the matter is that petitioner after issuance
of notifications has participated in the enquiry and award
proceedings. He has never raised this plea at any stage not even
when he had approached this Court on earlier occasions by filling
writ petitions in WP Nos. 19838/2004 and 31322/2004.
18. Thus merely because a general resolution had been passed
by the Respondent No.1- BDA proposing to acquire lands
excluding the converted land in the absence of any statutory
provisions prohibiting acquisition of converted land, the
Respondent No.1 BDA is not precluded from acquiring the
converted land.
Reg. Point No.2:
19. Purpose of issuance of Notification under Section 17 of the
BDA Act as also under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act with
necessary particulars of the property sought to be acquired is to
provide fair and proper opportunity to land owner/s to file
30
his/their objections, participate in the enquiry process and to
stake his/their claim for compensation in accordance with law,
for no one shall be deprived of his/their property save in
accordance with law.
20. In the instant case the particulars of property of the
petitioner sought to be acquired as given in the Preliminary
Notifications is as under;
Land required for
Survey No. Total Extent in Sy.No. Remaining Land.
acquisition by BDA
36/1 (part) 6 acres 28 guntas 5 acres 21 guntas 6 acres 28 guntas
Kharab 07guntas
Particulars of property of the Petitioner sought to acquired as
given in the Final Notifications is as under;
Land required for
Survey No. Total Extent in Sy.No. Remaining Land.
acquisition by BDA
36/1 (part) 6 acres 28 guntas 5 acres 21 guntas 1 acre 1 guntas
Kharab 07guntas
21. Admittedly even according to the petitioner the actual extent
of subject land is only 5 acres 28 guntas. It is not the case of
the Petitioner that he was in any manner misled by the
description of the property as given in the notifications or that
31
he was deprived of any opportunity of being heard as required
under law. It is not even his case that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
have included/added or enhanced the extent of land in the final
notification without notifying the same in the preliminary
notification. Error was in mentioning extent of land larger than
the actual. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that some one
else owned land in excess of 5 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.36/1.
Admittedly it is the petitioner who sought rectification of the said
error which is rectified by issuance of erratum dated
01.06.2004.
22. The reliance placed on by the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Narendrajit Singh and another (Supra) in the
fact situation of the present matter is of no avail. In that, the
notification that was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 did not contain any details whatsoever
with regard to the land that was sought to be acquired. Neither
the name of the District nor of the place, nor the extent of land
was mentioned in the said notification. It is under the
circumstances, the subsequent issuance of notification under
32
Section 6(1) of the Act was held to be erroneous. In the instant
case as seen above, the preliminary notification specifically
refers to the land belonging to the petitioner. However, the
extent is shown as 6 acres 28 guntas. Similar is the case in
respect of the final notification. As already noted above,
petitioner himself has repeatedly averred in all his three writ
petitions that land in Sy.No.36/1, measures only 5 acres and 28
guntas and not 6 acres 27 guntas. Therefore the petitioner was
clearly aware of actual extent of land. Merely because there was
an error in mentioning the measurement which did not cause
any prejudice whatsoever to the petitioner and cannot be a
ground to intervene in the acquisition.
23. The reliance placed by the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner on to the Judgment of the High Court of Madras in the
case of Ms. Asiya Mariyan (supra) is also of no avail inasmuch
as the issue involved in the said matter was inability of the
petitioners therein to participate in enquiry under Section 5A of
the Land Acquisition Act for non service of the notice due to mis-
description of the owners in the notification under Section 4(1)
of the Act, which is not the case at hand. In the instant case, as
33
already noted above, the petitioner had the full knowledge of the
notification, received the notices at every stage and participated
in the enquiry and the award proceedings. As such, the said
judgment is of no avail.
