Sri S N Mohan Kumar Alias G N R Mohan vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 5426 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri S N Mohan Kumar Alias G N R Mohan vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2025

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:12493
                                                        WP No. 31554 of 2024




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                            DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
                                               BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 31554 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)
                  BETWEEN:

                  1.   SRI. S.N. MOHAN KUMAR @
                       G.N.R. MOHAN
                       S/O. LATE G. NARAYANA SWAMY REDDY
                       AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,


                  2.   SRI. S.N. SHEKHAR
                       S/O. LATE G. NARAYANA SWAMY REDDY,
                       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,


                  3.   SRI. S.N. BABU @ G.N.R. BABU
                       S/O. LATE G. NARAYANA SWAMY REDDY,
                       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

                       ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.172/5/1,
                       4TH MAIN ROAD, BTM DOLLARS COLONY,
                       BILEKAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
                       BENGALURU-560 076.
           Location:                                              ...PETITIONERS
           HIGH
MOHANKUMAR COURT OF
B SHELAR   KARNATAKA
           DHARWAD
           BENCH     (BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADVOCATE)
                  AND:

                  1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                       REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                       DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
                       URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD),
                       VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.


                  2.   BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
                       KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020,
                       REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:12493
                                      WP No. 31554 of 2024




3.   ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
     BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
     KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.


4.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     FOR LAND ACQUISITION,
     BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
     KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. H.T. BASAVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARRYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BDA/SLAO (LAPR/(S)131/77/78 DATED 19/09/1977 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION HUDS MNJ, 78 DATED 07/02/1978 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 VIDE ANNEXURES 'B' AND 'C' IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES AND PERTAINS TO SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY, HOLDING THAT THE SCHEDULE HAS BEEN LAPSED BY EFFLUX OF TIME AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT; ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD BEARING NO. BDA/DC(LA)/01/90-91 DATED 18/08/1990 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PASS FRESH AWARD IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES AND PERTAINS TO SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY CONSIDERING THE PRESENT MARKET VALUE SINCE THE PETITIONERS HAVE NOT PARTED WITH THE POSSESSION AND ETC.

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19TH FEBRUARY, 2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

CAV ORDER

In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the

Preliminary Notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B)

and Final Notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-C)

issued by the respondents, has become lapsed under

Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act,

1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') insofar as 'A

Schedule Property' is concerned, inter-alia, sought for

quashing the Award dated 18.08.1980 issued by the

respondent No.4 (Annexure-G) and sought for issuance of

fresh award in respect of the 'B schedule Property'.

2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition

are that, the land bearing Sy.No.172/2B of Bilekahalli

Village, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring to an extent of

4 acres 29 guntas was purchased by G. Narayana Swamy

Reddy (father of the petitioners) as per the registered Sale

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

Deed dated 05.05.1967 and the revenue records stand in

the name of the father of the petitioners and on his

demise, revenue records transferred into the name of the

petitioners. It is further stated in the Writ Petition that the

respondent - authorities have issued the Preliminary

Notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B) and Final

Notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-C) and sought to

acquire various lands including the land belonging to the

petitioners for the purpose of formation of BTM Scheme,

however, no efforts have been made to take possession of

the schedule properties within the reasonable period.

Therefore, the petitioners have sought for declaration that,

the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed under

Section 27 of the Act insofar Schedule 'A' to the writ

petition and to quash the award dated 18.08.1990

(Annexure-G) insofar as Schedule 'B' property is

concerned. Hence, this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri. Lokesh R., learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi Rao,

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. H. T.

Basavaraja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

Nos.2 to 4.

4. Sri. Lokesh R., learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners contended that, father of the petitioners was

owner in possession of the land in question and schedule

properties have been sought to be acquired by the

respondent-authorities for the purpose of formation of

BTM Scheme. It is submitted that, the impugned

notifications were questioned by the father of the

petitioners and same has reached finality, wherein, the

acquisition proceedings was upheld by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. He further submitted that, even after the

conclusion of the proceedings during the year 1987,

possession of the land in question has not been taken by

the respondent-authorities and the award notice was

issued on 13.11.1990 and further, no steps have been

taken by the respondent-authorities to complete the

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land and

therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

5. Nextly, it is contended by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners that, as per Annexure-K to

the writ petition, Mahazar was drawn as per the direction

of this Court in W.P.No.7448 of 2021, and as such, as the

petitioners are in possession of the land in question as on

today, accordingly, sought for quashing the impugned

notifications on the ground of delay in passing the award

and no compensation is paid to the petitioner and further,

possession of the schedule property is with the petitioner

and accordingly, sought for allowing the writ petition.

