Allowed

Sri Lal Bahaddur Ralhan v. Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC24 Apr 2014WP/43732/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged acquisition of their properties by BDA under the BDA Act. The court found the scheme lapsed and quashed acquisition proceedings concerning petitioners' lands because the BDA failed to execute the scheme substantially within five years of the final notification and possession was not validly taken.

What did the court decide?

The scheme is declared to have lapsed in respect of the petitioners' lands and the acquisition proceedings are quashed.

Sri Lal Bahaddur Ralhan Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos. 43732-43734 OF 2013 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Lal Bahaddur Ralhan, Son of Kasturi Lal Ralhan, Aged about 62 years,

¶9

Sri. Deepak Ralhan, Son of Lal Bahaddur Ralhan, Aged about 36 years,

¶10

Sri. Vikram Ralhan, Son of Lal Bahaddur Ralhan, Aged about 32 years,

¶11

All above residing at No.150, Mahalakshmi Layout, 2^nd Stage, 2^nd Phase, Near Nandini Theatre, Bangalore – 560 086.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(By Shri. M.S. Bhagawat, Advocate for Shri. Prabhugoud B Tumbigi, Advocate for M/s. M.T. Nanaiah and Associates )

¶14

¶15

AND:

¶16

Bangalore Development Authority, Represented by its Commissioner, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark West, Bangalore – 560 020.

¶17

The State of Karnataka, Department of Housing and Urban Development, represented by its Secretary, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Shri. C.R. Gopalaswamy, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.2)

¶20

¶21

These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records from the respondents and declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents pursuant to the notification dated 16.11.1977 issued by the 1^st respondent under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act 1976 vide Annexure-J and declaration vide notification dated 30.8.1979 issued by the 2^nd respondent under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act 1976 vide Annexure-K has lapsed. In so far as the petition schedule properties belonging to the petitioners are concerned.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard Shri M.S.Bhagawat appearing for the Counsel for

¶26

the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner

¶28

is the absolute owner of property bearing Municipal No.29, BBMP PID – 11 -110-29, measuring 7237 Square Feet together with a building measuring 13 squares constructed thereon; the second petitioner is the absolute owner of property bearing Municipal No.29/2 BBMP PID – 11-110-29/2 measuring 10741.50 square feet, with a building measuring 3 squares constructed thereon and the third petitioner is the absolute owner of Municipal No.29/3 BBMP PID – 11-110-29/3 measuring 2025 square feet and a building measuring 2 square constructed thereon.

¶29

It is claimed that the petitioners are in undisturbed possession of the aforesaid properties as absolute owners and have constructed a factory and are running the same, after obtaining necessary licenses from the competent authority.

¶30

¶31

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has issued a Preliminary Notification under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BDA Act’, for brevity), dated 16.11.1977 proposing to acquire 1,505 acres 26 guntas of Laggere and Jarakabandekaval villates, for the purpose of formation of a residential layout, called ‘Nandini Layout’. Under the said notification, the lands in Survey No.1 of Jarakabandekaval village measuring 393 acres 25 guntas are proposed for acquisition. A final declaration under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act dated 30.8.2978 was issued notifying the lands measuring 786 acres 10 guntas of the aforesaid two villages.

¶32

It is claimed that an award has been passed in respect of a portion of the acquired land, namely, 102 acres 35 guntas which has been approved by the Government on 26.4.1984. A notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’, for brevity) dated 16.11.1984 was issued alleging that the possession of lands

¶33

¶34

measuring 102 acres 35 guntas has been taken by the first respondent on 29.1.1982 and 15.4.1982.

¶35

Subsequently, yet another award came to be passed in respect of an extent of 127 acres 21 guntas, which was inclusive of 102 acres 35 guntas covered under the earlier award and exclusive of 69 acres and 8 guntas of built up area and the area where private layouts were formed, on 20.9.1984. However, the award was not approved by the Government and has not become final.