24. Adverting to the contentions urged by the learned Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner that there has been no
compliance with the provisions of Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the
BDA Act by the Respondent No.1-BDA while issuing the erratum,
it is necessary to note that provisions of Section 17 of the BDA
Act envisages the procedure after preparation of the scheme as
provided under Sections 15 and 16 of the said Act. Section 18
envisages the procedure for submitting the scheme to the
Government for its sanction on compliance with requirement of
Section 17 with such modification and alteration if any. Section
19 contemplates declaration and publication of such sanction
and particulars of the lands proposed to be acquired pursuant to
the scheme so sanctioned. There is no dispute with regard to
compliance of these aspects of the matters are concerned. By
issuing the Erratum all that is done is showing of actual and
correct extent of land proposed for acquisition. Therefore mere
reduction of extent of land while rectifying the error in
34
mentioning the land proposed to be acquired, without there
being any change whatsoever in the actual extent of land
acquired as notified in the final notification, in the considered
view of this Court would neither amount to modification nor
alteration of sanctioned scheme. As such the vehement
submissions of non-compliance with the statutory requirement
of provisions of Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the BDA Act going to
the root of matter cannot be countenanced. Besides, as rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the
petitioner has not challenged the validity or otherwise of the said
Erratum dated 01.06.2004, except raising the grounds during
the arguments. The reliance in this regard placed onto the
judgment of B.K. Srinivas and others (supra) therefore is of
no avail.
Reg. Point No.3:
25. This point has arose in view of Application filed by the
petitioner in I.A.No.1/2024 seeking modification of the order
dated 17.03.2023. It is necessary to note that on 17.03.2023
this Court passed the following order:
''This matter was heard for some time. All the parties having
argued the matter, now fairly agree with the suggestion of this
Court that the subject land be measured with the assistance of
35
an expert surveyor of the BDA and with the participation of all
stakeholders including the petitioner herein and report as to
how much of the same is left unutilized be filed on or before
30.03.2023.
The responsible statement made by the learned Sr. Advocate
Mr.P.S.Rajagopal on instruction of the advocate on record
standing beside, that the petitioner would not seek any prayer
as against the allottees of the land who are now impleaded
here, and therefore, their interest shall not be prejudiced in any
way whilst disposing of the main matter, is placed on record.
Call this matter for further hearing on 13.4.2023.''
26. In furtherance to the aforesaid order this Court on
13.10.2023 passed the following order:
''Heard Sri.P.B.Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.B.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2,
Sri. H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel along with Sri. D.N.Dhruva
Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 and
Sri.Santhosh S. Gogi, learned counsel for respondent No.7.
2. In furtherance to the orders dated 17.03.2023 and
09.10.2023 Sri. P.B.Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioners on
instructions of Sri. Jayaprakash B.R., petitioner No.1(B) who is
present before the Court, submits that the petitioners have no
objection and would not claim any relief in respect of five sites
namely:
1. Site.No.564/8 belonging to Smt. R. Jayamma, respondent
No.7.
2. Site.No.568 belonging to Sri. R. Muniyappa, respondent
No.3.
3. Site.No.570 belonging to Smt. N Prema Kumari, respondent
No.5.
4. Site.No.575 belonging to Smt. Chaithra S., respondent No.6.
5. Site.No.576 belonging to Shri.G.S.Shantha Kumar,
respondent No.4.
3. He also further submits that the respondent-BDA has utilized
36
13 guntas of land for formation of road and the petitioners have
no claim even with regard to the said extent of 13 guntas of
land. Thus it is the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners would not seek any relief as
regards the aforesaid five sites and the 13 guntas of land and
that the petitioner would not press the petition as against the
respondent Nos.3 to 7.
4. Submission taken on record.
5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA
submits that the actual extent of land acquired is 1 acre 1
gunta. However, he submits that there are seventeen sites
formed in the same alignment having continuous site numbers
starting from 564/6 to 576 and 13 guntas of land has been
utilized for the purpose of formation of road.
6. Submission taken on record.
7. From the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent-
BDA what emerges is that an extent of 13 guntas of land
utilized by the respondent-BDA for the purpose of formation of
road and area comprising of the aforesaid five sites Nos.564/8,
568, 570, 575 and 576 which have been allotted to the
respondent Nos.3 to 7 stands excluded from the subject matter
of this petition.
8. In that view of the matter, the issue which requires to be
considered is only in respect of remaining extent of land out of
1 acre 1 gunta which respondent-BDA claimed to have
acquired.
