Dismissed

The Commissioner v. Sri. K. Jayarama Raju

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2021WA/116/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two-judge bench dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Bangalore Development Authority. The court held that earlier Division Bench judgments unequivocally established that the acquisition scheme had lapsed, thereby justifying the single judge's decision to set aside the notifications.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; no order as to costs; pending application disposed of.

The Commissioner Vs Sri. K. Jayarama Raju — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.116 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶11

THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. K. JAYARAMA RAJU S/O KANNAIAH RAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. KODANDA RAJU S/O. MADHAVA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶17

SRI. M. S. GIRIDHARA RAJU S/O. LATE SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶18

SRI. M.S. SUBRAMANYA RAJU S/O LATE SHAMANNA

¶19

¶20

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶21

ALL ARE RESIDING AT UTTARAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. K.S. SHANTHARAM, S/O K.V.S. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.54/1, V.V.N. ROAD, SURVEYOR STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. L.RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R 1)

¶24

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.24302/2018 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶25

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.24302/2018 (Sri K. Jayarama Raju and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others). The writ petition has been allowed keeping in view the order dated 02.02.2016 passed

¶28

¶29

in writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos.13374-13375/2013 (Sri H.V. Nandakumar vs. The State of Karnataka and Others) as well as the order dated 16.06.2016 passed in W.P. Nos.1360813610/2014 (Sri C. Srinivasa Murthy and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others).

¶30

The facts of the case reveal that the appellant No.1/Banglaore Development Authority had proposed to form a residential layout known as 'Banashankari V Stage' and a preliminary notification was issued on 6.4.1989 under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976). A final notification was issued on 9.5.1994 and the said notification included the lands situated in Sy.No.45 of Uttarahalli village, which is the subject matter of the present writ appeal. The notification was issued in the name of the notified kathedar, Kodanda Raju (respondent No.2).

¶31

A writ petition was preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 4 claiming to be the owners of the property situated in Sy.No.45 of Uttarahalli village stating that they have purchased the property through a registered sale deed dated 27.6.1967. It was stated before the learned Single Judge

¶32

¶33

that in the notification dated 16.9.1997 published on 17.9.1997 Sy.No.45 was not included and a prayer was made to release the property from acquisition. It was also stated that no award was passed nor possession was taken in the matter and some adjacent properties comprising in Sy.Nos.103/1 and 103/2 were either denotified or deleted. It was also contended that the scheme for formation of Banashankari V Stage had lapsed as per Section 27 of the Act of 1976 and it was also argued that the matter has been concluded on account of the order passed in the case of Sri H V Nandakumar v. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.Nos.13374-375/2013, dated 2.2.2016 and in the case of Sri.C.Srinivasa Murthy and others v. The State of Karnataka and others , in W.P.Nos.13608-13610/2014, decided on 16.6.2016, wherein it has been held that the scheme for formation of Banashankari V Stage Layout has lapsed and insofar as the lands of the petitioners therein are concerned, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions.

¶34

Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order passed by the

¶35

learned Single Judge in the present case reads as under;

¶36

"7. Having heard the learned counsels and perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the decision of the co-

¶37

¶38

ordinate Bench in the cases of Sri.H.V.Nandakumar and Sri.C.Srinivasa Murthy (supra) covers the issue raised in this writ petition, on all fours. The very same notification was under challenge and the very same submissions raised on behalf of the respondent BDA has been considered by this Court. In the cases of Sri.H.V.Nandakumar and Sri.C.Srinivasa Murthy (supra), it was also contended at the hands of the BDA that award has been passed, compensation has been determined and mahazars were drawn in accordance with law to show that the possession has been taken. This Court is of the considered opinion that all the submissions and especially with regard to village-Uttarahalli, where the lands in question are situated, stand dealt with elaborately by this Court in the case of Sri.H.V.Nandakumar (supra). This Court has also looked into the original records especially the mahazar said to have been drawn on 26.08.1996. This Court finds that the signature of the land owners have not been taken. The signatures of five persons are found as mahazar witnesses (panchas). The addresses of the panchas are not found. Therefore, the situation as obtained in the case of Sri.H.V.Nandakumar (supra) follows in this case too. Therefore, in view of the declaration made by this Court in the cases of Sri. H.V.Nandakumar and Sri.C.Srinivasa Murthy (supra) this Court proceeds to declare that the scheme insofar as the land of the petitioners are concerned, has lapsed. Further, the acquisition is also lapsed in view of the no further action having been taken by the respondent-BDA pursuant to the notification issued in forming the layout.

¶39

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed . Consequently, the impugned notifications both preliminary notification dated 13.04.1989 and final notification dated 09.05.1994, insofar as the lands of the petitioners are concerned, are quashed and set aside"

¶40

A categorical question was asked to the learned

¶41

counsel for the appellants as to whether any writ appeal has been preferred against the orders passed in W.P. Nos.1337413375/2013 and W.P. Nos.13608-13610/2014 and it was

¶42

¶43

informed that he is not aware of it and he will verify the same.

¶44

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has stated before this Court that both the orders dated 02.02.2016 and 16.06.2016 passed in the aforesaid writ petitions were subjected to writ appeals in W.A. No.435/2017 and W.A. No.595/2016, which have been dismissed by a detailed speaking order on 03.01.2020. The operative portion of the judgment passed in the aforesaid writ appeals as contained in paragraphs 26 to 29 read as under;

¶45

"26. The learned Single Judge considered the material on record and relied upon an earlier judgment of this Court in writ petition Nos.13374 to 13375 of 2013 relating to acquisition of land for formation of Banashankari V Stage wherein it was declared that the Scheme had lapsed and consequently, the learned Single Judge in line with the judgment passed in Writ Petition Nos.13374 to 13375 of 2013 declared that the Scheme of Banashankari V Stage had lapsed insofar as the land bearing Sy. No.98 of Uttarahalli village belonging to the petitioners and also declared that the provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act had become inoperative.

¶46

The respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition have filed this writ appeal challenging the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge.

¶47

Since we have upheld the order dated 02.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.13374 to 13375 of 2013 while disposing off the companion Writ Appeal No.595 of 2016, this Writ Appeal is also liable to be disposed off on same terms since both the proceedings relate to the same

¶48

¶49

acquisition and the order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.13608 to 13610 of 2014 impugned in Writ Appeal No.435 of 2017 is on the basis of the order dated 02.02.2016 passed in Writ Petition Nos.13374 to 13375 of 2013.

¶50

Hence, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

This Writ Appeal is dismissed."

¶53

It is unfortunate that the Bangalore Development Authority has suppressed the judgment passed in writ appeals while filing the present writ appeal.

¶54

In the light of the aforesaid judgment, as the scheme itself has become inoperative as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition.

¶55

The Writ Appeal is dismissed.

¶56

No order as to costs.

¶57

Pending application stands disposed of.

¶58

SD/JUDGE

¶59

SD/JUDGE

¶60