¶36

It is claimed that no compensation amount was paid to the petitioners or their predecessor in title and that the petitioners have continued in possession of the lands.

¶37

It is further claimed that the petitioners had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.4637/2001 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore against the BDA, seeking perpetual injunction, which was decreed. It was observed in the judgment that the properties of the petitioners did not fall within the acquired area, namely, 393 acres and also did not fall within the area in

¶38

¶39

respect of which an award was passed and possession has been taken, namely, in about 103 acres out of 393 acres. The first respondent had challenged said judgment and decree by way of an appeal in RFA 2107/2011, which is said to be pending.

¶40

It is in this background that the present petitions are filed

¶41

seeking to declare the scheme as lapsed in so far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned.

¶42

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are in settled possession of the property in question. The award was passed on 26.4.1984 in respect of a portion of the acquired land, namely 102 acres and 35 guntas and the same was approved by the Government. The subsequent award passed on 20.9.1984 has not been approved. Therefore, there is no award in the eye of law.

¶43

Further, it is contended that the date of taking possession mentioned in the mahazar and the date of notification issued under Section 16(2) of the LA Act are different. The so-called mahazar is in a cyclostyled form and does not contain the

¶44

¶45

names and particulars of the witnesses and the signature of the land owners and hence, cannot be a basis for taking possession.

¶46

It is also contended that the scheme not having been implemented within five years from the date of final notification, would lapse under Section 27 of the BDA Act.

¶47

The learned Counsel would therefore contend that the petitions be allowed and the scheme be declared as lapsed in so far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned.

¶48

The learned Counsel for the BDA has filed statement of

¶49

objections to contend that the BDA had issued a final declaration under section 19(1) of the BDA Act notifying an extent of 786 acres and 10 guntas in respect of various survey numbers of Laggere and Jarakabandekaval. Thereafter, the award was passed in three stages. At the first stage, an award dated 23.9.1986 was passed in respect of 102 acres and 35 guntas and the possession of the land was taken and was handed over to the Engineering Section. At the second stage, an award dated 4.6.1985 was passed in respect of Survey No.1 of

¶50

¶51

Jarakabandekaval pertaining to land measuring 127 acres and 21 guntas and possession of the land was also taken. And at the third stage, an award dated 23.9.1986 was passed in respect of other survey numbers and possession of the land was taken on 8.10.1986 and 20.10.1986 in respect of 34 acres and 25 guntas, but no award was passed. It is denied that the layout has not been formed and the scheme has not been implemented substantially.

¶52

In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the possession of the property of the petitioners has been taken by the BDA. In that, the first award, which relates to an extent of 102 acres 35 guntas is passed on 26.4.1984. The second award, which was passed on 20.9.1984 is in respect of 127 acres 21 guntas, which extent includes 102 acres 35 guntas as well and the same was not approved by the Government and the third award dated 20.9.1984 was also not approved by the Government and therefore, as contended by the petitioners, there is no award in the eye of law. Even though the BDA

¶53

¶54

claims to have taken possession of the lands in question, there is no material produced to show that the property of the petitioners have been taken possession of.

¶55

Further, the so-called mahazar produced by the respondent – BDA is in a cyclostyled form and does not contain the names and particulars of the witnesses and the signature of the land owners and hence, cannot be a basis for taking possession.

¶56

As held by this court in its earlier decisions, if the

¶57

authority fails to execute the Scheme substantially within five years from the date of the final notification, the Scheme is required to be held to have lapsed. Therefore, the scheme in so far as the lands of the petitioners is concerned, is to be declared to have lapsed and it is so declared. The acquisition proceedings in so far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned, is quashed.

¶58

¶59

The petitions are allowed.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

Sri Lal Bahaddur Ralhan v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lal Bahaddur Ralhan 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

Aswathi Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ghouse Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri S. Sundaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

M N Nagendra Vs Assistant Commissioner

Jyothiamma Vs the Principal Secretary

Jyothiamma Vs the Principal Secretary