Dismissed

Indradhanush Properties Private Ltd., v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024WP/20203/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner challenged preliminary and final notifications acquiring its land for a BDA residential layout, arguing conversion to non-agricultural use exempted the land, NOC created estoppel, and its name was absent from notifications. The court rejected all contentions, holding eminent domain prevails and private interest yields to public interest.

What the court decided

AI extract

Indradhanush Properties Private Ltd., Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9576 WP No. 20203 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 20203 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

INDRADHANUSH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT APARTMENT NO.L-104, GRUHALAKSHMI APARTMENT, NO.13/2, S.M.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 015. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.G.SRIDHAR, S/O B.GOVINDARAJAN.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:9576 WP No. 20203 of 2023

¶19

THE LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU 560020.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.PRINCE ISAAC, AGA FOR R1; SRI.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI.SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADV FOR R2 & R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 19/08/2022, BEARING NO. BDA/DC(LA)/67/2022-23, ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 18/10/2022 BEARING NO.UDD/265/MNX/2022(E) ISUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT, (ANNEXURE-B) INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO ACQUISITION, OF LAND IN SY.NO.37/1 MEASURING 01 ACRE, SY.NO.37/3, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS AND SY.NO.37/3 MEASURING 18 GUNTAS, ALL THE LAND ARE SITUATED AT SOMASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE, YESWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BELONGS TO PETITIONER, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, KRISHNA S DIXIT J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition seeks to lay a challenge to the acquisition of land vide Preliminary Notification dated 19.8.2022 followed by the Final Notification dated 18.10.2022, both issued by the 2^nd respondent-BDA to the extent they comprise the petition lands.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:9576 WP No. 20203 of 2023

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that: the Notifications do not mention the name of petitioner who is the registered owner of the lands in question; the subject lands having been converted to nonagricultural user are exempted from acquisition process vide JUNJAMMA vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , ILR 2005 KAR 608; the BDA having given NOC for conversion, cannot seek acquisition of the said lands; when the purpose for which lands are sought to be acquired would be served by the land owners themselves developing the case.

¶29

After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through the learned AGA and BDA & its LAO have entered appearance through their Panel Counsel. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the petition controverting the propositions which the counsel for the petitioner strenuously has put forth as mentioned above. He adds that, this acquisition is being finalized pursuant to

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9576 WP No. 20203 of 2023

¶31

direction of the Apex Court in BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Miscellaneous Application Nos.1614-1616/2019 in C.A.Nos.7661-

¶32

7663/2018 and that there is no discretion to disobey the mandate in the judgment. He also contends that there being no dropping of the proceedings in terms of section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submissions made by the learned Advocate General. Our discussion is as under:

¶34

(a) Firstly, the power of eminent domain which is constitutionally recognized even by Article 300A is an attribute of a sovereign State. Any private property notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee can be taken by the government for public purpose on payment of

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9576 WP No. 20203 of 2023

¶36

compensation vide K.T.PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED vs.

¶37

STATE OF KARNATAKA , (2011) 9 SCC 1. The bonafide of acquisition is not in challenge. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once the land is converted to non-agricultural purpose, the same enjoys immunity from acquisition, is difficult to agree with. Such a proposition does not find support from JUNJAMMA supra . The court in that case has only noted as to why a large chunk of notified land was dropped from acquisition process and one of the reasons was that the lands were converted to non-agricultural user. That does not mean that in all cases where land is converted to nonagricultural purpose, there can be no acquisition of the same. It hardly needs to be stated that even the lands belonging to temple, mosque or church are immuned from acquisition. Courts have upheld even acquisition of graveyards for public purpose. An argument to the contrary would run counter to a century old acquisition jurisprudence.

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9576 WP No. 20203 of 2023

¶39

(b) The second contention that the BDA had

¶40

granted NOC for conversion of the land u/s 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and therefore, it is estopped from acquiring the land, is too farfetched an argument. NOC as a matter of protocol is insisted upon whilst processing the application for conversion of land to non-agricultural user. However, that does not immune future acquisition of such land. Not even one sporadic ruling has been cited to support contention of the petitioner. That apart, power of eminent domain is a statutory power and it has constitutional trappings as well. In recognition of its enormity and necessity, the fundamental right to property guaranteed u/a 19(1)(f) has been relegated to only a constitutional guarantee vide under Article 300A post 44^th Amendment. This aspect of the matter has been elaborately discussed by the Apex Court in K.T.PLANTATION supra. Added, there can be no estoppel against the exercise of statutory power, that too in public interest.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:9576 WP No. 20203 of 2023

¶43

¶44

is vitiated since name of the petitioner was not notified in the acquisition Notifications, is again difficult to sustain. The provisions of BDA Act provide for notifying the land for acquisition in the name of person as figuring in the property records. If petitioner-Company had failed to get its name entered in the property records pursuant to sale deeds, fault cannot be attributed to the State in notifying the land for acquisition in the name of persons as per the records. Even otherwise, this arguable lacuna pales into insignificance since the petitioner admittedly has filed his objections in terms of legal notices opposing the acquisition. Added, this acquisition is being done as per the mandate of the Apex Court in BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY case supra and the respondents had no discretion to disobey the said mandate.

¶45

(d) The last contention of the petitioner that the

¶46

purpose for which lands are being acquired and the

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9576 WP No. 20203 of 2023

¶48

purpose of developing the lands by the petitioner itself are one and the same and therefore, the acquisition would not serve the true purpose of law, is again difficult to agree with. This argument at the first blush appears attractive; however, a deeper examination shows its hallowness. The purpose for which the lands are being acquired is to provide residential accommodation to the needy public at a reasonable price. That would be served only by acquisition of private land in public interest. Therefore, the private interest of the petitioner has to yield to the public interest at large.

¶49

In the above circumstances, the petition being devoid of merits, is liable to dismissed & accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.

¶50

We make it clear that nothing herein shall be construed as depriving the true owner of the subject properties for laying a claim for compensation or such

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:9576 WP No. 20203 of 2023

¶53

other benefits that would usually follow acquisition of

private land.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE