Petitioner challenged BDA's order denying alternate site allotment for land purchased post-acquisition notification. Court dismissed writ as petitioner acquired title after prohibition on alienation under 1991 Act took effect.
Petitioner allowed liberty to institute civil suit against vendors within three months without prejudice to limitation.
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.
WP No. 42827 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 42827 OF 2015 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
L.N. SUDHEENDRA RAO, S/O L. NAGARAJA RAO, MAJOR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.40/9-2, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, VITTALANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 018.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N. V. VASANTH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA.,AGA FOR R1, BY SRI. M.V. CHARATI FOR R2 & R3)
WP No. 42827 of 2015
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AND REQUESTS OF THE PETITIONER TO RATIFY THE ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITE IN EITHER OF THE LAYOUTS FORMED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY, OR ALLOT BACK THE REVENUE PROPERTY NO.73/7., KATHA NO73/7 SITUATED AT ALLAHALLI GRAMA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH IN LIFU OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSMENT DTD : 16.01.2015 ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner claiming to be the owner of the subject
property seeks to lay a challenge to the BDA endorsement dated 16.01.2015, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A, wherein his request for allotment of an alternate site is negatived.
under:
"»A§gÀº
«µÀAiÀÄ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀºÀ½î, UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸ÀASÉå £ÀA. 73/7, SÁvÁ £ÀA. 73/7 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ.
G.ÉèÃR: ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30-05-2014
WP No. 42827 of 2015
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÀÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¤ÃªÀÅ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀºÀ½î, UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸ÀASÉå £ÀA. SÁvÁ £ÀA. gÀ°è£À gÉ«£ÀÆå ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀPÉÌ §zÀ.ÁV §zÀ° ¤ªÉñÀ£À PÉÆÃj ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À.Á¬ÄvÀÄ. eÉ.¦.£ÀUÀgÀ §qÁªÀuÉ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ gÉ«£ÀÆå ¤ªÉÃqsÀ£ÀPÉÌ §zÀ.ÁV §zÀ° ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½AiÀÄAvÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ, ¤ªÀÄä PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À.ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ.
G¥ÀPÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
his client became the owner of the subject property by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 09.10.1997, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-B & that is preceded by an agreement to the same in the year 1986 and he had put some structure in the subject land as well. He further argues that the same having been acquired by the BDA, his client is entitled to grant of alternate site in lieu of
WP No. 42827 of 2015
compensation inasmuch as, no compensation is paid to his client.
WP No. 42827 of 2015
preliminary notification u/s 17(1) was issued on 05.01.1989; it was followed by the final notification dated 27.01.1991 issued u/s 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. The award was passed on 07.06.1993 and possession of the land was taken on 01.09.1993. Section 16(2) notification was issued on 08.12.1993. Mutation of entries in the revenue records has also been effected in the year 1993-94. The petitioner bought the property by a Registered Sale Deed only on 09.10.1997. That being the position, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
the entire compensation has been paid to the Kathedar in terms of the notification followed by the award and the kathedar has obtained enhanced compensation as well in LAC 58/1995 disposed off on 05.11.1999, eventually followed by a supplementary award dated 06.07.2010 in terms of Section 28(A) of the 1976 Act. Petitioner's counsel's reliance on the copy of the Agreement to Sell of
WP No. 42827 of 2015
April 1989 held by his client also would not come to his assistance in any way inasmuch as even that has come into existence subsequent to issuance of preliminary notification dated 5.1.1989. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents is more than justified in contending that the 1991 Act interdicted creation of any right over the land once it is notified for acquisition. Added, an Agreement to Sell per se does not create any interest in the land as is clearly spelt out in section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in alternatively contending that his client should be permitted to proceed against the vendors of the property so that some relief can be had in an appropriate suit. Therefore, petitioner is reserved liberty to institute suit proceedings within a period of three months from this date and if they are so instituted, the suit shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation, latches & delay.
WP No. 42827 of 2015
With the above observation, writ petition is disposed
off, costs having been made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who purchased land after its notification for acquisition can challenge the BDA's endorsement negating an alternate site allotment.
Whether the Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991 bars alienation of property once notified for acquisition.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
L.N. SUDHEENDRA RAO
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE COMMISSIONER, BDA
KRISHNA S DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
