Allowed

Sri. H.M. Nagaraj v. Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2016WP/14044/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged notifications dated 23.3.1988 and 19.10.1994 regarding land acquisition. The court held that since the Bangalore Development Authority admitted no compensation was paid and possession was not taken due to the land being built up, the acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act lapsed. The petitions were allowed, declaring the acquisition lapsed and quashing the proceedings ag

What did the court decide?

The acquisition is declared to have lapsed. The proceedings against the petitioners' land stand quashed.

Sri. H.M. Nagaraj Vs Bangalore Development Authority — 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.14044-14046 AND 19346-19347 OF

¶7

2016 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Sri. H.M.Nagaraj, Son of Late Muthappa alias Chikkabiddappa, Aged about 58 years, Residing at Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Nilayam, No.19/3B/2, Avani Sringeri Nagar, 1^st Cross, Nayamppanahalli, HMP (Post), Bengaluru – 560 076.

¶10

Sri. M. Narasappa Reddy, Son of Late Muthappa alias Chikkabiddappa, Aged about 67 years, C/o. Dr. Mamatha, No.803, II Cross ‘C’ Block, A.E.C.S.Layout, Bengaluru – 560 038.

¶11

¶12

Sri. N. Hemachandra, Son of Sri. M. Narasappa Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Son of Sri. M. Narasappa Reddy, Residing at No.82, Vismi Villa, Anugraha Layout, Behind Shanthinikethan School, Bilekahalli, Bannerghataa Road, Bengaluru – 560 076.

¶13

Smt. R. Jayalakshmi, Wife of Sri. H.M. Nagaraj, Aged about 51 years, Residing at Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Nilayam, No.19/3B/2, Avani Sringeri Nagar, 1^st Cross, Nayamppanahalli, HMP (Post), Bengaluru – 560 076.

¶14

Smt. M. Leela Reddy, Wife of Sri. G. Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Residing at No.661, 14^th Cross, 14^th Main, J.P.Nagar II Phase, Bengaluru – 560 078.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(By Shri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Advocate for Shri Manmohan P.N., Advocate)

¶17

AND:

¶18

Bangalore Development Authority, Sankey Road,

¶19

¶20

Kumara Park West, Guttahalli, Bengaluru – 560 020. Represented by its Commissioner.

¶21

State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, M.S.Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶22

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

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(By Smt .Shwetha Krishnappa, Government Pleader for Respondent No.2;

¶25

Shri Bipin Hegde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 3)

¶26

¶27

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that the notification dated 23.3.1988 vide Annexure-K issued by first respondent has lapsed and to declare that the notification dated 19.10.1994 (vide Annexure-L) issued by the second respondent has lapsed.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S

¶31

Patil, appearing for the Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

¶32

¶33

It is the case of the petitioners that the land bearing

¶34

survey No.81 measuring 6 acres of Kothanur village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, was originally owned by one Muthappa @ Chikkabiddappa. Muthappa and his brothers is said to have executed a registered partition deed dated 2.7.1971, whereby the lands measuring 4 acres in the above said number fell to the share of Muthappa. Thereafter, there was a rectification deed to correct the discrepancy in the description of the property. The land was subsequently assigned survey no.81/2E. The petitioners are said to be the sons of late Muthappa. The names of the petitioners are said to be reflected in the revenue records. 1 acre 10 guntas out of the said land was converted for non-agricultural purposes as per the order passed by the competent authority dated 7.9.1983. The petitioners are said to have been allotted their shares and are in possession of the same. It transpires that the land in question was notified for acquisition under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, by issuance of a Preliminary Notification

¶35

¶36

dated 23.3.1988 and the final notification dated 19.10.1994 for the formation of the Jayaprakashnarayan Nagar VIII Stage Residential Layout. The notifications indicated the names of one Doddaramashetty and others in respect of the land bearing survey No.81/2E. In fact, the property had been purchased by Muthappa as already stated and it was later partitioned as between the father of the petitioners and his brothers and later in favour of the petitioners.

¶37

The primary contention is that though the lands have been notified for acquisition, no compensation amount had been paid nor physical possession of the land had been taken and therefore, the prayer is that the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of section 24(2) 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).

¶38

The BDA having entered appearance has categorically

¶39

admitted that no compensation amount has been paid nor

¶40

¶41

physical possession has been taken on account of the land in question being built up.

¶42

It is stated by the BDA that 7 acres 36 guntas in survey No.81/2E has been notified for acquisition, out of which, 3 acres and 36 guntas, including the petitioner’s land is partially built up and possession could not be taken.

¶43

In view of this circumstance, the petitions are allowed. It is declared that the acquisition has lapsed. The proceedings against the petitioner’s land stand quashed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sri. H.M. Nagaraj v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. H.M. Nagaraj 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

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

G Narayan Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Sharadamma Vs the Bangalore Development Authority