9. List this matter for consideration of the contention of the
petitioners with regard to actual acquisition and utilization of
land by the respondent-BDA excluding the aforesaid portion of
properties namely five sites bearing Nos.564/8, 568, 570, 575
and 576 and 13 guntas of land utilized for formation of road. It
is made clear except to the aforesaid extent of land all other
contentions of the petitioners are kept open to be considered in
this petition.
10. List this matter on 06.11.2023.''
37
27. Petitioner by filing above application in I.A.No.3/2024 has
sought modification of the aforesaid order dated 17.03.2023
seeking to recall the same to the extent of excluding 5 sites
bearing Nos.564/28, 568, 570, 575 and 576 on the premise
that, the petitioner had given the said concession under a
bonafide belief. That in view of the modified layout plan dated
04.11.2015 prepared by the respondent No.1-BDA itself having
been quashed by this Court in W.P.No.34009/2017 connected
with W.P.No.4480/2017 and W.P.No.35396/2016, exclusion of
aforesaid sites would not arise. That even as per the survey
report that is submitted pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2023,
the road is formed only to an extent of 12 meters by utilizing 13
guntas of land and the petitioner is in possession of the rest of
the land and there are no construction put up by any of the
allottees. That the said concession was given, in view of the
respondent- authorities withholding the information contrary to
the survey conducted as per the orders of this Court.
28. At the outset it is to be noted that though the concession
was given by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
as noted above, by order dated 13.10.2023 this Court had made
38
it clear that the issue with regard to acquisition of entire 1 acre
1 gunta of land was required to be considered despite the
concession given by the petitioner which is now sought to be
withdrawn.
29. Heavy reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner upon the order dated 23.07.2021
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
W.P.No.34009/2017 and connected matters, wherein the
Coordinate Bench of this Court had quashed the modified plan
dated 04.11.2015 issued by the respondent No.1-BDA. It is
contended that the said modified plan dated 04.11.2015 is in
respect of land in Sy.No.36/1 subject matter of the present
petition as well. That since the said modified plan has been
quashed, the respondent No.1-BDA cannot allot the sites to the
persons including the private respondents in the instant case.
30. Perusal of the copy of the said petition would indicate that
the petitioner in the said writ petition claiming to be the owners
of land in Sy.Nos. 49/1, 49/2 and 49/3 had approached this
Court alleging that out of 4 acres and 11 guntas of land in
Sy.No.49 only 3 acres was notified in the final notification dated
39
10.09.2003 leaving out remaining extent of 1 acre and 11
guntas of land. That in the layout plan that was approved by
the respondent No.1-BDA on 02.12.2009 only 3 acres of land in
Sy.No.49 was included and 1 acre and 11 guntas of land had
been excluded. However, in the modified sanction plan dated
04.11.2015 respondent No.1-BDA had included even the said
extent of 1 acre and 11 guntas of land which had been left
out/dropped by it.
31. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
respondents, the said writ petitions pertain only to the land in
Sy.No.49 and there is no reference to land in Sy.No.36/1, which
is subject matter of present writ petition. The quashing of the
modified sanction plan will have to be read only to the said
extent.
32. Necessary also to note that copy of the original layout Plan
dated 02.12.2009 which is produced for reference of this Court
specifically indicates inclusion of 1 acre 1 gunta of land in
Sy.No.36/1 belonging to the Petitioner with formation of sites
thereon. This aspect of the matter is not disputed by the
petitioner. The said layout plan dated 02.12.2009 has been
40
subsequently modified on 04/5.11.2015 in which Respondent
No.1-BDA had apparently included additional extent of land
forming part of Sy.No.49. Nothing is brought on record to
indicate that the original layout plan dated 02.12.2009 which
included the portion of land in Sy.No.36/1 has been quashed.
Thus, mere quashing of the modified sanction plan dated
04/5.11.2015 would not in any case affect either the acquisition
of land in Sy.No.36/1 or the original plan dated 02.12.2009.
Thus sites which are formed in the portion of land in Sy.No.36/1
remain intact as shown in the original plan. As already noted,
irrespective of the concession, the acquisition of land cannot be
found fault with. Application in I.A.No.1/2024 seeking
modification of the order dated 17.03.2023 is rejected.
