Allowed

G Narayan Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2016WP/1345/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petitions challenging land acquisition notifications for a housing scheme, the High Court of Karnataka declared the acquisition proceedings lapsed and the scheme unimplementable because the acquiring authority failed to take lawful physical possession of the land, thereby attracting the rigour of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

What did the court decide?

The acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the petitioners' lands are declared to have lapsed.

G Narayan Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.1345-1346 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION Nos.4470-4471 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)

¶9

IN W.P.Nos.1345-1346 OF 2016

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

G. Narayan Reddy, Son of Late Gundappa, Aged about 69 years,

¶12

Kanthamma,

¶13

Wife of G. Narayan Reddy, Aged about 55 years,

¶14

Manjunath N.,

¶15

Son of G. Narayan Reddy, Aged about 37 years,

¶16

Sunitha N.,

¶17

Daughter of G. Narayan Reddy, Aged about 33 years,

¶18

¶19

Rohini N., Daughter of Narayan Reddy, Aged about 29 years,

¶20

Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are Residing at No.159/2, “Sri Manjunatha Nilaya”, Near Anjineya Temple, Mahadevapura Village, Post, Whitefield Road, Bangalore – 560 048.

¶21

Jayaram Reddy, Son of Late Gundappa, Aged about 67 years,

¶22

Rajamma, Wife of Jayaram Reddy, Aged about 54 years,

¶23

J. Vijayalakshmi, Daughter of Jayaram Reddy, Aged about 36 years,

¶24

J. Vatsala, Daughter of Jayaram Reddy, Aged about 34 years,

¶25

J. Manjunath Reddy, Son of Jayaram Reddy, Aged about 32 years,

¶26

Petitioner Nos.6 to 10 are Residing at No.3/, Arakere Village,

¶27

¶28

Near Old Government School, 2^nd “B’ Main, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore – 560 076.

¶29

…PETITIONERS

¶30

(By Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri T.R.Ramesha, Advocate)

¶31

AND:

¶32

State of Karnataka, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001, Represented by its Secretary.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

M/s. Shantha Industrial Enterprises, No.206:1, MCC Building, S.C.Road, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020, Represented by its Partners.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

¶38

(By Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1; Shri Bipin Hegde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3; Respondent No.4 served)

¶39

¶40

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records pertaining to acquisition of land for implementation of scheme known as BTM Layout VI Stage in Sy.No.94 of Arakere Village, Bangalore South Taluk and records pertaining to allotment made to R-4 dated 28.8.2015 vide Annexure-V and to declare that the scheme known as “Byrasandra TavarakereMadivala VI Stage” in respect of schedule property situated at Arakere Village, Bangalore South Taluk, notified by preliminary notification dated 8.9.1987, vide Annexure-B, of the second respondent and the final notification dated 28.7.1990 vide Annexure-C have lapsed under Section 27 of BDA Act and grant consequential relief/s thereto and etc;

¶41

IN W.P.Nos.4470-4471 OF 2016

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

Shri G. Ramaswamy, Son of Late Gundappa, Aged about 90 years, Residing at No.11, Old No.5, 13^th Main, 15^th Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru – 560 055.

¶44

Shri G. Munireddy, Son of Late Gundappa, Aged about 74 years,

¶45

¶46

Arekere Village, Hulimavu Post, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 075.

¶47

…PETITIONERS

¶48

(By Shri D.L.N.Rao, Senior Advocate for Shri Shantesh Gureddi, Advocate)

¶49

AND:

¶50

The State of Karnataka,

¶51

Housing and Urban Development Department, Vikasa Soudha,

¶52

Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,

¶53

Bengaluru – 560 001,

¶54

Represented by its Secretary.

¶55

The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Sankey Road,

¶56

Kumara Krupa West, Bengaluru – 560 020.

¶57

…RESPONDENTS

¶58

(By Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1;

¶59

Shri G.S.Kannur, Advocate for Respondent No.2)

¶60

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned notifications dated 8.9.1987 issued by the first respondent and final notification dated 28.7.1990 at Annexure-F and G in so far as the petitioners Sy.No.94, measuring 1 acre 19 guntas,

¶61

¶62

situated at Arakere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore at Sl.No.386 and 258 respectively and etc;

¶63

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S

¶66

Patil, appearing for the counsel for the petitioners in WP 134546/2016 and the learned Senior Advocate Shri D.L.N.Rao appearing for the Counsel for the petitioners in WP 447071/2016 and the learned Counsel for the respondents as well as

¶67

the learned Government Pleader.

¶68

The facts are that the petitioners are all joint owners of land in survey no.94 of Arakere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 3 acres 19 guntas. Petitioners no.1 to 6 in WP 1345-46/2016 are said to be the children of one late Gundappa, while the remaining petitioners are family members of petitioners no.1 to 6. Gundappa sought to acquire title to the land in survey No.94 prior to the year

¶69

¶70

1930 and on the death of the father of the petitioners no.1 to 6, the name of G.Ramaswamy, the eldest brother amongst the petitioners stood reflected in the RTC for the years 1984-87 and even earlier, it transpires that the lands were originally inam lands and pursuant to the coming into force of the Inams Abolition act, the proceedings had concluded in their favour as early as in the year 1958 and thereafter, there was a partition in the family in the year 1983, whereby different extents are held by the petitioners in the present and the connected petitions and they have been in possession and there were dwelling houses of the petitioners in the lands in question apart from partially being cultivated.

