Allowed

Sri Ramaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2014WP/11976/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed several land acquisition notifications by the Karnataka Housing Board due to the absence of a Government-approved scheme prior to acquisition. While allowing the petitions, the court permitted road construction on petitioners' land via a reconciliation statement to balance equities and prevent miscarriage of justice from prior implementation.

What did the court decide?

Acquisition proceedings set aside subject to petitioners allowing road formation via reconciliation; petitioners entitled to compensation for land given up for roads.

Sri Ramaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.13293 - 13295 OF 2011 (LA-KHB)

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION Nos.10258-10262 AND 10263 – 10264 OF

¶9

2011 (LA-KHB)

¶10

WRIT PETITION Nos.10265-10269 AND 10270/2011 (LA-

¶11

KHB)

¶12

WRIT PETITION Nos.45696-698 OF 2011 (LA-KHB) WRIT PETITION No.8107 OF 2010 (LA-HS) WRIT PETITION No.38035 OF 2009 (LA-KHB) WRIT PETITION No.11156 OF 2008 (LA-KHB) WRIT PETITION No.11155 OF 2008 (LA-KHB) WRIT PETITION No.11976 OF 2008 (LA-KHB)

¶13

WRIT PETITION Nos. 21 AND 27 OF 2011 (LA-KHB) WRIT PETITION Nos.7281-7282 OF 2011 (LA-KHB)

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.8756 OF 2012 (LA-KHB) WRIT PETITION No.44966 OF 2012 (LA-KHB)

¶15

¶16

IN W.P.Nos. 13293 to 13295/2011

¶17

BETWEEN:

¶18

Sri. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 80 years, Son of Late Veera Reddy, Resident of Guddahatti Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District.

¶19

Sri. Bheemaiah, Aged about 54 years, Son of Late Kuntappa, Resident of Yedavanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District.

¶20

Sri. Pabbareddy Kodandarami Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Son of Sri. Ranga Reddy, Residing at No.44/2/17, 18^th Cross, N.S. Palya, B T M Second Stage, Bangalore – 560 076.

¶21

The Petitioners No. 1 to 2 are Represented by their Power of Attorney Holder Sri. Pabbareddy Kodandarami Reddy, Son of Sri. Ranga Reddy, Residing at NO.44/2/17, 18^th Cross, N.S.Palya, B T M Second Stage,

¶22

¶23

Bangalore – 560 076. …PETITIONERS

¶24

(By Shri. C.M. Nagabhushana, Advocate and P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocte)

¶25

AND:

¶26

The State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001. Represented by its Principal Secretary.

¶27

The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Kempegowda Road, Bangalore – 560 009.

¶28

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Kempegowda Road, Bangalore - 560 009.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶31

Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

¶32

¶33

¶34

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification dated 14.6.2006 gazetted on 13.7.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the 2^nd respondent at Annexure-E and the final notification dated 15.3.2008 gazetted on 24.4.2008 at Annexure-F, issued by the 1^st respondent and etc;

¶35

IN W.P.Nos.10258-10262 AND 10263 – 10264 OF 2011

¶36

Sri. J.R. Jayapal Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Son of Late J.C. Ramaswamy Reddy, Resident of Jigala Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District.

¶37

Sri. J.R. Sadashiva Reddy, Aged about 69 years, Son of Late J.C. Ramaswamy Reddy, Resident of Jigala Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District.

¶38

Sri. Srinivasa Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Son of Sri. J.R. Sadashiva Reddy, Resident of Jigala Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District.

¶39

¶40

Sri. J.M. Srinivasa Reddy, Aged about 71 years, Son of Late Muniswamy Reddy, Since deceased legal representatives Are

¶41

4(a) J. S. Sampangi Rami Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Son of Late J.M. Srinivasa Reddy,

¶42

4(b) Smt. Indiramma, Aged about 45 years, Daughter of Late J.M. Srinivasa Reddy,

¶43

4(c) Smt. Komala, Aged about 40 years, Daughter of Late J.M. Srinivasa Reddy,

¶44

4(a) to (c) are residents of Dommasandra Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.

