Shri Prakash N Baldota Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 16071 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SHRI. PRAKASH N. BALDOTA AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. N. R. BALDOTA R/AT NO.2472, 25^TH CROSS BSK II STAGE, BANGALORE-560070 (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT IS CLAIMED)

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

V N

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶11

BADIGER

¶12

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.29 15:13:27 +0530

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVEOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020.

¶14

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020.

¶15

KARNATAKA HOME TAX DEPARTMENT HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, CENTRAL REVENUE, QUEENS ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶18

BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGP FOR R1;

¶21

SRI. G.S. KANNUR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. B.N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ENTIRE ACQUISITION WITH RESPECT TO PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ABANDONED BY B.D.A AND CONSEQUENTLY, SCHEME IS LAPSED AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY IMPLEMENTED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE BDA ACT, 1976 AND TO HOLD THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 36 OF THE BDA ACT, 1976 HAS BECOME INOPERATIVE AND QUASH PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 29.12.1988-89 PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICE GAZETTE DATED 13.01.1989 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE BDA ACT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE’B’ AND THE DECLARATION/FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT DATED 17.09.1997 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE’K’ BEARING NO.UDD 434 MNX 97 AND TO DECLARE THAT THE SALE DEED DATED 31.07.2021, DULY REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT REGISTRAR, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.1281 BY SECOND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF FOURTH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE’Z’ AS NON-EST, ILLEGAL AND VOID ABINITIO AND DOES NOT CREATE ANY RIGHT IN FAVOUR OF FOURTH RESPONDENT AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO ISSUE NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶26

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶27

CAV ORDER

¶28

It is stated in the petition that, the petitioner is owner in possession of 2 acre 21 guntas in Sy.No.89 of Uttarahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk and to substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced the RTC extracts. It is stated that, the respondent-authorities have issued notification under Section 17(1) and (3) of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act'), vide Annexure-B dated 29.12.1988 and thereafter, issued notification dated 09.05.1994 under Section 19(1) of the Act (Annexure-C), proposed to acquire the lands for the purpose of formation of layout known as “Banashankari V stage”.

¶29

It is further stated in the writ petition that, the respondent has issued New Housing Policy as per Annexure-D, wherein it is indicated that, in the event of incomplete acquisition made by the respondent-authorities, owner of the land, is permitted to develop 12% of the total built up area to be given to the respondent-BDA or handing over 30% of the developed sites to the respondent-BDA. It is also stated in the

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶32

writ petition that, this Court in WP.No.21975/1994 and connected writ petitions disposed of on 19.09.1996 (AnnexureE), quashed the Final Notification dated 09.05.1994 and liberty was reserved to the respondent-BDA to proceed with the acquisition proceedings in terms of the observation made at paragraph 9 of the above judgment referred to in the writ petition. It is also stated that, the petitioner has made representation dated 15.10.1996 (Annexure-F), seeking approval of the layout plan and pursuant to the same the respondent-BDA has issued reply dated 06.11.1996 (AnnexureG), seeking certain clarification. It is also to be noted that, the representation made by the petitioner to drop the acquisition proceedings insofar as the subject land was considered in the resolution dated 28.07.1997, vide subject No.199/97 and resolved to grant approval for formation of layout subject to conditions as specified in Annexure-H to the writ petition.

¶33

It is also stated in the writ petition that, the respondent has issued Notification dated 16.09.1997, under Section 19(1) of the Act and sought to acquire the schedule land pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 29.12.1988 (Annexure-B). It is also stated by the petitioner, that the

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶36

petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings in WP.No.3334/2000 and this Court Vide order dated 08.07.2002 (Annexure-S), dismissed the petition.

¶37

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed W.A.No.4391/2002 and this Court Vide order dated 12.06.2008 (Annexure-T), permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, and directed the petitioner to work out his remedy in terms of the resolution dated 20.06.2000, passed by the respondent-BDA. It is also stated in the writ petition that, the petitioner has filed WP.No.10165/2008, in respect of the subject land and this Court disposed of the petition without interfering with the acquisition proceedings and the said order was assailed in W.A.No.336/2010 and this Court vide order dated 02.04.2014 (Annexure-W), permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition and to avail the remedy before the respondent No.2.

