03.02.2003, No. UDD 193 MNX 2004, BANGALORE,
dated: 23.02.2004 and No. UDD 426 MNJ/2011,
BANGALORE, dated 18.06.2014, stands rejected and
acquisition of the lands for the formation of Arkavati
Layout is upheld.
(ii) W.P.No.*815/2017 * is allowed and writ of mandamus
issues to the BDA - respondent No.1 to conclude the
allotment process of site No.BK90, Arkavati Layout,
expeditiously, at any rate within an outer limit of three
months from the date of receipt of this order. In the
alternate, if site BK90 is not available BDA shall allot
alternate site and execute Lease-cum-Sale Agreement in
favour of the petitioner, issue Possession Certificate and
deliver vacant possession of site so allotted, expeditiously
and at any rate within 30 days from the date of issuing the
endorsement to the petitioner that site bearing No.BK90
not being available. It is also made clear that within 7
days from the date of this order, BDA shall intimate
petitioner as to whether site No.BK90 allotted to him on
31.05.2016, is available or not.
(iv) W.P.No.21361/2017 is allowed and writ of mandamus
issues to BDA directing the said Authority to execute
absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner expeditiously
at any rate within an outer limit of three (3) months from
the date of receipt of this order.
(v) W.P.No.751/2016 is allowed and writ of mandamus issues
to the BDA to allot a site measuring 30' x 40' in favour of
petitioner expeditiously at any rate within an outer limit of
three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.
(vi) W.P.Nos.3178/2017 c/w 55737/2016, 10923/2015,
58734/2016, 15588/2017, 14868/2017, 30485/2017 &
59317/2016 and similarly placed writ petitions stands
disposed of by directing the BDA to place the
representations of all the applicants/petitioners submitted
for allotment of sites for being considered by the
Committee constituted hereinabove. It is also made clear
that all such applications which have been filed for
allotment of sites under any of the categories specified in
the order of the Division Bench or the Apex Court in
BONDU RAMASWAMY's case shall be considered by the
Committee keeping in mind the directions issued
thereunder and subject to order passed at paragraph (xiv)
hereinbelow.
(vii) W.P.No.43194/2017 is hereby allowed in part and a writ of
mandamus issues to the BDA to allot one (1) site in favour
of the petitioner, the measurement of which shall be same
as indicated in the Lease cum Sale Agreement executed in
favour of petitioner by BDA on 28.02.2007.
(viii) W.P.Nos.38463/2014, 19783-784/2018, 46766/2014,
47606/2014 & 48579/2014, stands dismissed.
(ix) W.P.No.1876/2016 stands disposed of and BDA is directed
to place the representation of the petitioner, who is a
revenue site holder and all similar
representations/applications of the revenue site holders
before the Committee for examining their claims in the
background of Division Bench judgment as affirmed by
Apex Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY's case and as
undertaken in paragraph No.3.2 of the Memo filed by the
BDA before the Division Bench.
(x) W.P.No.29541/2015 is allowed in part and a writ of
mandamus issues to the BDA to execute the Lease cum
Sale Agreement in favour of the petitioners in respect of
site Nos.B9-SC-2201 and B5-SF-2137, which sites have
been allotted as per allotment letters dated 09.11.2007
(Annexures-R2 and R3 respectively).
(xi) The applicants/writ petitioners who are claiming relief
based on sale transactions which has taken place
subsequent to issuance of Preliminary Notification dated
03.02.2003, would not be entitled to any protection or
relief whatsoever and their claim stands rejected.
(xii) It is also made clear that neither the Committee nor the
BDA would be required to examine or consider the claim
where dispute with regard to title is involved.
(xiii) The BDA shall allot the site to all such applicants in whose
favour allotment had been made and later cancelled on the
ground of same site having been allotted to two (2)
persons or cancelled for whatsoever reason like it has
fallen in the land deleted from acquisition and like reasons.
(xiv) All deletions or deNotification recommended by the BDA or
made by BDA or by the Government, is subject to the
certification or approval by the Committee to the effect
that such deletion of land is in accordance with the law laid
down by the Division Bench and directions/clarifications
issued by the Apex Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY's
case.
