Disposed

Far East Broad Casting Associates of India v. Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2014WP/19192/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of writ petitions challenging a letter withdrawing a portion of acquired land. Though the challenged letter was withdrawn, the Court held that independent determination of the land extent occupied by petitioners' structures is required before any dispossession.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; BDA directed to obtain independent opinion on extent of land before proceeding with dispossession.

Far East Broad Casting Associates of India Vs Bangalore… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^th DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos. 19192-193 OF 2011 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Far East Broad Casting Associates of India, a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, having its registered office at No.7, Commissariat Road, Bangalore – 560 025, Represented by its Director, Mr. A.G. Ashok.

¶9

Samuel Chiranjivi, Deacon, Aged about 49 years, No.61/8, 2^nd Cross, P.G.Block, J.C.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 006.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(By Shri. Rajendra M.S., Advocate for M/s. Holla and Holla, Advocates)

¶12

¶13

AND:

¶14

Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West Extension, Bangalore – 560 020,

¶15

Represented by its Commissioner.

¶16

The Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West Extension, Bangalore – 560 020.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(By Shri. K.M. Prakash, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2)

¶19

¶20

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter issued by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority dated 27.05.2011 (Annexure-K).

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶24

respondents.

¶25

The first petitioner is said to be a religious and

¶26

charitable institution registered under the Karnataka Societies

¶27

¶28

Registration Act, 1960. It claims to be the owner and in possession of Sy.No.37/1 measuring 28 guntas and 38/2A measuring 39 guntas, total extent of 1 acre 22 guntas of Hennur Village, Bangalore North Taluk, which was said to have been purchased under a sale deed dated 28.02.1984. There was an incorrect description of the property, which was duly rectified under a Rectification Deed dated 31.08.2001. It was then brought to the attention of the petitioners that several lands, including the property belonging the petitioners, was subject matter of acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA’, for brevity), for the purpose of formation of the Hennur-Banaswadi Road Layout, vide preliminary notification dated 27.06.1978 and that after a lapse of seven years, a final notification dated 9.1.1985 was issued. It was noticed that the name of the predecessors in title of the petitioners, were not reflected in the notifications and that the petitioners remained unaware of the acquisition proceedings. However, after having purchased the property, the

¶29

¶30

petitioners claim to have constructed a Church, an Orphanage, an Old Age Home, a Bible Training Centre, a Coffin Factory, a Music School, etc., and that it has a congregation of over 1,300 families worshipping at the Church and that there are 32 orphans in the Orphanage and over 18 other old and destitute people occupying the Old Age home. It is stated that the petitioner became aware of the acquisition only in 2008 and it is thereafter that a writ petition was filed challenging the acquisition proceedings before this Court in W.P.No.9804/2008. The said petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners, by an order dated 15.07.2008. Incidentally, the petitioners had also approached the State Government seeking that the petitioners be permitted to retain their properties and that the State withdraws from the acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioners’ property was concerned.

¶31

It transpires that the first respondent – BDA, in

¶32

response to the request and the direction issued by this Court in

¶33

¶34

the aforesaid Writ petition, had conducted a survey of the lands and identified the lands over which there were constructions put up by the petitioners. Thereafter, a resolution was passed by the BDA dated 15.02.2011 to endorse that 20 guntas of land corresponding to the area occupied by the structures, could be left out of the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners on coming to know of a further second resolution dated 5.4.2011 dropping the 20 guntas of land from acquisition, made a representation to dispute the extent of land that was sought to be deleted. After communication of the fact that a second resolution dated 5.4.2011 having been passed, it was followed by a further communication from the Commissioner, BDA to state that the earlier resolutions dated 15.02.2011 and 5.4.2011 cannot be given effect to and it was for the petitioner to make an appropriate application seeking allotment of the land as a civic amenity site, which could be considered. It is at that stage that the present petitions are filed.

¶35

¶36

It now transpires that during the pendency of that writ petition, the communication issued by the Commissioner dated 27.05.2011 has been withdrawn. Therefore, the primary challenge being to the said document, the petition is rendered infructuous. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since there is a finding as per resolution dated 5.4.2011 that what could be withdrawn from the acquisition is only 20 guntas of land, as that is the extent over which the structures claimed by the petitioners stand, is a finding which is detrimental to the interest of the petitioners, since according to the petitioners, the extent of land is 40 guntas over which the structures are existing and not 20 guntas and the finding if at all, is a unilateral finding of the BDA and cannot bind the petitioners.

¶37

This aspect of the matter is alone sought to be canvassed in order to protect the interest of the petitioners, only on the ground that there is no independent finding as to the extent of land over which the structures stand and if the BDA is not

¶38

¶39

averse to deleting the lands over which the structures of the petitioners stand from acquisition, as the petitioners are engaged in public charitable works, it is appropriate that the basis on which the BDA seeks to proceed, namely that it is only 20 guntas of land which is capable of being exempted from the acquisition proceedings as it is only that extent which is covered by the structures, may or may not be the correct finding, as it is a unilateral finding by the BDA by its own survey. It would have been appropriate if there was an independent survey of the extent over which the structures of the petitioners stood, even before the resolution was passed in that regard.

¶40

In any event, it is for the BDA to obtain an independent opinion as to the extent of land occupied by the structures which were already standing as on the date of the resolution referred to hereinabove, so that further steps could be taken, and not in respect of 20 guntas, as opined. With that observation, the petitions stand disposed of. Without an

¶41

¶42

independent determination of the extent of land over which the structures stand, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed of the

same.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Far East Broad Casting Associates of India v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Far East Broad Casting Associates of India v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nova Medical Centers Private Limited Vs Nil

Sri Munianjanappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Bangalore on Line (India) Ltd. Vs Nil

Parvathamma Vs State of Karnataka

P M Mohammed Ali Vs the State of Karnataka

S C T College of Education (B.Ed.) Vs State of Karnataka