6. Per contra, Sri. H.T. Basavaraja, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-BDA contended that, the

father of the petitioners has challenged the very same

notifications, which came to be upheld by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of

merits as res-judicata is applicable to the case on hand.

He further contended that, the respondent-BDA has

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

implemented the Scheme substantially and therefore, no

interference is called for in this writ petition and

accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned HCGP appearing for the

respondent-State argued in similar lines with the learned

counsel appearing for the respondent -BDA.

8. In the light of the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner is

assailing the notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B)

and Final Notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-C)

issued by the respondent-authorities for formation of BTM

Scheme and the subject land is also notified for

acquisition. It is the principal submission of the learned

counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA that, the father

of the petitioners has challenged the acquisition

proceedings in W.P.No.13115 and 13464 of 1983, wherein,

the prayer in the writ petition is to challenge the

acquisition proceedings. This Court, by order dated

04.06.1984, dismissed the writ petition. The said

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

judgment is confirmed in Writ Appeal No.1481 of 1984

dated 14.08.1984 and by order dated 29.04.1987 in SLP

(C) No.294 of 1985. It is argued by the learned counsel

for the petitioners that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held that the Award has been passed during the year

1983, however, the Award notice was issued on

13.11.1990, after lapse of sixteen years from the issuance

of the Final Notification. In this regard, it is relevant to

deduce the portion of the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in SLP (CIVIL) No.294 of 1985, which

reads as under:

"The petitioner in this case has questioned the validity of the acquisition proceedings under which the land belonging to him was acquired and taken over by the Government for the purpose of utilising it for the B.T.M. Scheme of the Bangalore Development Authority. The preliminary notification was issued on 19th September, 1977 and the declaration under Section 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published on 17.2.1978. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award in the early part of 1983. The notice

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was served on the petitioner immediately thereafter. The revenue records show that the possession of the land was taken on 15.6.1983."

(underlined by me)

9. It is pertinent to mention here that, the respondent-

authorities after the conclusion of the proceedings by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court during the year 1985, issued the

award notice under Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act,

on 13.11.1990 (Annexures-H and J, respectively) after

lapse of 13 years from date of issuance of Preliminary

Notification. It is also pertinent to mention here that as

per Mahazar drawn by the Surveyor of the respondent-

BDA on 09.09.2021 (Annexure-K), the petitioners are in

possession of the schedule properties. It is to be noted

that, even after four decades, the respondent-BDA has not

take possession of the land in question and therefore,

though the impugned notifications have been upheld by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, however, no

steps have been taken by the respondent-BDA to take

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

possession of the land in question even during the year

2021 and to allot the site in favour of the prospective

allottees. It is also forthcoming from the order passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, the Award has been

passed during 1983, however, on careful examination of

the original records produced by the respondent-BDA,

connotes that, the Award was passed on 11.06.1990. It is

mentioned in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that the award is passed during the year 1983.

Therefore, I find force in the submission made by the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, though

the father of the petitioners has challenged the acquisition

proceedings, however, same was rejected by this Court as

well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, much before the

passing of the Award dated 11.06.1990. Therefore, this

petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of res-judicata

since the petitioners herein have challenged the Award

dated 11.06.1990/18.08.1990 (Annexure-G) issued by

respondent No.4 and therefore, this Writ Petition cannot

be dismissed on the threshold that the acquisition

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

proceedings has reached finality in so far as the land in

question is concerned.