(xv) It is also made clear that in the event of applications or
representations having not been submitted by the
applicant/s pursuant to the order of the Division Bench or
BONDU RAMASWAMY's case, they would be at liberty to
submit the same to the BDA within one (1) month from
the date of this order and on receipt of said
representations or applications, it shall be placed by the
BDA before the Committee constituted hereinabove within
ten (10) days after expiry of one (1) month.
(xvi) The civic amenities sites earmarked in the map/s or
Arkavati Layout Plans, if located as an isolated plot or
island and such plots if not being adjacent or abutting to
the sites formed in Arkavati Layout, such lands may not be
feasible for acquisition and Committee would examine
such claims and based on physical verification and a report
shall be forwarded by the Committee to BDA either to
retain such lands for acquisition or recommend for deletion
as the case may be, upon receipt of such report BDA shall
take further steps.
(xvii) A writ of mandamus issues to BDA to execute Lease cum
Sale Agreement and possession certificate in favour of all
such allottees, who had been allotted sites and on account
of pendency of the present proceedings, further steps had
not been taken. The BDA shall also ensure that katha of
the sites so allotted and possession delivered is issued in
favour of such allottees. The said exercise shall be
undertaken by the BDA forthwith and at any rate within an
outer limit of three (3) months from today.
(xviii) The BDA shall consider the claim of all such allottees, who
have been allotted site/s in Arkavati Layout, but later
cancelled due to redo exercise and shall allot the site/s to
such of those applicants/allottees expeditiously and at any
rate within an outer limit of three (3) months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order and it is also made
clear that in the event of such site/s not being available in
Arkavati Layout, they shall be allotted sites in any other
Layout within the timeframe stipulated hereinabove.
(xix) Registered agreement holders or agreement holders
together holding registered General Power of Attorney
namely, if such documents have come into existence
contemporaneously prior to issuance of Preliminary
Notification dated 03.02.2003, would be entitled to seek
for allotment of site from BDA and all such applicants
would be at liberty to submit application/representations
to BDA within one (1) month from today and all such
representations received by the BDA shall be placed before
the Committee constituted by this Court within ten (10)
days after expirty of one (1) month and on report being
submitted by the Committee, BDA would be at liberty to
make allotment of sites or issue endorsement assigning
the reasons for rejection of claim, if any.
(a) Examine all such representations received by
BDA pursuant to Division Bench order and
BONDU RAMASWAMY's judgment placed
before the Committee and submit a report to the
BDA as to whether such claim/s would fall within
the exceptions carved out under the judgments
for deleting the lands or not. The BDA shall
thereafter take steps to delete or include such
lands from acquisition.
(b) The Committee shall also consider the
representations of the land owners submitted to
BDA which shall be placed before the Committee
to ascertain as to whether the lands of the
applicants are landlocked and/or adjacent lands
having been dropped from acquisition without
dropping the lands of the applicants. The
Committee shall examine the claim on case to
case basis and on being satisfied either such
claim being genuine or being contrary to factual
scenario shall prepare a report village wise and
forward the same to the BDA to enable the said
authority to either delete such lands from
acquisition or conclude the acquisition.
(c) The Committee shall either by itself or through
its empowered officers carryout inspection of all
16 villages where sites have been carved in
Arkavati Layout by identifying such sites in
respect of which allotment letters, possession
certificate has been issued and recommend to
the BDA to handover possession of such sites to
the allottees forthwith for ensuring the process
of allotment is taken to its logical end by
forwarding a report in that regard to the BDA
expeditiously and preferably within a period of
four (4) months today. On receipt of such
report from the Committee, BDA shall
expeditiously and not later than one (1) month
from the date of receipt of such report shall
execute the Lease cum Sale Agreement or
absolute Sale Deed, as the case may be, by
confirming possession of such sites having been
handed over or delivered to the allottees.
(d) The Committee shall examine as to whether the
claim of land owners for deleting their lands
from being acquired is within the parameters or
the directions issued by the Division Bench and
the Hon'ble Apex Court in BONDU
RAMASWAMY's case and if so, shall submit a
report to the BDA to the said effect and
pursuant to the same BDA shall take steps
accordingly to either delete the land or proceed
with allotment of the sites to the applicants that
may be formed in such lands.