Reg. Point No.4:
33. Petitioner for the first time approached this Court by filing
writ petition in WP No.19838/2004 seeking a specific direction to
the respondents, not to proceed with formation of road and sites
in the land belonging to the petitioner in said Sy.No.36/1. The
said writ petition has been withdrawn by the petitioner with the
permission to institute proceedings against the endorsement
41
dated 30.04.2004. Accordingly, the said petition came to be
dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as sought for on
16.07.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed writ petition in
W.P.No.31322/2004, seeking quashing of the endorsement
dated 30.04.2004 as per Annexure-J to the said writ petition
issued by respondent No.2-SLAO.
34. Necessary at this juncture to note that by endorsement
dated 20.01.2004, produced at Annexure-E to the present writ
petition, the respondent No.2-SLAO had intimated the petitioner
that his land in Sy.No.36/1, measuring 5 acres and 27 guntas
had not been included for the purpose of acquisition of land for
formation of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout and that the
petitioner was called upon to pay the betterment charges in
terms of Section 20 of the BDA Act. That by subsequent
endorsement dated 30.04.2004 produced at Annexure-F,
respondent No.2-SLAO has withdrawn the earlier endorsement
dated 20.01.2004. Petitioner had withdrawn the earlier writ
petition in W.P.No.19838/2004 and filed the subsequent writ
petition in W.P.No.31322/2004 which was disposed of by order
dated 11.12.2006 which is as under:
42
'ORDER
"Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in
possession of land bearing Sy No. 36/ 1 measuring 5
acres and 28 guntas situated at Mallathahalli Village,
Yashwantpura Hobli, Bengaluru. It is the case of the
petitioner that he got converted this land for residential
purposes from the competent authority by the order
dated 27.04.1989. It is his case that the said land was
acquired by the respondent pursuant to a preliminary
notification dated 17.12.1987. In the said notification,
Sy.No. 36/1 shown to be measuring 6 acres 28 guntas
which is found at Sl. No. 142. Suffice it to say that this
error committed in the notification was brought to the
notice of the Bangalore Development Authority pursuant
to a communication issued by the petitioner, a copy of
which is produced at the nature edge indicating that
indeed the land in question measures 5 acres 28 guntas
and not 6 acres 28 guntas and sought for correction. The
Bangalore Urban Authority, the respondent issued an
Erratum on 23.06.2004 bringing the land in conformity
with the actual measurement as 5 acres 28 guntas. The
petitioner, it appears sought for conversion of the said
land and consequently, endorsement was issued and a
copy of which is produced at Annexure- G to the effect
that 5 acres 27 guntas is not included in the acquisition
proceedings. Subsequently the said endorsement which is
produced at Annexure-G was withdrawn by the petitioner
by another endorsement which is produced at Annexure-J
which is questioned in this petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that a perusal of the first endorsement which is
produced at Annx-G would clearly indicate that only an
extent of 1 gunta was acquired in Sy.No.36/1 for
formation of road and the remaining area of 5 acres 27
guntas was not acquired. Under these circumstances he
submits that such an admission given by the respondent
as per Annx-G could not have been withdrawn pursuant
to an endorsement as per Annx- J without notice to the
petitioner.
3. Mr. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that indeed, the entire extent of 5
acres 28 guntas was not acquired but, however only a
portion measuring 1 acre 1 gunta was acquired for the
purpose of formation of road. He submits that the
respondents have issued an Erratum by noticing the error
committed in the notifications.
43
4. Apparently, the stand of the petitioner is that
the acquisition is only to an extent of 1 gunta and that of
the Bangalore Development Authority is 1 acre 1 gunta.
The material and record does not disclose as to the exact
extent of land which is acquired but, however the fact
remains that an Erratum has been issued and the
petitioner's land is shown to be measuring 5 acres and 28
guntas. If, indeed, the petitioner feels that only one
gunta of land in Sy.No. 36/1 is acquired it is open for him
to make necessary representation to the concerned
authorities viz., Bangalore Development Authority to the
effect that only a small extent of land is acquired in
Sy.No.36/ 1 and the remaining extent of land still
remains with him. As and when such representation is
given, the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority
shall consider the same in accordance with law and in
conformity with the notifications, Erratum and extent of
land which is acquired. The Award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer will also be indicative as to whether
the land measuring an extent of 1 acre 1 gunta is
acquired or an extent of 1 gunta is acquired.