¶45

[cause title amended As per the Court order Dated 25.10.2013]

¶46

Smt. Gowramma, Aged about 52 years, Wife of Sri. Anjana Reddy, Resident of Yadavanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk,

¶47

¶48

Bangalore Urban District.

¶49

Sri. Muniyappa, Aged about 64 years, Son of Late Muniyappa, Residing at No.33, 4^th Cross, Jayanagar 1^st Block, Someshwaranagar, Bangalore – 560 011.

¶50

Smt. Bettamma, Aged about 79 years, Wife of Late Kakappa, Resident of Jigala Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District.

¶51

Sri. M. Rami Reddy, Aged about 76 years, Son of Late Musala Reddy, Resident of Adigondanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District.

¶52

Sri. Maddurappa @ Chikkamaddurappa, Aged about 71 years, Son of Late Muthappa, Resident of Jigala Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District.

¶53

¶54

Sri. Pabbareddy Kodandarami Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Son of Sri. Ranga Reddy, Residing at No.44/2/17, 18^th Cross, N.S.Palya, B T M Second Stage, Bangalore – 560 076. The petitioners No.1 to 9 are Represented by their Power of Attorney Holder, Sri. Pabbareddy Kodandarami Reddy, Son of Sri. Ranga Reddy, Residing at No.44/2/17, 18^th Cross, N.S.Palya, BTM Second Stage, Bangalore – 560 076. …PETITIONERS (By Shri. C.M. Nagabhushana, Advocate) AND:

¶55

The State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001. Represented by its Principal Secretary.

¶56

The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Kempegowda Road, Bangalore – 560 009.

¶57

The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

¶58

¶59

The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Kempegowda Road, Bangalore – 560 009. …RESPONDENTS

¶60

(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶61

Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

¶62

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification dated 14.6.2006 gazetted on 13.7.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the 2^nd respondent at Annexure-Hand the final notification dated 15.3.2008 gazetted on 24.4.2008 at Annexure-J, issued by the 1^st respondent and etc;

¶63

IN W.P.Nos.10265-10269 and 10270/2011

¶64

BETWEEN:

¶65

Sri. S.L. Kenche Gowda, Aged about 49 years, Son of Sri. Lakshmana Gowda, Sollepura Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.

¶66

Sri. M. Venkataswamy Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Son of Late Musala Reddy, Resident of Aadigundanahalli, Attibele Hobli,

¶67

¶68

Anekal Taluk,

¶69

Bangalore District.

¶70

R. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 51 years, Son of Sri Rama Reddy, Resident of Aadigundanahalli, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.

¶71

Smt. Shanthamma, Aged about 47 years, Wife of Sri. G. Jayarama Reddy, Resident of Aadigundanahalli, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.

¶72

Sri. G. Jayarama Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Son of Sri. Gurappa Reddy, Resident of Aadigundanahalli, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.

¶73

Smt. Anthonamma, Aged about 77 years, Wife of Late Souraiah, Resident of Aadigundanahalli, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.

¶74

¶75

Sri. Pobbareddy Kodandarami Reddy, Aged about 38 years, Son of Sri Ranga Reddy, Residing at No.44/2/17, 18^th Cross, N.S. Palya, BTM II Stage, Bangalore – 560 076. The petitioners 1 to 6 are Represented by their Power of Attorney Holder Sri. Pobbareddy Kodandarami Reddy, Aged about 38 years, Son of Sri Ranga Reddy, Residing at No.44/2/17, 18^th Cross, N.S. Palya, BTM II Stage, Bangalore – 560 076. …PETITIONERS

¶76

(By Shri. C.M. Nagabhushana, Advocate)

¶77

AND:

¶78

The State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001. Represented by its Principal Secretary.

¶79

The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Kempegowda Road, Bangalore – 560 009.

¶80

¶81

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Kempegowda Road, Bangalore – 560 009. …RESPONDENTS

¶82

(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶83

Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

¶84

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification dated 19.9.2006 gazetted on 12.10.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the 2^nd respondent at Annexure-J and the final notification dated 2.2.2008 gazetted on 28.2.2008 at Annexure-K, issued by the 1^st respondent and etc;

¶85

IN W.P.Nos.45696-698/2011

¶86

BETWEEN:

¶87

Sri. Y.N. Narayana Reddy, Son of Late Nanja Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 75 years, Yadavanahally Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District PIN: 562 107. …PETITIONER

¶88

(By Shri. H.R. Anantha Krishna Murthy, Advocate )

¶89

¶90

AND:

¶91

The State of Karnataka Represented by Revenue Secretary, M.S.Building,

¶92

Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶93

The Karnataka Housing Board, Represented by its Commissioner, Cauvery Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bengaluru – 560 009.