¶38

It is also stated in the writ petition that, though the petitioner is in possession of the land in question and no mahazar has been drawn as required under law and the respondent-BDA has executed Registered Sale Deed dated

¶39

6 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶41

31.07.2021 (Annexure-Z), in favour of respondent No.4 and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶42

I have heard, Sri. A. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. G. S. Kannuar, learned Senior counsel for Sri. B. S. Sachin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA, Sri. B.N. Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.4-State and Sri.Manjunath K., learned HCGP for respondent No.1.

¶43

Sri. A. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for

¶44

the petitioner, by referring to the earlier orders passed by this Court in WP.No.21975/1994 contended that this Court, allowed the writ petition and quashed the Final Notification dated 09.05.1994 as well as the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein in WP.No.3334/2000, dated 08.07.2002 (Annexure-S), order dated 12.06.2008 in WA No. 4391/2002 (Annexure-T) and order dated 05.01.2010 in WP No. 10165/2008 (AnnexureV) as well as order dated 02.04.2014 in WA.No.336/2010 (Annexure-W) and contended that, land surrounding to the schedule land belonging to the petitioner is vacant and

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶47

petitioner is in possession of the land in question and that apart, the respondent-BDA has dropped the acquisition proceedings in respect of the surrounding land in question and as such, sought for quashing of the impugned acquisition notification in respect of the land in question.

¶48

It is also submitted by Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the judgment of this Court in WA.No.435/2017 and connected writ appeals disposed of on 03.01.2020 insofar as the land bearing Sy.Nos.83 and 84, which are adjacent to the land belonging to the petitioner, made a reference with regard to paragraph 6 to 17 and argued that, as the respondent-authorities have abandoned the Scheme of acquisition and further the Notification was issued for formation of the layout to an extent of 1458.21 acres and layout was formed to an extent of 116-27 Acres only, nearly 3 to 4% of the land covered for the completion of the scheme and as such, the said aspect of the matter was made known to this Court in the earlier proceedings and accordingly by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT

¶49

8 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶51

AUTHORITY AND OTHERS¹ , Sri.A.Ravishankar learned

¶52

counsel for the petitioner argued that, judgment of the Division Bench is squarely applicable to the present case and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶53

Nextly, Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel

¶54

appearing for the petitioner argued that, the respondent-BDA has not followed the procedure contemplated with regard to taking possession of the land as well as while drawing mahazar and in this regard, he refers to the Notification dated 02.08.1999 (Annexure-P) and contended that, there is no address of the witnesses, no prior notice was issued to the petitioners and accordingly, places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of DR.A.PRATHASARATHY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS² and argued that, the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶55

It is also the submission of Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to land bearing Sy.Nos.83 and 84, neighbouring lands of the

¶56

1 (2011) 3 SCC 139

¶57

2 ILR 2017 KAR 3489

¶58

9 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶60

subject land in this petition and invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 02.02.2016 in WP.No.13374-75/2013 and contended that, this Court allowed the writ petition and held that the Scheme has become lapsed and the said judgment of learned Single judge was confirmed by the Division Bench and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶61

It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the order dated 12.10.2022 in SLP No.13474/2020 and SLP.No.13491/2020 and contended that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned writ appeals with regard to the neighbouring lands, which were sought to be acquired by the respondentauthorities along with the schedule land in this petition and accordingly, submitted that if the lands surrounded by the schedule property belonging to the petitioner has been held to be free from acquisition proceedings, the same yardsticks to be applicable to the facts of this case and therefore, the said aspect of the matter ought to be considered on the sole ground that, the respondent-BDA has not taken possession of the land in question and had taken possession, only to an extent of 2 to

¶62

10 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶64

3% of total extent of the land sought to be acquired and as such, sought for interference of this Court.