5. Accordingly the petition stand disposed of
reserving liberty to the petitioner make a fresh
representation which shall be considered and disposed of
by the respondents in accordance with law expeditiously. ''
36. Perusal of the aforesaid order dated 11.12.2006, passed in
W.P. No.31322/2004, categorically makes it clear that issue with
regard to the actual measurement of the land being claimed by
the petitioner was raised even before the filing of the said writ
petition. In that, petitioner himself has brought to the notice of
the respondent No.1-BDA that the land belonging to him
measures only 5 acres and 28 guntas and not 6 acres and 28
guntas. It is pursuant to the said clarification/communication
44
issued by the petitioner the Erratum came to be issued showing
the measurement of land as indicated by the petitioner himself.
37. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court had
reserved liberty to the petitioner to file the representation, to be
considered by the respondent-Authorities as expeditiously as
possible. In response to the representation, the respondent-
SLAO had issued an endorsement dated 13.02.2012 as per
Annexure-L, apparently referring to an application filed by the
petitioner dated 11.11.2011, stating that an extent of 1 acre and
1 gunta of land has been acquired by the respondent No.1-BDA
for the purpose of formation of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah
Extension Layout and the award in this regard has already been
passed on 09.01.2004 and the land has been handed over to the
Engineering Section under Section 16(2) of the BDA Act.
38. As rightly contended by learned counsels for the
respondents, petitioner neither in the earlier writ petitions in
W.P.No.19838/2004 and writ petition in W.P.No.31322/2004 nor
in the present writ petition has brought to the notice of this
Court regarding he having received the notices under Section
17(5) of the BDA Act; he having sought for deletion of extent of
45
land converted/revenue sites sold by him in favour of the
prospective purchasers; he having received the notice dated
12.09.2003 and having participated in the award proceedings as
seen at Annexure-R8 to statement of objections referred to
hereinabove. No explanation in this regard is given by the
petitioner. This conduct of the petitioner raises question about
his bonafides.
39. Equally, forceful is the submission of the learned counsel for
the respondents that the petitioner despite having knowledge of
acquisition notifications issued by the respondents-Authorities
has not challenged the same in the earlier writ petitions. The
present writ petition is filed in the year 2013, that is after lapse
of nine years.
40. The petitioner has also not denied the fact of he having
formed the layout and sold certain sites in favour of prospective
purchasers. He was thus not even the owner of the portion of
land acquired. Notwithstanding the same, it is settled position
of law that a land owner/looser who has participated in the
award proceedings seeking compensation cannot later challenge
the acquisition. A non-objector would not be entitled to seek
46
quashing of acquisition. Petitioner having participated in the
enquiry and award proceedings along with the purchasers of
sites sold by him, has allowed the respondent No.1-BDA and the
SLAO to proceed and conclude the acquisition process. As such
he cannot be heard to say the contrary at this belated stage.
41. Further reliance placed on to the judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gautham Kamath
Hotels Pvt. Ltd., (supra) and Dr. A. Parthasarathy and
Others (supra) by the petitioner is misplaced inasmuch as the
issue that was involved in the said matters was pertaining to
lapsing of acquisition under Section 27 of the BDA Act, it is
under those circumstances the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
had held that taking the possession by drawing up of the
mahazar without disclosing the particulars would not amount to
taking effective possession. In the instant case, admittedly a
road has been formed in the land out of acquired land of 1 acre
and 1 gunta. Compensation has been deposited before the Civil
Court on 29.09.2013 as per Annexure-R2 for adjudication under
Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That the
said compensation is in respect of 1 acre and 1 gunta of land, in
47
which the petitioner had himself formed the layout and sold the
sites to the persons named above. Petitioner therefore cannot
be heard to say, that he has not been paid compensation for the
land acquired. However, petitioner, if entitled to receive any
compensation, is at liberty to pursue such remedy as may be
available under law in this regard.
42. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the matter the
endorsement dated 08.07.2022 issued by the respondent
rejecting the representation of the petitioner seeking no
objection to the extent of 5 acres and 27 guntas cannot be
found fault with.
43. Points answered accordingly. For the aforesaid reasons and
analysis:
ORDER
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
RL