(e) The Committee shall examine as to whether
deletion of land/s from acquisition made by the
BDA is within the parameters fixed by Division
Bench and BONDU RAMASWAMY's case by
examining every such deletion made on case to
case basis and particularly with reference to
deletion made on the ground of adjacent lands
having been deleted.
(f) The Committee shall also examine the claim of
the applicants on case to case basis for deletion
of lands on the ground of area being built-up by
considering or looking into the scientific
evidence that may be secured by the Committee
as noticed hereinabove.
(g) The Committee shall examine the claim of the
applicants on case to case basis for deletion of
lands from acquisition on the ground of buildings
having been constructed by ascertaining as to
whether such buildings have come up prior to
the Preliminary Notification dated 03.02.2003 or
thereafter. It is made clear that such
buildings/sheds constructed with asbestos
sheets or tiled roof, shall not be eligible to be
considered as a pucca building for the purposes
of exclusion from acquisition even if so claimed
by the applicants.
(h) The Committee shall examine as to whether
deletion of 983.12 acres of land by the
Government subsequent to the Notification
dated 23.02.2004 and before issuance of
Notification dated 18.06.2014 was in accordance
of dicta laid down by the Division Bench and in
compliance with directions/clarifications issued
by Hon'ble Apex Court in BONDU
RAMASWAMY's case and submit a report to
the BDA, who shall take steps based on said
report.
(i) The Committee shall also examine the
applications of revenue site holders for allotment
of sites in accordance with the extant Circular of
BDA dated 09.06.2017 and Resolution dated
18.04.2017 keeping in mind the law laid down in
JUNJAMMA's case and also keeping in mind
paragraph 3.2 of the memo filed before the
Division Bench whereunder BDA has undertaken
to allot a site measuring 30' X 40' in favour of
revenue site holders, whose revenue sites had
been acquired, which would be in terms of the
order/direction issued in W.P.Nos.20875-
938/2001 dated 20.07.2021 (Anjanapura
Scheme).
(j) The Committee shall examine as to whether on
Layout/s formed by Housing Co-operative
Societies or House Building Co-operative
Societies or registered Union or registered
Association wherein sites have been formed and
allotted to its Members wherein construction of
buildings have come up by conducting spot
inspection either by itself or through its
empowered officers and if the Committee is of
the view that it is a self contained Layout, a
report to said effect shall be submitted to BDA,
upon which BDA shall delete the said lands from
acquisition. However, it is made clear that if BDA
has taken possession of such lands and has
already formed sites, allotment made, then
claim of the Members of the Co-operative
Society for allotment of alternate site would only
be considered by the BDA and it is made clear
that said benefit would be available only to the
applicants or Members of the
Society/Union/Association, who have purchased
the property under registered sale deed from
such Housing Co-operative Society or House
Building Co-operative Society or Registered
Union or Registered Association, as the case
may be.
(k) The BDA shall publish the operative portion of
this order in any two (2) vernacular newspapers
consecutively on two (2) dates within a gap of
10 days from today, so as to avoid issuance of
individual notices by the Committee and it is
made clear that there would be no need or
necessity to issue individual notices by the
Committee.
(l) The Committee would at liberty to examine as to
whether BDA has undertaken any exercise to
delete lands suo motu and if it is so found, the
exercise so undertaken by BDA would stand
quashed if it is not in conformity with the order
passed by the Division Bench as affirmed and
clarified by the Apex Court, to which effect the
Committee shall submit a report to BDA and on
such report being submitted, the deleted lands
would stand restored to BDA for the purposes of
formation of sites in Arkavati Layout to be
allotted to the applicants in waiting.
(xxi) All lands which are the subject matter of acquisition for the
purpose of Arkavati Layout if having been converted,
layout formed, sites carved and constructions having been
put-up prior to issuance of Preliminary Notification dated
03.02.2003, would be entitled for deletion from
acquisition, subject to report being submitted by the
Committee to the said effect.
(xxii) All writ petitions which have not been specifically dealt
with hereinabove is deemed to have been disposed of in
terms of the above order and all pending interlocutory
applications stands consigned to records.