¶65

Per contra, Sri. G.S.Kannur learned senior counsel appearing for respondent-BDA argued that, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed on the question of delay and laches. By referring to the earlier writ petitions, learned senior counsel contended that, the res judicata is applicable to the facts of the case. It is also the specific contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, that the land is vested with the State and mahazar has been challenged twice before this Court and this Court declined to interfere with the same and as such, it is contended that, as the award has been passed as per Annexure-R3 and deposit of the compensation is made as per Annexure-R5 and therefore, he submitted that no interference is called for in this writ petition.

¶66

To buttress his arguments learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of MADURAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in WA.No.391/2019 disposed of on 30.06.2021 and argued that, the principles of

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶69

res judicata is applicable to the facts on hand, so also, insofar as the delay in filing the writ petition.

¶70

Learned senior counsel also places reliance on the order dated 14.03.2023 in WA.No.725/2021 and argued that, the Scheme of Banashankari V stage layout has not lapsed and is full fledged residential layout formed by the respondent-BDA and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶71

Learned HCGP Manjunath K and Sri. B. N Prakash learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 argued on similar lines with the learnead Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA and contended that the possession of the land in question has been taken and therefore the writ petition does not survive for consideration.

¶72

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is the case of the petitioners that the land bearing Sy. No.89 of Uttarhalli village, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 2 acres 21 guntas is belonged to the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent-BDA has issued notification under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act, on 29.12.1988 (Annexure-B) and proposed to acquire the large extent of land for the purpose of

¶73

12 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶75

formation of layout called as “Banshankari V Stage”. Thereafter the respondent authority have issued Final Notification dated 09.05.1994 (Annexure-C) under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, the respondent authorities have not implemented the scheme as required under Section 27 of BDA Act. It is also stated that, no mahazar was drawn as required under law and the mahazar was done in a mechanical manner on a cyclostyle form. In this regard, I have carefully considered the writ papers wherein, the record of rights stand in the name of the petitioner even during 2020-21, the name of the petitioner is reflected in the RTC extracts. It is the principal submission of Sri. A. Ravishankar that the State Government has issued new housing policy to encourage investment by private sector/co-operative sector in housing projects as per Government Order dated 17.11.1985. The respondent-BDA has not produced any material with regard to compliance of the aforementioned government order. It is also to be noted that Government Order dated 17.11.1985 (Annexure-D) in which Clause(a to c) a reads as under:

¶76

13 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶78

“GOVERNMENT ORDER NO

¶79

HUD/341/MN/95/BANGALORE DTD:17-11-1995

¶80

Petitioners are pleased to accord approval for the following:

¶81

a. In case where the land has been notified by Bangalore Development Authority, but acquisition proceedings are not completed and the land has not vested in B.D.A., the owner of the land may, if he so desires, be permitted to develop the land for formation of sites or for Group Housing. Where the land owner on his own or with the assistance of a developer takes up Group Housing Projects, he shall give 12% of the total built area to the B.D.A. In case, if he forms sites or such land, he should hand over 30% of the sites so formed to the B.D.A.

¶82

b. If the private developers/owners who desire to form sites on the land owned by them but not covered under land acquisition proceedings may be permitted to do subject to earmarking of 25% of total sital area for B.W.S. and L.I.G. These sites should be made available to deserving persons identified by B.D.A. at affordable prices.

¶83

c. Where private developers go in for Group Housing Projects, their proposals shall include construction of L.I.G./M.I.G. –II and H.I.G.-I and II Type houses. The cost of the L.I.G./H.I.G.-I houses should be so that it should be affordable

¶84

14 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶86

and made available to the deserving persons. The allotment of these will have to be in conformity with the B.D.A. Allotment Rules and the number of such L.I.G. and M.I.G.-I houses should not be less than 25% of the total number of houses proposed to be built up.”

