Allowed

A Venkatesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2023WP/57217/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging land acquisition notified in 1989 and 1991 under BDA Act for lapsing due to efflux of time, non-approval of award, and non-payment of compensation. Court allowed petition and quashed notifications citing lack of due process under Article 300A.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued quashing impugned Notifications; mutation entries to be restored in name of land owners within three months.

A Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.57217 OF 2014(LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

A VENKATESH S/O LATE ANNAIAHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A SY NO.8/33, ANNAIAH THOTA, CHUNCHUGHATTA MAIN ROAD, GANAPATHIPURA, KONAKUNTE POST, BANGALORE-560078.

¶9

2. A NARAYANA

¶10

S/O LATE ANNAIAHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.16, SRI LAKSHMINARYANA NILAYA, ANNAIAH SAPOTA GARDEN, GANAPATHIPURA, KONAKUNTE POST, BANGALORE-560078.

¶11

3. SRINIVAS

¶12

S/O LATE ANNAIAHAPPA

¶13

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶14

R/A SY NO.8/33, ANNAIAH THOTA, CHUNCHUGHATTA MAIN ROAD, GANAPATHIPURA, KONAKUNTE POST, BANGALORE-560078.

¶15

4. A PADMAVATHI,

¶16

D/O LATE ANNAIAHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A SY NO.8/33, ANNAIAH THOTA, CHUNCHUGHATTA MAIN ROAD, GANAPATHIPURA, KONAKUNTE POST, BANGALORE-560078.

¶17

¶18

SMT. A. KRISHNAVENI D/O LATE ANNAIAHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A SY NO.8/33, ANNAIAH THOTA, CHUNCHUGHATTA MAIN ROAD, GANAPATHIPURA, KONAKUNTE POST, BANGALORE-560078.

¶19

6. A SHAMALA D/O LATE ANNAIAHAPPA, SINCE DECEASED, REP BY LRS

¶20

6A. SRI.ANIL KUMAR J S, S/O JASWANTH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶21

6B. SMT.USHA NAGARAJ, W/O NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶22

R/AT SY.NO.8/33, ANNAIAH THOTA, CHUNCHUGHATTA MAIN ROAD, GANAPATHIPURA, KONAKUNTE POST, BANGALORE – 560 062. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 9/8/2021

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADV., FOR P1 TO P6(A & B))

¶25

AND:

¶26

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING,DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI.ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES UNDER THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R-2 DATED 11.4.1989 AT ANN-B, AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 22.7.1991 ISSUED BY R- 1 VIDE ANN-C, HAS LAPSED BY EFFLUX OF TIME OF OVER 23 YEARS AND THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID LANDS HAVING TILL DATE CONTINUED TO REMAIN WITH THE PETITIONERS THEREBY DIRECTING THE SCHEDULE LANDS REMAIN OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE AFOREMENTIONED NOTIFICATIONS.

¶33

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Petitioner seeks to lay a challenge to the acquisition of

¶36

the land in question commenced with the issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 11.4.1989 u/s 17(1) followed by the Final Notification dated 22.7.1991 issued u/s 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argues that though award is stated to have been passed on 10.12.1998, the same is not approved by the government; the possession of

¶37

¶38

the land continues with his clients till date; the question of execution of the scheme within the statutory period even remotely would not arise. So arguing, he seeks for voiding of the subject Notifications.

¶39

After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through the learned AGA and the BDA is represented by its Senior Panel Counsel. They vehemently oppose the Petition making submission in justification of the acquisition proceedings and on the ground that the challenge is belated, there being no explanation therefor.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶41

and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶42

(a) The Preliminary Notification is dated 11.4.1989;

¶43

the Final Notification is dated 22.7.1991; the award has been made on 10.12.1998. However, there is neither plea nor proof as to the said award having been approved by the government nor the possession having been taken from the

¶44

¶45

Petitioners. The reliance of the BDA Panel Counsel on the Mahazar dated 3.12.1998 at Annexure-R2 is misplaced inasmuch as it is not with regard to possession at all but something else, as rightly argued by counsel for the Petitioners.

¶46

(b) Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that no compensation having been paid nor deposited in the Court, despite direction by the award making authority, even after lapse of decades of initiation of the proceedings, the acquisition has to be voided, merits acceptance, there being no controverting of the same from the side of Respondents. No explanation is offered either for not making the payment of compensation or for not depositing it in the Court. The Right to Property having been constitutionally guaranteed u/a 300A, the same cannot be taken over by the State and its instrumentalities except in due process of law. Such a process is militantly lacking in this case.

¶47

¶48

justified in submitting that the possession having not been

¶49

¶50

taken over, the BDA cannot be heard to say anything about the execution of the scheme within the statutory period. Once substantial execution of the scheme is not shown, the acquisition has to fail since scheme itself lapses by operation of law.

¶51

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned Notifications only to the extent of Petition lands; if entries are mutated pursuant to acquisition, the same shall be restored in the name of land owners by the jurisdictional authorities on the production of a copy of this judgment, within an outer limit of three months. Delay if brooked may entail costs personally payable by the lapsing officials.

¶52

Costs reluctantly made easy.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

cbc

A Venkatesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Venkatesh 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

Mrs. Elizabeth Simon George Vs the State of Karnataka

Gajanana Govinda Pai Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. B.R. Sujatha Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Mr. S. K. John Vs M/S. Mysore Tools Limited in Liquidation

Ekanath a Irkal Vs the Official Liquidator of

Smt. Vimala Anantharamaiah Vs the State of Karnataka