Allowed

Sri H N Harish v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Apr 2016WP/2905/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged land acquisition in Nameum, Karnataka, contending it lapsed due to non-compliance with the 2013 Land Acquisition Act conditions regarding compensation and possession. Court quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's land are quashed, and the schemes under Sections 24(2) of the 2013 Act and 27 of the BDA Act are declared lapsed.

Sri H N Harish Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF APRIL 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.2905 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. H.N.Harish, Son of Late Nanjundappa, Aged about 42 years, Residing at Kurki Village, Narasapura Post, Kolar District PIN: 563 133.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Advocate for Shri K.M.Prakash, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka,

¶13

Urban Development, Represented by Principal Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶14

¶15

The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 020.

¶16

The Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 020.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

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

¶19

Shri M.N.Ramjaneya Gowda, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

¶20

¶21

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that the acquisition of the schedule land acquired vide Final notification dated 9.1.1985 at Annexure-F i.e., Sy.No.56/3 of Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring to an extent of 30 guntas by second respondent is abandoned and lapsed.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri Ashok

¶25

Haranahalli appearing for the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

¶26

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that land bearing survey

¶28

No.56/3 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas of Hennur village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, originally belonged to late Chikkathayamma. The said Chikkathayamma had sold the property to one Agraharada Hanumappa and on the death of Agraharada Hanumappa, his widow Muninanjamma had sold the above property to Puttanna on 20.2.1968. Putttanna, in turn, had sold 30 guntas of land, out of 1 acre 21 guntas to the petitioner’s mother one Narayanamma on 10.7.1968 under a

¶29

registered sale deed. And that Narayanamma and Muninanjamma were in possession and their names were reflected in the revenue records and the said property purchased by the petitioner’s mother was released in favour of the petitioner under a release deed and therefore, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the land to an extent of 30 guntas in survey no.56/3 of Hennur village.

¶30

Respondents no.1 and 2 are said to have initiated

¶31

acquisition proceedings, including the land of the petitioner for

¶32

¶33

the purpose of formation of a layout called ‘Hosur-Bellary Road I Stage Layout’ and a Preliminary Notification dated 20.6.1978 under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 came to be issued and a final notification followed dated 9.1.1985. It is significant that though the mother of the petitioner was the owner, the land was wrongly notified in the name of Muniyamma @ Chikkathayamma instead of the petitioner’s mother Muninanjamma, wife of Nanjundappa. Thereafter, an award appears to have been passed in respect of 1 acre 21 guntas of land in survey no.56/3 of Hennur village and the compensation amount is said to have been deposited in the revenue account of the BDA. The award has been also approved by the State Government. Though it is sought to be indicated that physical possession of the land has been taken by the BDA, the petitioner and his family members are said to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties and the physical possession has never been disturbed. It is also pointed out that the records maintained by

¶34

¶35

the BDA discloses that the structures were existing and since they were in dilapidated condition, they were demolished. it is stated that the petitioner continues to be in possession and the BDA has neither formed sites nor allotted the same to the third-parties and hence it is contended by the learned Senior Advocate that not only has the scheme lapsed in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act, with the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2013 Act’, for brevity), the very acquisition has lapsed in terms of Section 24(2). The fact that the compensation amount has been kept in a revenue deposit would not amount to payment of compensation as laid down by the Supreme Court. And the other conditions, if not satisfied, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and hence the learned Senior Advocate would seek a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed.

¶36

¶37

While the BDA, in its statement of objections, would

¶38

vehemently deny that the physical possession has indeed been taken and mahazar is produced in support of the contention of such physical possession having been taken. It is admitted that the compensation however is in revenue deposit. To that extent, the precondition for the acquisition to be completed for the purpose of considering whether the acquisition would lapse in terms of section 24(2) is not satisfied and it should be declared that the acquisition has lapsed. Even insofar as the claim of having taken physical possession, is concerned, even though reliance is sought to be placed on Annexure R-4, it can hardly be accepted as it is plain that the said document is not readily acceptable. This is the view taken in a large number of petitions before this court, where such document which is said to be mahazar is a standard format, with blanks casually filled in and the signatures of certain unknown persons having been obtained as witnesses to the taking of physical possession. The said document is signed by unknown persons. Therefore,

¶39

¶40

the parentage or address or age is not revealed and only their signatures forthcoming could hardly be accepted. As already observed by this court, an authentic document would be necessary to establish that factum. The BDA ought to take the matter to its logical conclusion, in that, if the BDA were to be called upon to prove the document, it would in turn require the BDA to examine persons. It would well neigh be impossible for this court to accept that the physical possession had indeed been taken. It is not the case of the BDA that the land having been allotted has been taken possession of by third parties and that they have put up construction thereof. Though there is bald claim of having allotted the land to third-parties, no further particulars are provided to indicate that they have taken possession and put up construction and therefore the case of the BDA cannot be accepted. The physical possession having been taken remaining in doubt and the admitted circumstance that the compensation amount has been kept in a revenue deposit would not amount to payment in the eye of law and consequently, not

¶41

¶42

only the scheme would lapse insofar as the petitioner’s land is concerned, the acquisition itself would lapse and it is so declared.

¶43

The petition is accordingly allowed. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner’s land stand quashed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sri H N Harish v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H N Harish v. the 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

Smt Muniyamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Chandrakanthi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.M.Ishwara Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka

M. Vikram Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L Prabhakar Vs the State of Karnataka