¶87

It is also not in dispute that this Court in W.P. No.21975/1994 disposed off on 19.09.1996 (Annexure-E) allowed the writ petition in respect of the very same scheme i.e., for formation of layout called ‘Banshankari V Stage’, wherein, the notification under Section 19(1) dated 09.05.1994 (Annexure-C) was passed in respect of the subject land therein and liberty was reserved to the respondent authorities to complete the scheme at the earliest. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein has filed WP No.3334/2000, challenging the very same notification issued under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act, and this Court vide order dated 08.07.2002 rejected the petition and same was confirmed in WA No. 4391/2002 dated 12.06.2008. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has filed WP No.10165/2008 before this Court which came to be dismissed on 05.01.2010 and being aggrieved by the same petitioner has preferred WA No.336/2010 which came to be withdrawn by order dated

¶88

15 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶90

02.04.2014 with a liberty to the parties to workout their remedies before the authorities. In view of the liberty reserved by the Division Bench of this Court, as well as not adhering to the Government Order referred to above, doctrine of resjudicata is not applicable to the facts of this case.

¶91

At this juncture, it is relevant to consider the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question as per the RTC extracts produced at Annexure-A series and therefore, though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA invited the attention of the Court to notification under Section 16(1) of L.A. Act and argued that the possession of the land in question has been taken, however same cannot be accepted on the sole ground as the respondent-BDA in its resolution dated 20.06.2000 in subject No. 67 of 2000 (Annexure-R) had taken a decision to take possession which makes it clear that no possession was taken as per the notification under Section 16 of L.A. Act (Annexure-P to the writ petition) and further, the RTC extracts stand in the name of the petitioner, and as such, it is relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghbir

¶92

16 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶94

Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana and others³ wherein

¶95

paragraph 39 to 43 reads as under:

¶96

“39. In this context, it is necessary to remember that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5-A with a view to ensure that before any person is deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must get an opportunity to oppose the decision of the State Government and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to acquire the particular parcel of land. At the hearing, the objector can make an effort to convince the Land Acquisition Collector to make recommendation against the acquisition of his land. He can also point out that the land proposed to be acquired is not suitable for the purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1). Not only this, he can produce evidence to show that another piece of land is available and the same can be utilised for execution of the particular project or scheme.

¶97

Though it is neither possible nor desirable to make a list of the grounds on which the landowner can persuade the Collector to make recommendations against the proposed acquisition of land, but what is important is that the Collector should give a fair opportunity of hearing to the objector and objectively consider his plea against

¶98

3 (2012) 1 SCC 792

¶99

17 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶101

the acquisition of land. Only thereafter, he should make recommendations supported by brief reasons as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether or not the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Collector must reflect objective application of mind to the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons.

¶102

Before concluding, we deem it necessary to observe that in recent past, various State Governments and their functionaries have adopted very casual approach in dealing with matters relating to the acquisition of land in general and the rural areas in particular and in a large number of cases, the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) with or without the aid of Section 17 and the consequential actions have been nullified by the courts on the ground of violation of the mandatory procedure and the rules of natural justice. The disposal of cases filed by the landowners and others take some time and the resultant delay has great adverse impact on implementation of the projects of public importance. Of course, the delay in deciding such cases may not be of much significance when the State and its agencies want to confer benefit upon private parties by acquiring land in the name of public purpose.

¶103

18 -

¶104

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶105

It is difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate as to why the State and its instrumentalities resort to massive acquisition of land and that too without complying with the mandate of the statute. As noted by the National Commission on Farmers, the acquisition of agricultural land in the name of planned development or industrial growth would seriously affect the availability of food in future. After independence, the administrative apparatus of the State has not spent enough investment in the rural areas and those who have been doing agriculture have not been educated and empowered to adopt alternative sources of livelihood. If land of such persons is acquired, not only the current but the future generations are ruined and this is one of the reasons why the farmers who are deprived of their holdings commit suicide.