(xxiii) No order as to costs."
3.4. In terms of the said directions, a Committee comes to be
constituted headed by Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana, a retired
Judge of this Court to hear the grievances, by holding a detailed
enquiry of the lands that could be excluded from acquisition. The
petitioners appear before the Committee and the Committee
recommends dropping of the lands of the petitioners from
acquisition. Despite the Committee's finding in terms of its final
report dated 27-12-2022, no order is passed by the BDA. It is
therefore, the petitioners are before this Court, in the subject
petitions.
4. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners
Sri Radhanandan B.S. would contend that Justice
K.N.Keshavaranaryana's committee ('Committee' for short), after
holding a detailed enquiry in terms of what was directed by the
coordinate bench, recommended that the lands of the petitioners
can be dropped from acquisition. Despite this, no order is passed
by the BDA is the contention of the petitioners. He would seek to
place reliance upon the judgments rendered by the coordinate
bench on identical facts of the same survey number of different
lands or of different survey numbers of similarly placed lands. The
learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioners would also
fall within those parameters laid down by the coordinate bench.
5. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 2 and 3 Sri B Vachan would submit that the
Committee's opinion is only a recommendation. The BDA is free to
take a decision upon the said recommendation. He would therefore
submit that the matter would be considered in accordance with law,
if a direction is so issued.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties
and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts, dates, link in the chain of events
are all a matter of record. The events that have happened prior to
the issuance of the preliminary notification are all again a matter of
record. The directions are issued by the coordinate bench in
W.P.No.51929 of 2014 and connected cases, in terms of its order
dated 27-09-2021 appointing a committee, to go into the claims of
those landowners who sought exclusion of their lands from
acquisition. The petitioners' lands were one of those. The
committee holds an enquiry in great detail and insofar as the lands
of the petitioners in W.P.33664 of 2023 is concerned, the
Committee opines as follows:
".... .... ....
(iv) Land bearing Sy.No.89/1, measuring 13 guntas is
bounded on the east by Sy. No.87, on the west by Sy.
No.90, on the north by Sy.No.102 and on the south by
Sy.No.89/2, Sy.No.87 lying to the east of Sy.No.89/1,
though measured large extent, it was not even proposed
for acquisition under the preliminary notification.
Sy.No.90 measuring 07 acres, Sy. No.73/2 measuring 02
acres 27 guntas which are lying to the west and
Sy.No.89/2 lying to the south of Sy.No.89/1, though had
been proposed for acquisition under the preliminary
notification, later they were dropped from acquisition
under the final notification dt. 23-02-2004. Thus, this
small piece of land measuring 13 guntas only is
surrounded on three sides by un-acquired lands. There is
no developmental activity carried out by BDA in any of
the lands adjacent to this land. Thus, this land is also an
isolated pocket of island with no development by BDA in
the close vicinity.
.... .... ....
RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE
Lands bearing Sy.No.59/3 measuring 01 acre 20 guntas;
Sy.No.73/1 measuring 02 acres 37 guntas; Sy. No.89/1
measuring 13 guntas; Sy.No.89/7 measuring 04 guntas;
Sy.No.89/8 measuring 16 guntas; Sy. No.89/9 measuring 12
guntas; Sy.No.102/3 measuring 01 acre 01 gunta and
Sy.No.102/5 measuring 21 guntas of Nagawara Village, as
notified for acquisition under the modified Final Notification
dated 18.06.2014, be deleted from acquisition process.
Forward this Report to the BDA for necessary action."
The petitioners' lands situated in Sy.No.89/1 of Nagawara village is
recommended to be deleted from acquisition process. The reason
for deletion is in the recommendation quoted hereinabove. the
Committee was constituted by the coordinate bench in the backdrop
of the direction of the Division Bench and that of the Apex Court in
the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY. The committee's
recommendations are to be taken note of by the BDA, but alas,
they have not.
8. In identical circumstances, concerning the adjacent survey
numbers which were also the product of recommendation at the
hands of the Committee, had not been dropped from acquisition by
the BDA, naturally they were at the doors of this Court. The
coordinate bench, in terms of two orders dated 25-04-2025 and
06-06-2025 allowed those petitions, by the following orders:
IN W.P.No.14587 of 2024 c.w W.P.No.3090 of 2025:
".... .... ....