¶71

It transpires that the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in order to implement the scheme for the formation of “Byrasandra-Tavarekere-Madivala VI Stage” had notified the present lands along with other lands of Arakere and Hulimavu villages in the year 1987 and had issued a preliminary notification under the provisions of the Bangalore Development

¶72

¶73

Authority Act, 1976, for a total extent of 805 acres, which was reduced to 562.34 acres in the final notification and thereby deleting more than 240 acres from the acquisition proceedings.

¶74

It is the case of the petitioners that the lands of the petitioners are in Arakere village and the petitioners had approached the BDA with a request that the lands be dropped from the acquisition proceedings as there were residential premises on the lands in question and it is at that stage that the BDA thought it fit to issue an endorsement to state that as far as the land in survey no.94 measuring 3 acre and 19 guntas was concerned, the same were excluded from acquisition as per an endorsement dated 8.1.1991. Therefore, the petitioners remained complacent in the land having been withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings. However, under threat of dispossession in the year 1998, the petitioners were constrained to prefer a civil suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the BDA from interfering with their possession. The said suit which was numbered as OS 11473/1998 before the

¶75

¶76

Civil Court was contested by the BDA. However, the only evidence produced before the court by the BDA was the notifications, namely, preliminary and final notifications without any other material being produced. The civil court thereafter had decreed the suit holding that the BDA has not demonstrated the physical possession of the land having been taken in the light of the endorsement issued and the fact that there were structures of the property of the petitioners. The BDA did not choose to file an appeal against the said judgment and decree for several years. In fact, the learned Counsel would draw attention to the note sheets maintained by the BDA where opinions were formed as to the futility of filing an appeal belatedly. However, the BDA had filed an appeal in the year 2012 and that appeal was summarily disposed of by this court in its appellate jurisdiction holding that notwithstanding the judgment and decree of permanent injunction, it was always open for the BDA, which is a statutory body to have due recourse to the law in dispossessing the plaintiffs

¶77

¶78

notwithstanding the judgment and decree in their favour. The BDA thereafter had sought to take forcible possession of the land misconstruing the judgment of this court as enabling the BDA to use force in forcibly dispossessing the petitioners. It is at that point of time, that the petitioners had issued a legal notice and thereafter filed the present petitions.

¶79

It is also canvassed that with the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Act, 2013 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘2013 Act’, for brevity), the very acquisition has lapsed, as admittedly after having forcibly demolished some of the structures, the BDA, since it had not chosen to implement the scheme substantially and since the land available for implementation of the scheme was limited to 7 acre 20 guntas of Arakere village, chose to adopt the mode of laying claim to the land by conveying the same in favour of the fourth respondent, namely, a private industry, on the footing that the said fourth respondent had been deprived of certain

¶80

¶81

land and the land of the petitioners was being conveyed in lieu thereof. This was done on the very next day after the structures of the petitioners were demolished and on the petitioners having informed the BDA that they are constrained to approach this court for violation of the decree injunction as well as the manner in which possession was sought to be taken otherwise than under due process of law, the fourth respondent, which had developed a cold feet, had sought that the land be reconveyed in favour of the BDA.

¶82

When matters stood thus, the present petitions are filed also claiming that with the coming into force of the 2013 Act, the very acquisition has lapsed by virtue of section 24(2). It is in this background that in both the petitions, a common prayer is made for a declaration that the very acquisition has lapsed and the scheme is incapable of implementation, as the entire extent of land notified is not available except for small pockets of land, a part of which belongs to the petitioners.

¶83

¶84

Though a weak attempt is made on the part of the learned counsel for the BDA to justify their action and to resist the petitions, the admitted circumstance would indicate that physical possession of the land has never been taken in accordance with law, though an shoddy attempt was made to take forcible possession of the land, which is totally in violation of the law. Hence, forcible physical possession being sought to be taken by the BDA cannot be sustained. Consequently, the rigour of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act would apply. Though attention is drawn to a mahazar which is at page 128 of the petitions in WP 1345-46/2016, the said document is not worth the paper, since the same is a nebulous document, which cannot be accepted on the face of it. It would fail every test of scrutiny as to its veracity. As repeatedly held by this court, the land owners being divested of their valuable property would require much more acceptable documents in proof of physical possession having been taken. When it is executed in the presence of persons, who cannot now be identified, as there

¶85

¶86

are no particulars available of the persons who were alleged to have present during the execution of that document, it can never be a proof to the satisfaction of this court.

¶87

Consequently, given the above facts and

¶88

circumstances, and the sequence of events, it can safely be said that the BDA has never taken possession of the land and the land originally notified for acquisition is no longer available in order for the BDA to claim that the scheme can be substantially implemented. Consequently, not only the scheme has lapsed, but also acquisition in view of the rigour of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

¶89

Consequently, these petitions are allowed. It is declared

¶90

that the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the petitioners’ lands have lapsed.

¶91

Sd/JUDGE

¶92

G Narayan Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Narayan Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.M.Ishwara Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka

M. Vikram Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L Prabhakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. H.M. Nagaraj Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Smt. Sharadamma Vs the Bangalore Development Authority