Petitioner challenged accumulation of acquisition proceedings for her land over 21 years without award or possession. Court held scheme lapsed for her land under BDA Act Section 27 due to non-implementation, quashing proceedings.
The proceedings initiated in respect of the petitioner's land are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 03rd DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.50862 OF 2012 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
Smt. Saroja, Wife of Late Chikkaiah .C, Aged about 60 years, Resident of No.1375, 24th Main, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bangalore – 560070.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. Sharath .N, Advocate for M/s. Pavamana Associates)
AND:
2
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore – 560 020.
T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West,
…RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1
Shri. K. Krishna, Advocate for Respondent No.2 )
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification issued by the second respondent published in Karnataka Gazette dated 19.1.1989 for J.P.Nagar, 9th Phase, as per Annexure – B and final notification issued by the first respondent, vide Annexure-C and etc;
This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Counsel for the respondents.
3
The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land bearing Survey No.1/3 of Vajarahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, having inherited the same through her father, who is said to have died on 7.12.2009 and who, in turn, had acquired the same under a partition deed. The said land was proposed for acquisition for the purpose of formation of the J.P.Nagar 9th Phase under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BDA Act’, for brevity). A notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act was issued on 19.1.1989, which was followed by final notification dated 22.7.1991.
subsequent to the issuance of such notifications, there has been no further action on the part of the respondents insofar as the petitioner’s land is concerned and possession continues to be with the petitioner. Even during the lifetime of her husband, the proceedings having been initiated, there were several
4
representations made by him seeking that the land be dropped from the acquisition proceedings. In reply, it was stated that since the land was subject matter of the final notification, the question of dropping the same from acquisition would not arise. However, it is further stated that there was a Committee constituted by the Government of Karnataka to address whether there was scope for dropping certain lands from acquisition and the petitioner’s land was in the list of properties, which were subject matter of consideration by the said Committee and there was a recommendation to withdraw from acquisition in respect of the petitioner’s land was concerned. The resolution passed by the Committee is produced as annexure to the petition. It is therefore evident, according to the petitioner, that there was no intention to proceed further with the acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner’s property was concerned and it is for that reason that no award was passed nor was possession taken in respect of the petitioner’s land in question though the scheme insofar as the
5
formation of the J.P.Nagar 9th Phase was concerned may have been implemented in respect of other items of land, which were subject matter of acquisition. And hence, in the light of the respondents not having indicated whether the land of the petitioner is any longer subject matter of acquisition proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present petition, to primarily contend that on account of inaction for more than 21 years from the date of final notification, the scheme not having been implemented insofar as the petitioner’s property is concerned, the same would be redundant and would lapse in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act.
hand, would state that it is admitted that no award has been passed and that possession has not been taken in respect of the land in question. However, the contention that the Scheme has lapsed by virtue of no further proceedings having been taken in respect of the petitioner’s land, may not be the correct position of law, for Section 27 of the BDA Act contemplates that the
6
Scheme not having been implemented substantially, would result in the Scheme becoming redundant and not in respect of any portion of land, as sought to be contended. Further, the question whether an award was passed within a period of two years, is not relevant, insofar as Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would not be applicable to acquisition under the BDA Act, as enunciated by the apex court in the case of Offshore Holdings (P) Limited vs. Bangalore Development Authority, (2011(3) SCC 139) and therefore, the Counsel would submit that in the absence of any limitation period for passing an award, the argument canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
7
substantially, has lapsed and has accordingly allowed the petition in similar circumstances and therefore, would submit that the said decision would clinch the issue and hence seeks that the petition be allowed.
the question whether the entire Scheme has lapsed, the fact remains that no award has been passed nor possession has been taken of the land in question and even from the reported decision, it is seen that it is restricted to the extent of the petitioners’ lands therein. In the admitted facts and circumstances, though the final notification was of the year 1991, no award having been passed and possession of the land admittedly, not having been taken even as on date, notwithstanding that there was no impediment for the same by way of interim orders or other injunctory restrictions, the Scheme not having been implemented insofar as the petitioner’s land is concerned, the same cannot be implemented having
8
regard to Section 27 of the Act at least insofar as the petitioner’s land is concerned.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings
initiated in respect of the petitioner’s land are hereby quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquisition scheme lapsed insofar as the petitioner land was concerned due to non-implementation after final notification.
Whether Section 27 of the BDA Act renders the scheme redundant when no award or possession is taken for a specific portion of land.
Whether the proceedings for acquisition of the petitioner's land should be quashed due to prolonged inaction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Offshore Holdings (P) Limited vs. Bangalore Development AuthorityRelied on¶42
(2011(3) SCC 139) · Who else cites this
Gautam Kamat Hotels Private Limited and Others vs. Bangalore Development AuthorityDistinguished¶44
ILR 2012 Kar.5634 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Saroja
The State
The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority
The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Anand Byrareddy
Parties & counsel