¶106

It also appears that the authorities concerned are totally unmindful of the plight of those sections of the society, who are deprived of their only asset like small house, small industrial unit, etc. They do not realise that having one's own house is a lifetime dream of a majority of the population of this country. Economically affluent class of society can easily afford to have one or more houses at any place or locality in the country but other sections of the society find it extremely difficult to purchase land and construct house. Majority of the people spend their lifetime savings

¶107

19 -

¶108

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶109

for building a small house so that their families may be able to live with a semblance of dignity. Therefore, it is wholly unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable to deprive such persons of their houses by way of the acquisition of land in the name of development of infrastructure or industrialisation. Similarly, some people set up small industrial units after seeking permission from the competent authority. They do so with the hope of generating additional income for their family. If the land on which small units are established is acquired, their hopes are shattered. Therefore, before acquiring private land the State and/or its agencies/ instrumentalities should, as far as possible, use land belonging to the State for the specified public purposes. If the acquisition of private land becomes absolutely necessary, then too, the authorities concerned must strictly comply with the relevant statutory provisions and the rules of natural justice.”

¶110

It is also relevant to cite the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation

¶111

and Another vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and Others⁴ .

¶112

Paragraphs 28 to 31 reads as under:

¶113

“28. These seven rights are foundational components of a law that is tune with Article 300A, and the absence of one of these or some of them would

¶114

4 2024 SCC Online 968

¶115

20 -

¶116

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶117

render the law susceptible to challenge. The judgment of this Court in K.T. Plantations (supra)13 declares that the law envisaged under Article 300A must be in line with the overarching principles of rule of law, and must be just, fair, and reasonable. It is, of course, precedentially sound to describe some of these sub-rights as ‘procedural’, a nomenclature that often tends to undermine the inherent worth of these safeguards. These seven sub-rights may be procedures, but they do constitute the real content of the right to property under Article 300A, non- compliance of these will amount to violation of the right, being without the authority of law.

¶118

These sub-rights of procedure have been synchronously incorporated in laws concerning compulsory acquisition and are also recognised by our constitutional courts while reviewing administrative actions for compulsory acquisition of private property. The following will demonstrate how these seven principles have seamlessly become an integral part of our Union and State statutes concerning acquisition and also the constitutional and administrative law culture that our courts have evolved from time to time.

¶119

Following are the seven principles:

¶120

30.1. The Right to notice: (i) A prior notice informing the bearer of the right that the State intends to deprive them of the right to property is a right in

¶121

21 -

¶122

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶123

itself; a linear extension of the right to know embedded in Article 19(1)(a). The Constitution does not contemplate acquisition by ambush. The notice to acquire must be clear, cogent and meaningful. Some of the statutes reflect this right.

¶124

(ii) Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 are examples of such statutory incorporation of the right to notice before initiation of the land acquisition proceedings.

¶125

(iii) In a large number of decisions, our constitutional courts have independently recognised the right to notice before any process of acquisition is commenced 14.

¶126

30.2. The Right to be heard: (i) Following the right to a meaningful and effective prior notice of acquisition, is the right of the property-bearer to communicate his objections and concerns to the authority acquiring the property. This right to be heard against the proposed acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham.

¶127

(ii) Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

¶128

22 -

¶129

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶130

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956, are some statutory embodiments of this right.

¶131

(iii) Judicial opinions recognizing the importance of this right are far too many to reproduce. Suffice to say that that the enquiry in which a land holder would raise his objection is not a mere formality.

¶132

30.3. The Right to a reasoned decision: i) That the authorities have heard and considered the objections is evidenced only through a reasoned order. It is incumbent upon the authority to take an informed decision and communicate the same to the objector.

¶133

(ii) Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 3(2) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, are the statutory incorporations of this principle. (iii) Highlighting the importance of the declaration of the decision to acquire, the Courts have held that the declaration is mandatory, failing which, the acquisition proceedings will cease to have effect.

¶134

30.4. The Duty to acquire only for public purpose: (i) That the acquisition must be for a public purpose is inherent and an important fetter on the discretion of

¶135

23 -

¶136

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶137

the authorities to acquire. This requirement, which conditions the purpose of acquisition must stand to reason with the larger constitutional goals of a welfare state and distributive justice.

¶138

(ii) Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 3(1) and 7(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections 2(1), 11(1), 15(1)(b) and 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 depict the statutory incorporation of the public purpose requirement of compulsory acquisition.

¶139

(iii) The decision of compulsory acquisition of land is subject to judicial review and the Court will examine and determine whether the acquisition is related to public purpose. If the court arrives at a conclusion that that there is no public purpose involved in the acquisition, the entire process can be set-aside. This Court has time and again reiterated the importance of the underlying objective of acquisition of land by the State to be for a public purpose.