18. From the facts narrated hereinabove, it is very clear
that the Committee has taken into consideration all relevant
aspects before recommending the deletion of the lands in
question from acquisition proceedings, since all the
neighbouring lands surrounding the land in question were either
not notified or were deleted from acquisition proceedings
subsequently.
19. Most importantly, it is noticeable that 1 acre of land
in the same survey number belonging to the petitioner were
dropped from the acquisition proceedings in the year 2014 and
it is not understandable as to how the other extent of 1 acre 36
guntas did not deserve the same treatment at the hands of the
BDA and the State Government. The Committee which has
inspected the land in question found that, except a kacha road,
nothing else is formed on the land in question. Even otherwise,
learned Counsel for the petitioner clearly made a statement that
the petitioner is giving up his claim for compensation in respect
of the road which is formed on the land in question measuring
1719.89 sq. mtrs. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel
and the learned Counsels for the impleading applicants/allottees
that sites have been formed and absolute sale deeds have been
executed in favour of some of the allottees and therefore, the
lands cannot be dropped from acquisition proceedings, is a
contention which cannot be countenanced. As rightly found by
the Committee, the petitioner had given a representation as far
back as 2005 seeking dropping of acquisition proceedings on the
same ground on which his Uncle had also sought for dropping of
the acquisition proceedings. It is strange that the Bangalore
Development Authority and the State Government thought it fit
to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of 1 acre of land
in question, while continuing the acquisition proceedings in
respect of the remaining 1 acre 36 guntas of land, when it was
clear that 1 acre and 36 guntas will form an island surrounded
by unacquired lands. The land in question clearly falls within
the teeth of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Bondu Ramaswamy, where it was directed that similar
isolated pockets in other villages should also be dealt with in a
similar manner. The Apex Court had clearly rejected the
contention of the BDA and the State Government that such
small islands could be used as stand alone park or playground
with regard to the layout formed in a different unconnected
lands in other villages.
20. In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that
the Committee of Hon'ble Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana had
considered all the relevant material before recommending to the
BDA to drop the lands in question from acquisition proceedings.
However, the BDA did not accept the recommendation and on
the other hand, the Board of the BDA is of the opinion that
though the land in question may form an island of a layout,
nevertheless, the lands in question are very much necessary,
since a road has been formed on the land in question connecting
to the layouts formed in Sy.Nos.94/6, 94/7, 94/8, 94/9, 95/3
and 96 of Thanisandra Village, which measures about 8 acres
29 guntas. The Committee has rightly found that the said lands
are nowhere in the vicinity of the lands in question and it cannot
be accepted that, the lands in question are necessary for
maintaining the contiguity of the layout. Factually, the
Committee has found that all the lands surrounding the land in
question are either not acquired or dropped from acquisition
proceedings later. The petitioner has also placed on record his
undertaking that the BDA may continue to have the road for
linking the other layouts formed by the BDA and that the
petitioner has voluntarily given up all claims in respect of the
said extent of land measuring 1719.89 sq. mtrs., which forms
part of the road, formed on the land in question.
21. The impleading applicants who have been allotted
sites said to have been formed in the land in question are
entitled for allotment of alternative sites at the hands of the
BDA. Such directions were also issued by this Court in
W.P.No.51929/2014 dated 27.09.2021 while directing the BDA
to consider the claim of all such allottees for allotment of
alternative sites.
22. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(1) W.P.No.14587/2024 is allowed.
(2) The impugned undated resolution bearing
No.43/2024 passed by the Board of the
Bangalore Development Authority at
Annexure 'E' insofar as the lands in question
i.e., 1 acre 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.97/1
of Thanisandra Village, K.R.Puram Bangalore
East Taluk, are concerned is hereby quashed
and set aside.
(3) The interlocutory application in
I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed, permitting
amendment to the writ petition. Learned
Counsel for the petitioner shall carry out the
amendment, forthwith.
(4) Consequently, the communication dated
Ben.Bhu.Swa 2024 issued by the Additional
Chief Secretary, Urban Development
Department, is also quashed and set aside.
