Allowed

Sri M Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2024WP/10657/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought declaration that Urban Land Ceiling proceedings over schedule lands in Banasawadi Village stood lapsed, possession not having been taken before the Repeal Act, 1999. Following Hari Ram, the Court allowed the writ petition, declared the ULC proceedings lapsed and directed mutation of revenue records in the petitioners' names.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that ULC proceedings stood lapsed; Tahasildar directed to delete respondent No.2's name from Column 11 of RTC and enter petitioners' names within three months.

Sri M Dhananjaya Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:32963 WP No. 10657 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10657 OF 2024 (ULC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI M. DHANANJAYA REDDY S/O. M. C. PITCHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT 3^RD CROSS, BHAVANESWARI NAGAR, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 093.

¶8

SMT. M. SAMPOORNA W/O. M. DHANANJAYA REDDY, S/O. M.C. PITCHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT 3^RD CROSS, BHAVANESWARI NAGAR, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 093.

¶9

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI M. SHANKAR S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.303, VIJAYA BANK COLONY, DODDABANASAWADI, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶11

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O. M. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.303, VIJAYA BANK COLONY, DODDABANASAWADI, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶12

SMT. CHENNU SAMPURNAMMA W/O. LATE BALAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32963 WP No. 10657 of 2024

¶14

CHENNU KRISHNAKISHORE S/O. LATE BALAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶15

CHINNU ASHOK KUMAR S/O. LATE BALAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶16

PETITIONER NOS.5 TO 7 ARE R/O. KAMMANAHALLI, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANASAWADI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK. ... PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI M.N. UMA SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER URBAN LAND CEILING, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

THE THAHASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, K.R. PURAM-560 036, BENGALURU EAST DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF URBAN LANDS CEILING AND REGULATION ACT, 1976 STOOD LAPSED AS THE POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE LANDS HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN OVER TILL 22/03/1999, WHEN THE URBAN LAND CEILING AND REGULATIONS ACT, 1999 CAME INTO FORCE AND ETC.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:32963 WP No. 10657 of 2024

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners are seeking for the following prayers:

¶29

“WHEREFORE, the Petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased declare that the proceedings under the provisions of Urban Lands Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 stood lapsed as the possession of the schedule lands has not been taken over till 22-03-1999, when the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulations Act 1999 came into force in the interest of justice.

¶30

2. The Petitioners pray for a Writ of Prohibition directing the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioners from the schedule lands in Sy.No.19/2 of Banasawadi Village, at Annexure-A No.ULC (9) 273/85-86, dated 02/12/1987 as the possession of the schedule lands has not been taken over by the Competent Authority under the Provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 in the interest of justice.

¶31

3. The Petitioners have pray for a direction to the Respondent No.3 Tahasildar to delete the name of the 2^nd Respondent from column No.11 of the RTC extract and to enter the name of the

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32963 WP No. 10657 of 2024

¶33

Petitioners in column No.11 and 12 of the RTC in Annexure-D in the interest of justice.

¶34

4. Therefore, the Petitioners respectfully pray that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass an appropriate order or direction as the case may be in the facts of the case as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶35

Heard Sri M.N. Uma Shankar, learned counsel

¶36

for the petitioners and Sri Radha Ramaswamy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶37

The material on record would indicate that the petitioners have purchased the portion of the schedule lands in Sy. No.19/2 of Banasavadi Village measuring 2 acres 19 guntas (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule property’ for short) under three registered sale deeds dated 14.02.2008, 11.02.2009 and 14.02.2008, the schedule property was acquired by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for formation of layout called scheme between Banasavadi Road and Hennur Road

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32963 WP No. 10657 of 2024

¶39

sanctioned by the BDA as per the notifications dated 21.03.1977 and 13.02.1989, the petitioners along with C. Balakrishna Reddy filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.38584/2016 seeking to declare that the acquisition proceedings insofar as it relates to Sy. No.19/2 of Banaswadi Village are deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, as the physical possession of the lands has not been taken over or the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners, after issuance of notifications dated 21.03.1977 and 13.02.1989, the writ petition came to be allowed on 15.06.2021 and the impugned preliminary notification and final notification and all the acquisitions proceeding pursuant thereto have been quashed.

¶40

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property having purchased from the lawful owners and recently the petitioners had noticed the proceedings under Sub-Section 1 of Section 10 of Urban

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:32963 WP No. 10657 of 2024

¶42

Land (Ceiling Regulation) Act, 1976 was initiated and that the petitioners are entitled for benefit of the Urban Land (Ceiling Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (15 of 1999) as the possession of the schedule property has not been taken over till coming into force of the Repeal Act No.15 of 1999 with effect from 18.03.1999.

¶43

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of Repealing of ULC Act, with effect from 18.03.1999, the entire proceedings stand abated. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram¹ (Hari Ram) has held that mere vesting of the land under Sub-Section 3 of Section 10 would not confer any right, on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.03.1999, the State Government has to establish that there has been voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under Sub-

¶44

1 (2013) 4 SCC 280

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:32963 WP No. 10657 of 2024

¶46

Section 5 of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under Sub-Section 6 of Section 10. On failure to establish any of the situations, the land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act.

¶47

The Additional Government Advocate has filed a

¶48

memo along with pahani for the year 2024-2025 pertaining to the schedule property indicating that in column No.9, the name of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has been entered as the land has been acquired by the BDA. This Court in W.P. No.38584/2016 has already quashed the acquisition proceedings in respect of the schedule property, there are no materials are forthcoming to show that the respondents have taken over the possession of the schedule property and the possession continued to remain with the petitioner and the respondents having not taken over the possession of the schedule property from the petitioner, the impugned order needs to be quashed.

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32963 WP No. 10657 of 2024

¶50

A careful perusal of the material on record

¶51

would indicate that the possession of the schedule property has not been taken over by the respondents and in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hari Ram and by virtue of repeal of ULC Act, all the proceedings under the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 stood lapsed, as the possession of the schedule property were not taken over on or before 18.03.1999, when the Repeal Act, 1999 came into force. In the result, this Court pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶54

(ii) The proceedings under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 stood lapsed as the possession of the suit property having not been taken over as on 18.03.1999, when the Repeal Act came into force.

¶55