Quashed

Sri G K Avalappa @ G.K Rajanna v. Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2014WP/29678/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court addressed a writ petition challenging the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Act. The court found the scheme unimplemented and possession not taken, quashing the proceedings regarding the petitioner's land.

What did the court decide?

The acquisition proceedings against the petitioner's land at Survey No.120/4 are quashed.

Sri G K Avalappa @ G.K Rajanna Vs Government of… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF APRIL 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 29678 OF 2013 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. G.K. Avalappa @ G.K. Rajanna, Son of Late G. Krishnappa, Aged about 60 years, Residing at Gottigere Village, Bannerghatta Road, Uttarahalli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore – 560 083.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri. Nishanth A.V., Advocate )

¶11

AND:

¶12

Government of Karnataka, Urban Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001, Represented by its Secretary.

¶13

¶14

Bangalore Development Authority,

¶15

T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 020, Represented by its Commissioner.

¶16

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 020.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the notifications issued by the respondent for formation of further extension of Anjanapura Layout dated 17.3.2001 published in Karnataka Gazette on 29.3.2001, vide Annexure-D and final notification issued under Section 19 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 dated 4.3.2002/7.2.2002, published in Karnataka Gazette dated 21.3.2002, vide Annexure-F, notifying the lands of the petitioner as lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Act 1976.

¶22

This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the

¶26

learned Counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

¶27

The facts are that the petitioner claims to be the

¶28

absolute owner in physical possession of property bearing Survey No.120/4 measuring 24 guntas of Gottigere Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is said to be the ancestral property of the petitioner and that the petitioner has acquired it under a registered partition deed dated 6.2.1990. The revenue records were in the name of the petitioner from the year 1990-91.

¶29

It transpires that the BDA had notified various lands, including the land of the petitioner, under a preliminary notification dated 17.3.2001, under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BDA Act’, for brevity) for the purpose of formation of ‘Further Extension of Anjanapura Layout’.

¶30

¶31

Subsequent to the issuance of the preliminary notification, the petitioner is said to have filed objections to the acquisition. The BDA thereafter ignoring the objections raised by the petitioner, had issued a final notification dated 7.2.2002. Though no possession was taken of the land of the petitioner, a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’, for brevity) is said to have been issued on 15.10.2004 and it was notified that even the petitioner’s land had been taken possession of, which is incorrect and misleading as the petitioner had continued in possession.

¶32

It is in this background that a representation was made to the second respondent seeking that the acquisition proceedings be withdrawn insofar as the land of the petitioner was concerned, in view of the adjacent lands having been denotified. There was no action taken on the said representation. It is however pointed out that inspite of the final notification dated 7.2.2002, the land has remained in the

¶33

¶34

occupation of the petitioner and the BDA not chosen to implement the Scheme and therefore it is contended that the Scheme not having been implemented, has lapsed in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act.

¶35

It is on this assertion and the further assertion that the possession was never taken, the Counsel for the respondents was called upon to make a submission as to the extent to which the Scheme was implemented, if at all.

¶36

The learned Counsel for the respondents would, on instructions, submit that out of total extent of 52 acres, that was subject matter of acquisition, only an extent of 11 acres has been developed and formed into 201 sites and that rest of the land has not been developed.

¶37

This would endorse the claim of the petitioner that the Scheme has not been implemented at least in respect of the petitioner’s land is concerned.

¶38

Further, it is not also established that the possession of

¶39

the land was taken by producing necessary documents. Though

¶40

¶41

it is indicated that a notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act has been issued, there is no other document such as mahazar, to demonstrate that physical possession of the land had been taken, except the self serving declaration on the part of the BDA coupled with the circumstance that there has been no further development on the land in question. Consequently, the Scheme would lapse in so far as the petitioner’s land is concerned and the acquisition proceedings stand quashed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Sri G K Avalappa @ G.K Rajanna v. Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G K Avalappa @ G.K Rajanna v. Government of Karnataka

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

Kumari Punitha L Vs the Karnataka State Diploma in

Manohara B M Vs Vidyodaya Law College

Smt. Manjula Mallesh College of Education (Bed) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S Srinivasa Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Narayanamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. K. Srinivasa Rao Vs the Registrar (Evaluation)