¶140

30.5. The Right of restitution or fair compensation: (i) A person’s right to hold and enjoy property is an integral part to the constitutional right under Article 300A. Deprivation or extinguishment of that right is permissible only upon restitution, be it in the form of monetary compensation, rehabilitation or other

¶141

24 -

¶142

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶143

similar means. Compensation has always been considered to be an integral part of the process of acquisition.

¶144

(ii) Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 8 and 9 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Sections 3G and 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 are the statutory incorporations of the right to restitute a person whose land has been compulsorily acquired.

¶145

(iii) Our courts have not only considered that compensation is necessary, but have also held that a fair and reasonable compensation is the sine qua non for any acquisition process

¶146

30.6. The Right to an efficient and expeditious process: (i) The acquisition process is traumatic for more than one reason. The administrative delays in identifying the land, conducting the enquiry and evaluating the objections, leading to a final declaration, consume time and energy. Further, passing of the award, payment of compensation and taking over the possession are equally time consuming. It is necessary for the administration to be efficient in concluding the process and within a reasonable time. This obligation must necessarily form part of Article 300A.

¶147

25 -

¶148

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶149

(ii) Sections 5A(1), 6, 11A, and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 6(1A) and 9 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,1952, Sections 4(2), 7(4), 7(5), 11(5), 14, 15(1), 16(1), 19(2), 25, 38(1), 60(4), 64 and 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Sections 3C(1), 3D(3) and 3E(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, prescribe for statutory frameworks for the completion of individual steps in the process of acquisition of land within stipulated timelines.

¶150

(iii) On multiple occasions, upon failure to adhere to the timelines specified in law, the courts have set aside the acquisition proceedings.

¶151

30.7. The Right of conclusion: (i) Upon conclusion of process of acquisition and payment of compensation, the State takes possession of the property in normal circumstances. The culmination of an acquisition process is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking over the actual physical possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete. With the taking over of actual possession after the normal procedures of acquisition, the private holding is divested and the right, title and interest in the property, along-with possession is vested in the State. Without final vesting, the State’s, or its beneficiary’s right, title and interest in the property is inconclusive and causes lot of

¶152

26 -

¶153

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶154

difficulties. The obligation to conclude and complete the process of acquisition is also part of Article 300A.

¶155

ii) Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 and 5 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections 37 and 38 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Sections 3D and 3E of the National Highways Act, 1956, statutorily recognise this right of the acquirer.

¶156

iii) This step of taking over of possession has been a matter of great judicial scrutiny and this Court has endeavoured to construe the relevant provisions in a way which ensures non-arbitrariness in this action of the acquirer 20. For that matter, after taking over possession, the process of land acquisition concludes with the vesting of the land with the concerned authority. The culmination of an acquisition process by vesting has been a matter of great importance. On this aspect, the courts have given a large number of decisions as to the time, method and manner by which vesting takes place.

¶157

31. The seven principles which we have discussed are integral to the authority of law enabling compulsory acquisition of private property. Union and State statutes have adopted these principles and incorporated them in different forms in the statutes provisioning compulsory acquisition of immovable

¶158

27 -

¶159

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶160

property. The importance of these principles, independent of the statutory prescription have been recognised by our constitutional courts and they have become part of our administrative law jurisprudence.

¶161

Following the declaration of law made by the

¶162

Hon’ble Supreme Court as the record of rights stand in the name of the petitioner and mahazar has been drawn contrary to the records and same is in cyclostyle form and further no witnesses were present, though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA argued that the writ petition is hit by doctrine of res judicata however the records speak otherwise and therefore, the submission made by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-BDA cannot be accepted.

