TheHigh Court of Karnataka, observing that no steps were taken to complete acquisition proceedings after the preliminary notification, held that the proceedings have lapsed. It allowed the petitions summarily and quashed the acquisition proceedings.
The petitions were summarily allowed and the acquisition proceedings were 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 BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.28814 AND 40839 OF 2015 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(By Shri K. Murthy, Advocate)
AND:
2
By its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1;
Shri K. Krishna, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3)
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed pursuant to the impugned preliminary notification dated 30.12.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act at Annexure-C and etc;
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
3
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The
learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for
Respondent No.1.
proceedings initiated by the BDA in respect of the lands for the formation of Dr. K. Shivaram Karanth Layout by issuing a preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA Act’, for brevity). It transpires that after issuance of a preliminary notification, no further steps have been taken by the respondent authorities to issue a final notification.
4
Therefore, under Section 27 of the BDA Act, the scheme
has lapsed and is no longer capable of being implemented. Therefore, the petitions are summarily allowed. The acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the petitioners’ land stands quashed.
The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file her memo of appearance within two weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated by BDA under Section 17 of the BDA Act have lapsed due to inaction.
Whether the scheme lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act due to failure to issue a final notification.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Muniyappa and Sri. Kariyanna
The State of Karnataka
The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