(5) The recommendation of Hon'ble Sri.Justice
K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee at
Annexure 'C' dated 25.03.2022 insofar as
the lands in question are concerned are
accepted. The acquisition proceedings in
respect of the land in question are
accordingly dropped from acquisition
proceedings.
(6) The impleading applicants/allottees and
petitioner in W.P.No.3090/2025 may be
allotted alternative sites by the BDA.
23. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition,
connected W.P.No.3090/2025 also stands disposed of.
Ordered accordingly."
IN W.P.No.15096 of 2024:
".... .... ....
3. The petitioner/party-in-person submits while drawing
the attention of this Court to judgment in the case of Bondu
Ramaswamy, where it was directed as regards Kempapura
Village, to reconsider the objections to the acquisitions, having
regard to the fact that large areas were not initially notified for
acquisition, and more than 50% of whatever that was proposed
for acquisition was also subsequently deleted from acquisition.
Therefore, Bangalore Development Authority was required to
consider whether in view of deletions to a large extent,
development with respect to the balance of the acquired lands
has become illogical and impractical, and if so, whether the
balance area also should be deleted from acquisition. It was
directed that if BDA proposes to continue the acquisition, it shall
file a report within four months before the High Court so that
consequential orders could be passed. It was also directed that,
where several very small pockets of acquired lands surrounded
by lands which were not acquired or which were deleted from
the proposed acquisition, the BDA may consider whether such
small pockets should also be deleted if they are not suitable for
formation of self contained layouts. It was held that the
acquisition thereof cannot be justified on the ground that small
islands of acquired land, could be used as a stand alone park or
playground in regard to a layout formed in different
unconnected lands in other villages. It was also directed that
under similar circumstances, where similar isolated pockets of
acquisition were made in other villages, they too should be dealt
with in a similar manner.
4. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation dated
12.06.2010 vide Annexure 'L' requesting the BDA to exclude the
petitioner's lands from acquisition. However, without
considering the representation and pursuant to the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondent-BDA and its
Board resolved to delete 983.33 Guntas of land and issued a
second modified final notification on 18.06.2014. As a
consequence, the BDA left out a further 15 acres and 38 guntas
from acquisition in Kempapura Village. Thereby, 80% of the
lands proposed for acquisition in Kempapura Village were
thereafter deleted while only 11 acres of land including 4 acres
and 39 guntas belonging to the petitioner were continued in
acquisition. It is submitted that even amongst the four pieces
of land belonging to the petitioner, 1 acre and 33 guntas in
Sy.No.21/3, is the biggest chunk, while the remaining are 1 acre
18 guntas in Sy.No.21/2, 36 guntas in Sy.No.20/1 and 32
guntas in Sy.No.20/2. All the pieces of property are disjoint and
do not form a contiguous portion of land.
5. The petitioner filed W.P.Nos.35573/2015 and 36274-
276/2015, challenging the notification dated 18.06.2014 and
the report dated 15.09.2010 comprising resolution No.303/2010
of the BDA. This Court by order dated 19.04.2018 partly
allowed the writ petitions while quashing the resolution
No.303/2010 which contained report dated 15.09.2010 while
directing the BDA to reconsider the case of the petitioner
keeping in mind, the treatment given to similarly placed
landlords and the directions issued in Bondu Ramaswamy.