¶94

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bengaluru – 560 009. …RESPONDENTS

¶95

(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶96

Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

¶97

¶98

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the final notification dated 15.03.2008, produced at Annexure-K, in respect of survey nos. survey no.14/3, Sy.No.122 and Sy.No.133/2, situated at Yadavanahally Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District.

¶99

¶100

IN W.P.No.8107 OF 2010

¶101

BETWEEN:

¶102

V. Krishna Murthy, Son of R. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Residing at Jigala Village, Attibele Taluk, Anekal, Bangalore District.

¶103

…PETITIONER

¶104

(By Shri. Reuben Jacob, Advocate) AND:

¶105

State of Karnataka Department of Housing and Urban Development, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶106

The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore By its Commissioner.

¶107

The Special and Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore. …RESPONDENTS

¶108

(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶109

¶110

Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

¶111

¶112

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification issued by the first respondent under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 14.6.2006 and the final notification dated 15.3.2008 vide Annexure-A and B. In so far as the petitioner’s schedule land is concerned.

¶113

IN W.P.No.38035 /2009

¶114

BETWEEN:

¶115

J.M. Gurumurthy Reddy, Son of Late Muniswamy Reddy, Aged about 70 years, Residing at Jigala Village, Yadavanahalli Post, Anekal Taluk – 562 107, Bangalore District. …PETITIONER

¶116

(By Shri. Reuben Jacob, Advocate)

¶117

AND:

¶118

State of Karnataka Department of Housing and Urban Development, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶119

The Karnataka Housing Board,

¶120

¶121

Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore

¶122

By its Commissioner.

¶123

The Special and Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore. …RESPONDENTS

¶124

(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶125

Shri. Raghavendra A Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

IN W.P.No.11156/2008

BETWEEN:

R. Pillareddy, Son of Ramareddy, Aged about 52 years, Residing at Jigala Village, Yadavanahalli Post, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.

¶131

…PETITIONER

¶132

¶133

(By Shri. Reuben Jacob, Advocate)

¶134

AND:

¶135

State of Karnataka Department of Housing and Urban Development, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶136

The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore By its Commissioner.

¶137

The Special and Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore. …RESPONDENTS

¶138

(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶139

Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

IN W.P.No.11155/2008

BETWEEN:

N. Srinivas, Son of Late R. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Residing at Jigila Village, Attibele Post, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.

¶146

J.N. Munireddy, Son of Late R. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Residing at Jigila Village, Attibele Post, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.

¶147

J.N. Prakash, Son of Late R. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Residing at Jigila Village, Attibele Post, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District. …PETITIONERS

¶148

(By Shri. Reuben Jacob, Advocate)

¶149

AND:

¶150

The State of Karnataka Department of Housing and

¶151

¶152

Urban Development, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶153

The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore By its Commissioner.

¶154

The Special and Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore. …RESPONDENTS

¶155

(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶156

Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

IN W.P.No.11976/2008

BETWEEN:

Sri. Ramaiah, Son of Sri. Muniyappa,

¶162

¶163

	Since dead by legal representatives
1a)	Sri. Venkateshramaiah, Son of Late M. Ramaiah, Age: 37 years, No.112, 6^thCross, S.R.Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 027.
2.	Sri. M. Lakshmaiah, Son of Sri. Muthappa, Aged about 45 years,
3.	Sri. Y.M. Jayram, Son of Sri. Muthappa, Aged about 40 years,
4.	Sri. Krishnappa, Son of Muniyappa, Aged about 47 years,
5.	Sri. Jayaram, Son of Muniyappa, Aged about 39 years,
	All are residents of Yadavanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. …PETITIONERS
(By	Shri. H.R. Krishnamurthy, Advocate)
AN	D:

¶164

State of Karnataka,

¶165

¶166

Revenue Department, V Floor, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶167

Commissioner,

¶168

Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶169

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶170

(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶171

Shri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

¶172

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the final notification dated 15.3.2008 under the original of Annexure-M in respect of Sy.No.123/4, 123/6 and 131/2, situated at Yedavanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.