¶163

The Division Bench of this Court in WA No.435/2017 and connected writ appeals by order dated 03.01.2020 in respect of the very same scheme framed by the respondentBDA for formation of ‘Banshankari V Stage’ layout wherein, the subject matter of the land was Sy.No.89 of Uttarhalli village, Bengaluru South taluk (neighbouring land owners of the petitioners) and this Court, dismissed the appeal preferred by

¶164

28 -

¶165

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶166

the respondent-BDA and at paragraph No.5 to 20 held as

¶167

follows;

¶168

“5. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their statement of objections contending that the final notification was published in the official Gazette on 17.09.1997 wherein the land of the petitioner is shown at Sl. Nos.72 and 73. It is stated that subsequently possession of the land was taken in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.84 after following due procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the L.A. Act’). It is also contended that the petitioner’s challenge to the land acquisition is already negatived and thereafter, the award is passed and the possession of the land is taken by the Bengaluru Development Authority and delivered to the Engineering Department on 07.01.2000. The respondent No.2 claimed that an award amount of Rs.22,86,037/- was passed on 08.12.1999 and after the same was communicated to the land lady on 31.12.1999, the possession of the land was taken over by the Revenue Inspector and handed over to the Engineering Section on 07.01.2000. It is also contended that the layout could not be formed in the land in question in view of the pendency of Writ Petition No.9932 of 2000 before this Court and that after issue of the final notification, more than 80% of the lands are

¶169

29 -

¶170

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶171

utilized for formation of the layout. Therefore, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 claimed that the acquisition cannot be declared to have lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act.

¶172

Following the above, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed an additional statement of objections contending that 1458 Acres 21 guntas was the total notified area in the final notification. However, possession was handed over to the Engineering Section in respect of 421 Acres 17 guntas including the land in question out of which 263.21 Acres was denotified and the remaining land was under litigation. The respondent No.2 enclosed a detailed statement, a perusal of which discloses the following:

¶173

Sl.No.	Details	Acres- Guntas
1	Built-up area	279-06
2	Deleted subsequent to the orders in Writ Petitions (Hon`ble High Court)	58-03
3	De-notified land	205-18
4	Layout formed by BDA	116-27
5	Government land	255-04
6	Land under litigation	544-03
	Total notified land	1458-21

¶174

Insofar as Uttarahalli village is

¶175

concerned, it is found that out of 500 Acres 06

¶176

30 -

¶177

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶178

guntas, only 16 Acres 15 guntas is utilized for the formation of the layout.

¶179

The learned Single Judge noticed the above facts and passed the impugned order dated 02.02.2016 holding that there is no substantial implementation of the Scheme. The learned Single Judge held that though the final notification was issued during the year 1997 but the extent of land utilized for the formation of the layout was 116 Acres 27 guntas as of the year 2014 and thus held that the Scheme could not be said to be substantially implemented.

¶180

The learned Single Judge also delved upon the question as to whether the lapsing of the Scheme would result in lapsing of the acquisition. To this, the learned Single Judge deciphered the mahazar under which the possession of the land in question was taken. The learned Single Judge found that the mahazar was just like the many mahazars that were drawn by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, which were cyclostyled forms where some of the blanks were either filled or not filled and the parentage of the persons shown as witnesses and their addresses were not found in the mahazar. The signature of the owner was also not found on the mahazar. The learned Single Judge therefore, held that the document under which the possession of the property was

¶181

31 -

¶182

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶183

taken was nebulous and held that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot establish the taking over of possession of the land in question. The learned Single Judge therefore held as under:

¶184

“There is no hesitation in this case as well to negate the document, which seeks to establish the taking over of possession. The mere recording of taking over of possession of land by itself would not satisfy this Court unless it was also capable of being established if the parties were called upon to tender evidence.”

¶185

On the basis of such nebulous documents, it would not be possible for the Bengaluru Development Authority to proceed further in that direction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the possession of the land has been taken. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the lapsing of the Scheme would also result in lapsing of the acquisition insofar as the land of the petitioner is concerned. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are in appeal before this Court.

¶186

Curiously, the respondent No.1, who was the author of the final notification and the authority which approved the Scheme, is not in appeal before us.