The petitioner once again gave a representation dated
07.05.2018 at Annexure 'P', requesting deletion of the lands in
question from acquisition proceedings. The petitioner also filed
W.A.No.1529/2018 calling in question the other portion of the
order passed by this Court. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, BDA passed a final report dated 17.09.2018, rejecting
the request made by the petitioner. The petitioner filed
Contempt Petition in CCC No.2040/2018 and in the said
proceedings the final report dated 17.09.2018 was produced by
the respondent-BDA and consequently, the Contempt Petition
was dropped. The petitioner filed W.P.No.25861/2019,
questioning the final report dated 17.09.2018 passed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer. By order dated 04.04.2022, in
W.P.No.25861/2019, this Court quashed the final report dated
17.09.2018 and in the connected writ petitions i.e.,
W.P.No.51929/2014 and connected matters including the writ
petition filed by the petitioner herein, this Court rejected the
challenge raised to the second modified final notification dated
18.06.2014. However, learned Single Judge proceeded to
appoint a three men committee headed by Hon'ble Shri. Justice
K.N.Keshavanarayana to look into various aspects as indicated
in the order to implement the order passed in
W.A.No.2624/2015 and connected matters dated 25.11.2005 in
the case of The Commissioner, BDA and Others Vs. State of
Karnataka and Others, and the directions issued by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy. In
addition, it was also directed that the committee shall examine
all such representations received by the BDA pursuant to the
directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble
Apex Court and to submit a report to the BDA as to whether
such claims would fall within the exception carved out under the
judgments for deleting the lands or not. It was further directed
that the BDA shall thereafter take steps to delete or to include
such lands from acquisition.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Committee
constituted by this Court and the Committee while considering
the case of the petitioner in proceedings bearing KNKC
No.42/2022, found that the property in question falls within the
parameters issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench and
accordingly, recommended for deletion of the property in
question from the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner/party-
in-person submits that the Assistant Commissioner and Land
Acquisition Officer, BDA addressed a letter dated 25.05.2023 at
Annexure 'Z' to the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban
Development Department, along with the recommendation of
the Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee. However, since no
action was taken by the State Government, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.27329/2023 seeking a writ of mandamus to implement
the recommendation of the Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana
Committee. During the course of the proceedings, the State
Government submitted a memo before this Court on
30.01.2024, stating that it has sought for further clarification at
the hands of the BDA. By order dated 07.02.2024 this Court
directed the BDA to send its report to the Government within
ten days and thereafter the Government was directed to take a
decision within a period of two months. It is submitted that the
BDA passed a pre-dated order dated 01.03.2024 recommending
the continuation of the acquisition proceedings. However, since
the petitioner was not made aware of such an order or decision,
the petitioner filed Contempt Petition in CCC No.405/2024. The
petitioner had to file an application under the Right to
Information Act and the Information Officer of BDA furnished a
copy of the internal report dated 01.03.2024 to the petitioner on
16.05.2024.
7. Consequently, the petitioner has filed an application in
I.A.No.1/2025 seeking to amend the writ petition while adding
additional reliefs to quash order bearing No.NAE 01 Bem Bhoo
Swa 2024 (CCMS) dated 09.04.2025. This Court had directed
that the application will be heard along with the main matter.
8. It would be beneficial to notice that this Court was
hearing a similar matter in W.P.No.14587/2024 and connected
matters and during the course of those proceedings, when the
State Government accepted the resolution passed by the
Bangalore Development Authority to continue the acquisition
proceedings, despite the recommendation of Justice
K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee to drop the acquisition
proceedings, this Court had called upon the State Government
to place on record any material which was taken into
consideration by the State Government to accept the resolution
passed by the BDA. By way of a memo dated 17.03.2025, the
learned AGA furnished copy of a communication dated
15.03.2025 made by the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban
Development Department to the learned Government Advocate.
This Court finds that in the communication dated 15.03.2025
the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department,
has only culled out the recommendation or the resolution
passed by the Board of the Bangalore Development Authority
and for the same reasons, the State Government has accepted
the resolution passed by the Board of the Bangalore
Development Authority.
9. Learned Counsel Sri B.Vachan, appearing for the
respondent-BDA vehemently contended that the Justice
K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee was required to examine as to
whether the deletion of lands by the State Government
subsequent to the notification dated 23.02.2004 and before
issuance of notification dated 18.06.2014 was in accordance
with the dicta laid down by the Division Bench and whether it
was in compliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court in
the Bondu Ramaswamy's case. Learned Counsel would
therefore submit that the Committee was required to examine
the entire aspect of the matter holistically and not on case to
case basis. Learned Counsel contended, while pointing out to
the map, that the four pieces of lands are adjacent to each
other and they do form a compact unit and sites have been
formed on the lands in question and have been allotted to
various persons.