¶173

IN W.P.Nos.21 AND 27/2011

¶174

BETWEEN:

¶175

V. Narayana Reddy,

¶176

Aged about 48 years, Son of Late Venkata Reddy, Residing at Adigondanahalli, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District.

¶177

¶178

V. Muniyellappa, Aged about 52 years, Son of Late Venkatappa, Residing at Adigondanahalli, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. …PETITIONERS (By Shri. S. Chennaraya Reddy, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, M.S.Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001. 2. The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Kempegowda Road, Bengaluru – 560 009, Represented by its Chairman. 3. The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Kempegowda Road, Bengaluru – 560 009, Represented by its Commissioner. …RESPONDENTS

¶179

(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1 Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

¶180

¶181

¶182

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Acquisition of the petitioners lands bearing Sy.No.33 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas situated at Adigondanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli,, Anekal Taluk, belong to the first petitioner and 30 guntas in Sy.No.37, 12 guntas in Sy.No.38/1 and 12 guntas in Sy.No.38/2 belong to the second petitioner situated at Adigondanahalli, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, in the final notification dated 2.2.2008 issued by the respondents under Section 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act as per Annexure-U.

¶183

IN W.P.Nos.7281-7282 OF 2011

¶184

BETWEEN:

¶185

Sri. N. Chandra Reddy, Son of Narayana Reddy, Aged about 57 years, Residing at Adigondanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk – 562 104, Bangalore District.

¶186

Sri. N. Ravi, Son of Narayana Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Residing at Adigondanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk – 562 104, Bangalore Distroct. …PETITIONERS

¶187

(By Shri. G.A. Viswanatha Reddy, Advocate)

¶188

¶189

AND:

¶190

The State of Karnataka, Department of Housing and Urban Development Vikasa Soudha,

¶191

Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,

¶192

Bangalore – 560 001.

¶193

The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009, By its Commissioner.

¶194

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009. …RESPONDENTS

¶195

(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1 Shri. R. Srinivasa and Shri. R.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

¶196

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary notification issued by the first respondent under Section 4(1) of the Act bearing dated 19.09.2006 in Acquisition of lands bearing Sy.Nos. 126 and 110 meauring 1 acre 12 guntas and 2 acres 3 guntas respectively situated at Adigondanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, vide Annexure-A and etc;

IN W.P.No.8756/2012

BETWEEN:

Smt. Manjulamma, Wife of M. Manjunatha, Aged about 39 years, Residing at Prashanth Nilaya, Behind Milk-Dairy, Nallappa Layout, New Pet Anekal Town, Bangalore District. …PETITIONER

¶201

(By Shri. D.R.P. Babu, Advocate)

¶202

AND:

¶203

The State of Karnataka, Department of Housing and Urban Development Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶204

The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009, By its Commissioner.

¶205

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009. …RESPONDENTS

¶206

(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶207

¶208

Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

¶209

¶210

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary notification issued by the first respondent under Section 4(1) of the Act bearing No. KAG.L.A. 45/2006-07, dated 14.06.2006 in respect of lands bearing Sy.Nos. 19, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Jigala Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, vide AnnexureA and etc;

¶211

IN W.P.No.44966/2012

¶212

BETWEEN:

¶213

Sri. V. Rajappa, Son of Veerappa, Aged 51 years, Residing at Thirumagondanahalli Village, Hosur Main Road, Attibele Hobli, Neralur Post, Bangalore – 562 107. …PETITIONER

¶214

(By Shri. B. Ramesh, Advocate)

¶215

AND:

¶216

The State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary, To the Department of Revenue, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶217

The Karnataka Housing Board,

¶218

¶219

Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009, Represented by its Commissioner.

¶220

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 009. …RESPONDENTS

¶221

(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶222

Shri. H.G. Vasanth Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

¶223

¶224

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash or such other writ or setting aside the notification dated 19.9.2006 vide Annexure-F and also the notification dated 2.2.2008 vide Annexure-G issued by second respondent.

