Single judge issued a one-line order allowing an in-camera amendment and quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated by the BDA due to the lapse of the development scheme over several decades without further steps.
The applications was allowed; acquisition proceedings quashed; direction to Revenue Department to delete entries.
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 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.3349-3359 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
2
Petitioners 7 to 11 are Residing at Dodda Bettahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. …PETITIONERS
3
(By Shri Mithun G.A., Advocate)
AND:
(By Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1,4 and 5; Shri G. Laksmeesh Rao, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3) *****
4
These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the development scheme prepared by the BDA i.e., R-2 herein for the formation of Venkateshwara Layout in Nayandanahalli Village, vide preliminary notification published in Karnataka Gazette Notification dated 5.1.1989 vide Annexure-A and final notification dated 30.11.1990 published Karnataka Gazette Notification dated 4.12.1990 vide Annexure-B issued by R-1 in respect of the petitioners schedule property, has lapsed due to non-implementation of the scheme as contemplated under Section 27 of the BDA Act, 1976 and etc;
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the BDA.
The application I.A.2/2016 for amendment seeking a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed by virtue of the conditions prescribed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is allowed.
acquisition proceedings initiated by the BDA under the
5
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA Act’, for brevity), for the formation of a residential layout known as ‘Venkateshwara Layout’, vide a preliminary notification dated 17.11.1988 and a final notification dated 30.11.1990. Thereafter, no further proceedings have been taken. It is contended that neither award has been passed nor possession has been taken. This is endorsed by the BDA in terms of Annexure-“J” dated 29.04.2015.
the BDA not having taken any further steps pursuant to the acquisition notifications, the scheme is deemed to have been abandoned and accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners’ lands stand quashed.
The learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for Respondents 1, 4 and 5.
6
The Revenue Department of the State is accordingly
directed to take further steps to delete the entries as regards the
acquisition of the land, in the revenue records.
Sd/JUDGE
KS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the BDA under the BDA Act, 1976 lapsed due to non-implementation of the development scheme over several decades.
Whether the acquisition proceedings should be quashed in the absence of an award or possession taken by the authority.
Whether the amendment praying for declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be allowed.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Papamma
Smt. Jayamma
Sri. Nagaraja .S
The State of Karnataka
The Bangalore Development Authority
ANAND BYRAREDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
