Dismissed

Shri Zafer Iqbal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Oct 2021WP/47794/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 challenged land acquisition proceedings under the Final Notification of 2004, claiming lapsed status under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. The court referred to a connected writ petition where the challenge to the same notification was rejected and disposed of the current petition in similar terms.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in the same terms as W.P. No. 51929/2014 and connected matters where the challenge to the notification was rejected.

Shri Zafer Iqbal Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.47794 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI ZAFER IQBAL S/O ABDUL KADER, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.106, 2^ND FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, 3^RD STAGE, PILLANNA GARDEN, BANGALORE-560 045.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. (REP. BY ITS SECRETARY)

¶12

2 . THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMAR PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶13

¶14

3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENMT AUTHORITY, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMAR PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶15

….RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. H.C. KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R-1) SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT.23.2.2004 AS PER ANNX-N ISSUED BY R-3, IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS DEEMED TO HAVE LAPSED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 24(2) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE NOTIFICATION IN VIEW OF THE DEEMED PROVISIONS OF SEC. 24(2) OF THE NEW ACT.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner has filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a direction to declare the acquisition proceedings under the final notification UDD 193 MNX 2004 dated 23.02.2004 as per Annexure-N in respect of the schedule property is deemed to have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and consequently to direct the respondents to issue an appropriate notification in view of the deemed provisions of Section 24(2) of the New Act.

¶23

Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under:

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that the land in Sy.No.104/6 of Rachenahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk was owned by Smt Kayamma and her family members and they have agreed to sell

¶25

¶26

the land in favour of the Post and Telecommunications Department Employees Co operative Housing Society Ltd. And delivered possession thereof. The erstwhile land owners converted the land for residential use. Consequently katha in respect of the land was transferred in the property records of the village panchayath and also got the plan sanctioned for formation of residential layout. The land owners through the said society executed a registered sale deed and conveyed site No.86 in favour of one Sri B.N Bindu Madhava and put him in possession. He, in turn, has sold the site No.86 in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 1.12.1999. The respondents issued preliminary notification for formation of Arkavathi layout on 3.2.2003. The petitioner filed objection to the preliminary notification. Respondent No.2 without considering the objection filed by the petitioner issued final notification on 23.2.2004 and award came to be passed on 1.7.2004 and the BDA claimed to have taken

¶27

¶28

possession from the erstwhile vendors but compensation has not been deposited before the competent civil Court. The acquisition proceedings were challenged in the writ petition. This Court vide order dated 15.4.2005 quashed the entire acquisition proceedings. A writ appeal was filed challenging the order passed in the writ petition. The Division Bench in the writ appeal upheld the notification by setting aside the order passed in the writ petition. Some of the land owners challenged the order passed in the writ appeal in the SLP by issuing additional parameters. The Society challenged the final notification in W.P.No.13952/2012. This Court vide order dated 22.1.2013 disposed of the writ petition directing the society to submit the records and application to the respondent-BDA. The respondent has not passed any order on the representation submitted by the petitioners.

¶29

¶30

It is contended that the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was repealed and New Act came into force confirming certain benefits to the land owners. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings.

¶31

This Court in W.P.No.51929/2014 and connected matters disposed of 27.9.2021 wherein the challenge made to the very same impugned notification dated 23.02.2004 herein was rejected and the acquisition of lands for the formation of Arkavathi layout was upheld.

¶32

Hence, this writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms as in W.P.No.51929/2014 and connected matters disposed of 27.9.2021.

¶33

SD/JUDGE

¶34

Shri Zafer Iqbal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Zafer Iqbal 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

Ajith K Vs Bangalore University

Amina Khatoon Vs Bangalore University

Sri. S Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Dasegowda Vs the Project Director

Smt Hemavathy Vs State of Karnataka

Hpr Manipal School of Nursing Vs State of Karnataka