¶225

These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶226

O R D E R

¶227

These petitions are disposed of by the common order,

¶228

having regard to the facts and circumstances.

¶229

The petitioners in these petitions are said to be owners

¶230

of various items of lands in differing extents, situated in three villages namely Yadavanahalli, Jigala and Adigondanahalli of

¶231

¶232

Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The said lands were proposed to be acquired for purposes of forming a Housing Layout by the Karnataka Housing Board. Therefore, a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’, for brevity) dated 14.06.2006 was issued.

¶233

Though the petitioners had filed their objections, it is claimed that the same were over-ruled and a final declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act was issued on 15.03.2008, which was duly published in the Gazette on 24.04.2008. It is the said proceedings which are sought to be questioned in these petitions. There is a primary ground raised in these petitions namely, whether the acquisition proceedings are vitiated on account of there being no ‘Scheme’ formulated and approved by the State Government, preceding the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. The very question having arisen for consideration in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.24113/2012 and connected cases in the case of Pachappa vs. State of

¶234

¶235

Karnataka and other s decided on 6.12.2013, a view has been taken that provision of land for carrying out a Housing Scheme by such a body as the Karnataka Housing Board, is a public purpose and in defining the expression ‘public purpose’ under Section 3(f) of the LA Act, clause (vi) provides thus:-

¶236

“(vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by Government, or by any authority established by Government for carrying out any such scheme, or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority, or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State or a co-operative society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force in any State;”

¶237

And sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Karnataka

¶238

Housing Board Act, lays down thus:

¶239

“(4) For the purpose of this Act and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Board shall be deemed to be a Local Authority.”

¶240

¶241

Therefore, the provision of land for a local authority can only be in respect of a Scheme duly approved by the Government. There is no escaping the requirement of existence of a Scheme duly approved by the Government, prior to the initiation of acquisition proceedings. In this regard, Section 32 of the KHB Act is relevant and the tenor of the said Section is as follows:

¶242

“ 32. Schemes entrusted to Board by Government, etc.- (1) The provisions of Sections 18 to 24 (both inclusive) shall not be applicable to any [housing scheme, land development scheme or a labour housing scheme] entrusted to the Board by the State Government except to such extent and subject to such modifications as may be specified in any general or special order made by the State Government, and every such order shall be published in the Official Gazette.

¶243

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Board shall not be competent to carry on any trading or

¶244

¶245

financing activity for profit, whether in the execution of any scheme undertaken by, or entrusted to it, or otherwise.”

¶246

Since it is not claimed that the scheme which was ultimately framed and approved by the State Government was not one entrusted to the Housing Board by the State Government, therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the KHB Act would be applicable, which is reproduced hereunder:

¶247

“S.33………………….

¶248

(2) The Board may also take steps for

¶249

the compulsory acquisition of any land or any interest therein required for the execution of a housing scheme [or land development scheme] in the manner provided in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as modified by this Act and the acquisition of any land or any interest therein for the purposes of this Act shall be deemed to be acquisition for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”

¶250

¶251

Therefore, without the scheme having been framed and approved by the State Government prior to the stage of execution of the project by the KHB, the compulsory acquisition of land for the execution of the Scheme is only in the manner provided under the Land Acquisition Act and the Karnataka Housing Board, as a local authority, can only acquire land pursuant to a Scheme duly approved by the State Government, as contemplated under Sections 3 (f)(vi) of the LA Act.

¶252

Hence, the Karnataka Housing Board intended to execute a Housing scheme of its own and not one sponsored by the Government and proceeded to acquire land for the execution of the project only in terms of the provisions of the LA Act and as a local authority, is capable of acquiring land only in accordance with a scheme duly approved by the State Government. As there was no scheme or anything akin to a scheme duly approved by the State Government, there was non-

¶253

¶254

compliance with the compulsory requirement and hence, the petitions deserve to be allowed.

¶255

However, the learned counsel Shri Basavaraj V.