10. Learned Counsel contended that if the Committee
were to examine the case of every individual land owner, it
could find that the neighbouring lands were dropped from
acquisition proceedings for a particular reason and therefore,
the particular land also should be deleted from acquisition
proceedings because it had a common factor. On the other
hand, the directions issued by the Division Bench and the Apex
Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case was to ensure that if the
State Government had wrongly dropped the acquisition
proceedings, the said benefit cannot be given to the
neighbouring land in question, on the other hand, the dropping
of the acquisition proceedings earlier should be held as illegal
and therefore, the direction was to restore such lands for
acquisition in order to maintain a contiguity of the layout at the
hands of the BDA.
11. Heard the petitioner/party-in-person, learned Counsel
for the respondent-BDA and the learned AGA.
12. Recently, this Court has passed an order in
W.P.No.14587/2024 and connected matters where similar
contentions were raised, although the only difference between
the two matters is that the lands in question are situated at
Kempapura Village and the lands in those matters were situated
at Thanisandra Village. This Court has held in those matters
that, it is very clear that the Committee has taken into
consideration all relevant aspects before recommending the
deletion of the lands in question from acquisition proceedings,
since all the neighbouring lands surrounding the land in question
were either not notified or were deleted from acquisition
proceedings subsequently.
13. Most importantly, it is noticeable that a huge tract of
land in the same survey number, which was dropped from the
acquisition proceedings has been developed by the land owner
and a huge residential apartment structure is standing on the
said land. In fact, the petitioner contended that he has bought
an apartment therein and is residing in the said apartment. The
Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee has found on physical
verification that the four pieces of land are disjoint and BDA
could not form a well defined contiguous self-contained layout
on the lands in question. It was found that large extents of
lands surrounding these small pieces of land notified for
acquisition, having not been notified for acquisition, by no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that a well defined layout
can be formed out of the acquired pieces of land scattered all
around and located at the disjointed places. The Committee has
noticed the working plan produced by the BDA and found that
out of 11 acres of land which are notified for acquisition under
the modified final notification dated 18.06.2014, the area
available for formation of plots is about 9753 sq. mtrs. and the
total number of sites of different dimensions, including corner
sites proposed to be formed in these lands are about 95. The
Committee found that in the event of continuing with the
acquisition and the respective land owners accepting the
developed land in lieu of compensation, the number of sites that
may be left for BDA would be about 55. This is what is found in
respect of all the lands acquired and continued in the final
notification dated 18.06.2014, in Kempapura Village. The
Committee therefore recommended deletion of the lands in
question, since the acquisition of the lands in Kempapura Village
has become illogical and impractical. The Committee also found
that no third party interest has been created in respect of the
lands in question.
14. Having regard to the specific observations of the
Committee and the fact that neither the Board of the BDA nor
the State Government has considered the relevant aspects of
the matter viz., whether the petitioner is entitled for an order of
deletion, since the petitioner has raised grounds which form
common factor vis-à-vis the neighbouring lands which were
dropped from acquisition proceedings, the decision of the State
Government in this regard to continue with the acquisition
proceedings, would be contrary to the directions issued in
Bondu Ramaswamy. In the considered opinion of this Court,
the directions issued in Bondu Ramaswamy to consider
whether the continuation of the acquisition proceedings would
be illogical and impractical, would arise if the land owners fail to
satisfy the first test viz., common factor for dropping of the
acquisition proceedings. If it is a case where the land owner is
not entitled for such a benefit, where no common factor for
dropping the acquisition proceedings are found, then the
question of considering whether the lands form an island of a
layout and whether it would be logical and practical to continue
the acquisition, are required to be considered. In the present
case, since the petitioner was entitled for dropping of the
acquisition proceedings on the ground of common factor, the
petitioner is bound to succeed."
9. The orders of the coordinate bench, have on today,
become final. The facts obtaining in the cases at hand are
completely identical to the facts obtaining in the afore-quoted two
judgments and like the success in the other two cases, the subject
petitions are also bound to succeed.
10. For the afore reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petitions are Allowed.
(ii) Impugned final Notification dated 18-06-2014 issued by
the 1st respondent, qua the lands of the petitioners, in
both the petitions, stand quashed.
(iii) The petitioners, in both these petitions, become entitled
to all the consequential benefits that would flow from
the quashment of the impugned notification.
Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand
disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
