Allowed

Smt Prema v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2016WP/3183/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioners challenged land acquisition notifications, seeking quashal based on the scheme's lapse due to lack of implementation and the existence of constructed buildings. The court accepted evidence of construction and the lack of possession, allowing the petitions.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioners' lands were quashed, declaring the scheme lapsed.

Smt Prema Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.3183-3184 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Smt. Prema, Wife of Late A.S.Krishna, Aged about 60 years, Residing at No.19/2, 9^th Cross, Manjunatha Nagar, Bangalore – 560 023.

¶9

Smt. Kokilamma, Wife of Srinivasulu, Aged about 60 years, Represented by G.P.A.Holder, 1^st petitioner Smt. Prema herein, Residing at No.19/2, 9^th Cross, Manjunatha Nagar, Bangalore – 560 023.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(By Shri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, Senior Advocate for Shri Deepak J., Advocate)

¶12

¶13

AND:

¶14

The State of Karnataka, Represented by its under Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Vikas Soudha,

¶15

Bangalore – 560 001.

¶16

The Bangalore Development Authority, Represented by its Commissioner, Chowdaiah Road,

¶17

Kumara Park, Bangalore – 560 003.

¶18

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Chowdaiah Road,

¶19

Kumara Park, Bangalore – 560 003.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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

¶22

Shri N.R.Jagadeeshwara, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3)

¶23

¶24

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned notification dated 6.4.1989 and 9.5.1994 issued by third respondent vide Annexure-C and D declaring the scheme is lapsed as per Section 27 of BDA Act read with Section 24[2] of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

¶25

¶26

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in so far as petitioners land bearing Sy.No.253 of Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District for an extent of 3.22 acres including 04 guntas kharab are concerned.

¶27

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

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Heard Shri. Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, the learned Senior

¶30

Counsel appearing for the counsel for the petitioners and Sri.N.R. Jagadeeshwara, the learned counsel appearing for the Bangalore Development Authority. The learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent No.2.

¶31

It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners of the land bearing Survey No.253 of Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 3.22 acres including 4 guntas of kharab land. The petitioners are said to have purchased the land from one

¶32

¶33

Boraiah and his children in the year 1984 and have been in possession of the same from the date of the purchase. It transpires that the said lands were notified for formation of ‘Banashankari V Stage Layout’ by the Bangalore Development Authority under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA Act’, for brevity) vide preliminary notification dated 6.4.1989 followed by a final notification dated 18.5.1994, which was challenged before this Court in writ petitions, unsuccessfully.

¶34

Thereafter, it transpires that the petitioners and others who are land owners, have constructed buildings in the said lands notwithstanding the acquisition initiated by the Bangalore Development Authority. In that view of the matter, several items of land have been dropped from the acquisition and other land owners who had approached this Court, had succeeded in obtaining a declaration that the scheme has been lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act. In that view of the matter, the scheme not having been substantially implemented within five

¶35

¶36

years from the date of the final notification, the learned counsel submits that there be a declaration that the scheme has lapsed since the petitioners’ lands have been completely built up. Further, in view 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) having come into force, physical possession not having been taken, the acquisition itself would lapse. It is pointed out that adjacent lands have also been dropped from the acquisition proceedings and therefore, it is impossible for the BDA to integrate the land of the petitioners into the formation of the layout which would firstly require demolition of pakka buildings that have been put up. The existence of the buildings is sought to be evidenced by producing photographs by the petitioners and hence, the counsel contends that the acquisition itself would lapse.

¶37

¶38

The learned counsel for the BDA would seek to deny

¶39

the fact of the entire area being built up and would seek to place reliance on other documents such as mahazar and notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The statement of objections filed on behalf of the BDA would draw attention to the absence of the legal provisions under which the petitioners could have constructed the buildings, namely the lands not having been converted for non-agricultural use, which was required for construction being put up and that no constructions have been put up and the claim of the petitioners is false and incorrect.

¶40

Though initially the counsel for the petitioners had not substantiated the contentions of having put up substantial construction over the land in question, on this being noticed and

¶41

the petitioners being called upon to produce other material, a memo has been filed submitting the additional documents

¶42

¶43

which adequately establish that the land in question has been completely built up.

¶44

Therefore, the petitions are allowed as prayed for and the

¶45

proceedings against the petitioners’ lands stands quashed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47