¶256

Sabarad, in a last minute effort, seeks to produce a document which is sought to be styled as a ‘scheme’. However, it is noticed that the said document is only a letter, whereby a proposal is made for acquisition or purchase of land in furtherance of the formation of a layout. That by itself cannot be considered as a ‘scheme’, for it is on record and it is candidly admitted that a ‘scheme’ formally framed and approved by the State Government is available and that is much subsequent to the acquisition proceedings having been initiated. Therefore, there is no doubt of the fact that there was no scheme formulated, preceding the acquisition of land.

¶257

However, it is to be kept in view that several petitions

¶258

were filed at a stage which cannot be considered as belated and it is in that circumstance that this court had thought it fit to

¶259

¶260

grant interim orders, restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. It would naturally follow that the respondents have not taken possession of the lands of several of these petitioners and there was no possibility of any development having taken place over the said lands as on date. However, it is the case of the respondents that there has been substantial implementation of the scheme in forming sites and other common areas such as roads and civic amenities. The present petitions being allowed and the acquisition proceedings being set at naught, would result in a miscarriage of justice and therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that notwithstanding there were interim orders of stay granted in these petitions, in view of the fact that there has been substantial implementation of the project, there is no warrant for interference by this Court.

¶261

It is the settled legal position that any delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings would be fatal to the

¶262

¶263

case, when the acquisition proceedings have been taken to their

¶264

logical conclusion and there has been substantial implementation of the scheme. The acquisition proceedings being set at naught at the instance of some of the land owners, may result in gross injustice and therefore, seeks that there be a reconsideration, notwithstanding the legal position which has been laid down and which is sought to be followed.

¶265

Given the circumstances and in order to balance

¶266

equities between the parties and also at the same time to ensure that there is a fair decision, it was directed that the respondents and the petitioners have a dialogue to address the sanctioned plan, in the formation of the layout, that has been implemented and which is proposed over the remaining area, especially the roads that would overlap the petitioners’ lands. After having had such a meeting, the petitioners have unanimously declared before this Court that they would have no objection to the roads being formed over their lands, to the extent that is now

¶267

¶268

indicated on a reconciliation of the sanctioned plan of the layout, vis-à-vis the lands of the several petitioners, the details of which lands are annexed to this order, with reference to each of the petitioners and their respective lands. The said statement however includes other land owners, whose petitions are not disposed of by this order. The benefit of the same however, shall extend to those petitioners as well. It is also made clear that the question of delay and laches looms large. It shall be a condition laid down by this Court as self-imposed, that no further petitions of any other land owners shall be entertained henceforth, apart from the petitions which are already lodged as on date before this Court on the very same ground that is urged, to prevent failure of the acquisition proceedings in its entirety, which is the foreseeable result, if the other land owners are allowed to approach this Court on the strength of the present order.

¶269

¶270

Therefore, the order of this court is restricted to those

¶271

petitioners who have already approached this Court and who are found to be eligible to claim relief with the condition that the petitioners herein shall permit the formation of roads in the area that is agreed to be given up and such other common areas that can be accommodated within the area that is agreed to be given up by the respective petitioners, shall be taken over by the respondents. The petitioners however, shall develop or alienate the lands, subject to the law of the land, in that, they shall deal with the lands and shall comply with all procedures in further dealing with the land and to ensure that there is consonance and contiguity with the layout that shall be formed by the respondents. This can best be ensured, if the petitioners comply with the legal formalities in obtaining necessary sanctions and approvals of any development that may take place over the land. With these observations, the petitions are allowed and the acquisition proceedings, subject to the exceptions noted above, are set-aside only to the extent of the

¶272

¶273

petitioners’ lands are concerned. Insofar as the areas that are given up by the petitioners for the purposes of formation of road, the petitioners shall be entitled to lawful compensation which is payable, and to avail of such other scheme that is available and applicable to the petitioners.

¶274

The list comprising the ‘Details of land area required for connectivity of Essential Service in Litigated Land’, which is furnished by the Karnataka Housing Board on 17.01.2014, shall be made part of this order.

¶275

Sd/JUDGE

¶276

Sri Ramaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas D Souza S/O Pedro D Souza Vs the State of Karnataka

Stanley Rodrigues, Vs the State of Karnataka

Victor Rebello S/O John Rebello Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayana Reddy S/O Late Veera Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Manjulamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Rajappa Vs the State of Karnataka