10. It is also pertinent to mention here that the

respondent-authorities have not produced Notification said

to have been issued under Section 16(2) of the Land

Acquisition Act as to taking possession of the land in

question. This would makes it clear that the respondent-

BDA has abandoned the scheme insofar as land in

question is concerned. This court in the case of

Savitramma and others vs. State of Karnataka

reported in (2021) 1 KLJ 305 under similar

circumstances set aside the impugned notification in

respect of the Hennur Bellary Road II Stage. It is also to

be noted that, this Court in the case of MRS. POORNIMA

GIRISH vs. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT

OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2011 KAR

574, at paragraph 8 held as follows:

"8. Having heard Sri. Krishnappa, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Abdul Khader, Learned counsel

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

appearing for the respondent -Authority on merits, it is found that, the situation is one which is irredeemable and irretrievable for the Authorities as the Authority by its own inaction and latherginess has allowed the acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned to lapse. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings in terms fo the preliminary Notification, under Section 17 of the Act and Final Notification under 19 of the Act are hereby quashed only insofar as it relates to the land in possession of the petitioner in terms of the report now placed before the Court according to which, the petitioner is in possession of site measuring 40 feet by 60 feet."

11. The aforementioned judgment of the learned Single

Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in

Writ Appeal No.4824 of 2010 disposed of on 01st March,

2014. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of BANGALORE

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2018 KAR

2144, wherein at paragraphs 5 and 8 held as follows:

"5. It is no longer res-integra that power conferred on any authority be exercised reasonably and reasonable

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

exercise of power includes exercise of the same within a reasonable period. An acquisition proceeding once initiated has to be completed by passing an award and paying compensation followed by taking over possession within a reasonable period. This has to be strictly followed even in the absence of any statutory limit prescribed for passing of award and completing the acquisition proceedings.

8. In the present cases, though final notification was issued in the year 1971 so far, neither award has been passed nor possession has been taken over by paying compensation. Therefore, the acquiring body has neither exercised its powers in a reasonable manner nor has it completed the acquisition proceeding within a reasonable period. Hence, acquisition having been abandoned stands lapsed on account of omission and commission on the part of the CITB/BDA in respect of writ petitioners/ respondents' herein in so far as the land is concerned."

12. Having applied declaration of law referred to above,

I am of the view that, as the award notice was issued

during the year 1990 and no compensation is paid to the

petitioners as on today and that apart, no possession has

been taken in respect of the subject land by the

respondent-BDA and as acquisition proceedings has not

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

reached its logical end and no material has been produced

by the respondent-BDA insofar allotment of sites to the

respective allottees in the subject land and further taking

into consideration the Sketch produced at Annexure-K to

the writ petition, which would demonstrates that, the

petitioners are in possession of the land in question and

therefore, the contention of the petitioners is to be

accepted. It is pertinent to mention here that issuance of

the belated award notice by the respondent-authorities

would affect the acquisition proceedings and as such, the

petitioners have made out a case that, the respondent-

BDA has not completed the acquisition proceedings in

respect of the subject land as required under law and

therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for

interference in this writ petition. The acquisition

proceedings in respect of the subject land is liable to be

quashed as no possession has been taken by the

respondent-authorities even after four decades in passing

the Preliminary Notification as evident from Survey sketch

produced at Annexure-K to the writ petition. It is also

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

pertinent to mention here that as per the records

produced by the BDA, notice under Section 12(2) was

issued to one Smt. Chayadevi and Sri. G. Narayanaswamy

Reddy in respect of the subject matter of the land on

13.11.1990 (Annexure-H) and 13.11.1991 (Annexure-J).

It appears that notice under Section 12(2) of Land

Acquisition Act was issued to the daughter of Sri. G.

Narayanaswamy Reddy during the year 1990 and

thereafter, similar award notice under Section 12(2) was

issued in the name of Sri. G.Narayanaswamy Reddy

(father of the petitioners), however, the petitioners have

produced the death certificate of the father of the

petitioners - G. Narayanaswamy Reddy, who died on

04.05.1989, as per Annexure-D. In that view of the

matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents

have not taken possession of the land in question and

have abandoned the scheme of acquisition insofar as the

petition schedule property is concerned. In the result, the

writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493

notifications i.e. Preliminary Notification dated 19.09.1977

(Annexure-B) and Final Notification dated 07.02.1978

(Annexure-C) in respect of subject land belonging to the

petitioners.

In view of disposal of the petition, pending

interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for

consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

SB CT-MCK