Three writ petitions seeking to set aside land acquisition notifications on the ground that the scheme had lapsed. The High Court dismissed the petitions due to immense unexplained delay, laches, and the fact that possession had already vested and passed to the State.
Writ petitions dismissed for being devoid of merits and invoking laches.
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. 50404/2013 C/W WP Nos. 50405/2013,50406/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
W.P.NO. 50404/2013 (LA-BDA) C/W
W.P.NOS. 50405/2013, 50406/2013(LA-BDA)
IN W.P.NO.50404/2013:
BETWEEN:
M GOPINATH S/O MANI CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.37/1, 4TH CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE-560 021.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA D.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
WP No. 50404/2013 C/W WP Nos. 50405/2013,50406/2013
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI.N R GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED U/S 17(1) AND 19(3) OF THE B.D.A ACT DT.15.7.1982 VIDE ANNX-G AND NOTIFICATION DT.5.8.1986 VIDE ANNX-H RESPECTIVELY FOR THE FORMATION OF NAGARBHAVI LAYOUT SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER'S SITE NO.49 & 50 MEASURING 40 FT X 50 FT SITUATED AT MALAGALA VILLAGE, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TQ AS "SCHEME LAPSED".
IN W.P.NO.50405/2013:
BETWEEN:
SMT.GEETHAMANI, W/O C MANI CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.37/1, 4TH CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURA, BANGALORE – 560 021.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
WP No. 50404/2013 C/W WP Nos. 50405/2013,50406/2013
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED U/S 17(1) AND 19(3) OF THE B.D.A ACT DT.15 JULY 1982 & 5TH AUGUST, 1986 PASSED BY VIDE ANNX-H & J RESPECTIVELY FOR THE FORMATION OF NAGARBHAVI LAYOUT SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER'S SITE NO.37 & 38 MEASURING 40 FEET X 60 FEET SITUATED AT MALAGALA VILLAGE, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TQ AS "SCHEME LAPSED".
IN W.P.NO.50406/2013:
BETWEEN:
C MANI CHETTY S/O LATE CHINNASWAMY CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.37/1, 4TH CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURA, BANGALORE – 560 021.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
WP No. 50404/2013 C/W WP Nos. 50405/2013,50406/2013
DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. P B ACHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED U/S 17(1) AND 19(3) OF THE B.D.A ACT DT.15 JULY 1982 & 5TH AUGUST, 1986 VIDE ANNX-G & H RESPECTIVELY FOR THE FORMATION OF NAGARBHAVI LAYOUT SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER'S SITE NO.51 & 52 MEASURING 40 FEET X 60 FEET SITUATED AT MALAGALA VILLAGE, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TQ AS "SCHEME LAPSED".
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners seek to lay a challenge to the Preliminary Notifications 15.7.1982 issued u/s 17(1) and the Final
WP No. 50404/2013 C/W WP Nos. 50405/2013,50406/2013
Notification dated 15.8.1986 u/s 19(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, on the ground that the scheme having been not executed within the statutory period, the acquisition has lapsed and eventually, the title to the land should be restored to them, they continuing in the possession thereof.
(a) The Preliminary Notification is of July 1982 and Final Notification is of August 1986, the award was passed on 8.2.1987 and the same was approved on 27.2.1987. The possession of the land was taken by drawing the mahazar on 9.3.1987. The Notification u/s 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was gazetted on 29.10.1987. Thus, the lands have vested in the State, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the BDA. These petitions have been filed only on 8.11.2013. Thus, there is enormous delay & latches that remain unexplained. The courts do not come to the aid of sleepy & tardy, say the sages of law.
(b) The submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners that Petitioners were before the Civil Court in O.S.Nos.7875/2005 & 7877/2005, disposed off on 18.08.2009 and later, the same is challenged before this Court in R.F.A.No.149/2010 that came to be disposed off on 15.07.2013 and therefore, all this would constitute a plausible explanation to the delay brooked, is bit difficult to countenance. No explanation is offered by the
WP No. 50404/2013 C/W WP Nos. 50405/2013,50406/2013
Petitioners for the delay brooked between the Final Notification of August 1986 and the filing of the suits in question in 2005. There is already Preliminary Notification, followed by the Final Notification, that eventually resulted into passing of the award and possession is also taken. That being the position, no relief can be granted to the Petitioners who have been clinging on to the property only on the basis of some interim order granted in the suit and later, in the Regular First Appeal, which have been dismissed subsequently.
(c) After the acquisition is accomplished, the land would vest in the State and the so called land owners continuing in the occupation, are not much different from the trespassers. The law does not come to the protection of such persons. An argument to the contrary would offend the sense of reason, law & justice.
In the above circumstances, these petitions being devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed & accordingly, they are, costs having been made easy.
WP No. 50404/2013 C/W WP Nos. 50405/2013,50406/2013
This judgment does not come in the way of Petitioners claiming the compensation or other benefit, in accordance with law, by establishing their credentials. In
that connection, all contentions are kept open.
Sd/JUDGE
Bsv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the land acquisition notifications can be quashed on the ground that the scheme lapsed due to non-execution within the statutory period.
Whether the immense delay in filing the writ petitions constitutes laches barring the remedy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ of Mandamus re: Acquisition NotificationReferred
Citation not provided
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M Gopinath S/o Mani Chetty
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C
Smt. Geethamani W/o C Mani Chetty
C Mani Chetty
The Special Land Acquisition Officer BDA
The State of Karnataka
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