¶187

32 -

¶188

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶189

Acquisition of land, be it for any infrastructure project or for any industrial use or for drawing development schemes as the metropolis grows, has churned up enormous litigation. The primary reason running common through all such litigation is the selective discrimination of land and land owners by the State and statutory bodies while identifying lands for acquisition. Though it is now trite that a land owner cannot approach the Court seeking the perpetuation of such discrimination as held by the Hon`ble Apex Court in the Judgment rendered in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS reported in 2010 (7) Supreme Court Cases 129. Para No.143 of the said judgment reads as under:

¶190

“143. We are conscious of the fact that when a person subjected to blatant discrimination, approaches a court seeking equal treatment, he expects relief similar to what others have been granted. All that he is interested is getting relief for himself, as others. He is not interested in getting the relief illegally granted to others, quashed. Nor is he interested in knowing whether others were granted relief legally or about the distinction between positive equality and negative equality. In fact he will be reluctant to

¶191

33 -

¶192

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶193

approach courts for quashing the relief granted to others on the ground that it is illegal, as he does not want to incur the wrath of those who have benefited from the wrong action. As a result, in most cases those who benefit by the illegal grants/actions by authorities, get away with the benefit, while others who are not fortunate to have “connections” or “money power” suffer. But these are not the grounds for courts to enforce negative equality and perpetuate the illegality.”

¶194

Yet we cannot lose sight of the fact that this Court is an Arbiter between a citizen and the mighty State and Courts cannot shut its eyes to a palpable colourable exercise of power.

¶195

In so far as the present case is concerned, the respondent No.1 sanctioned a Scheme for formation of Banashankari V Stage layout to be formed in 1458 Acres 21 guntas of land in Uttarahalli, Marasandra, Vaddarapalya,Doddakallasandra, Yelachenahalli, Channasandra, Bikasipura, Vasanthapura, Konanakunte of Uttarahalli hobli and Halagevaderahalli of Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Following the sanction of such Scheme under Section 18 of the BDA Act, a final notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act was issued on 16.09.1997, which was published in

¶196

34 -

¶197

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶198

the Gazette on 17.09.1997. In so far as Uttarahalli village is concerned, 500 Acres 06 guntas was notified including the land of the petitioner. It is stated that the award in respect of the land of the petitioner was passed on 31.12.1999 and the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued on 31.12.1999 and since the petitioner was not residing in the village, the notice under Section 12(2) was pasted on the outer door of the house on 31.12.1999. The respondent No.2 has produced Annexure ‘R3’ (page No.162) which discloses that the same was issued on 31.12.1999 requiring the Executive Engineer (Assistant Executive Engineer) of respondent No.2 to be present at the spot on 06.01.2000 to take over possession of the land. Curiously, in the mahazar (Annexure ‘R4’) drawn evidencing the taking over of possession, it is found that the Executive Engineer was not present on 06.01.2000 at the spot. The mahazar shows that the Executive Engineer took possession of the land on 07.01.2000. This means that the Executive Engineer was not present on 06.01.2000 and there is no corresponding intimation by the revenue officials of respondent No.2 to the Engineering section to be present at the spot on 07.01.2000 to take possession. It therefore belies the contention of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that possession was taken over on 06.01.2000 and

¶199

35 -

¶200

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶201

handed over to the Engineering Section. It is found in the mahazar that there existed a house on the land. However, it is not known whether the house was taken over and / or demolished. In addition, the notice under Section 12(2) of the BDA Act discloses that the land acquired was garden land. The petitioner has claimed that there are mango trees existing on the property which are more than 25 to 30 years. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has found that the entire land is vacant. This apart, the owner was not present and the details of the witnesses is not forthcoming from the mahazar. There are blanks in the mahazar making it difficult to accept the sanity of this document. The Apex Court has held in a catena of decisions, the mode and manner of taking possession and the latest in the long line of judgments is in the case of N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court page 763.

¶202

The mother of the petitioner had earlier challenged the acquisition of the land in Writ Petition No.9932 of 2000 which was ultimately rejected in terms of the order dated 02.07.2002 (Annexure ‘R7’). It is found that the respondent No.1 has denotified several parcels of land from acquisition in Uttarahalli hobli.

¶203

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶204

36 -

¶205

The respondent No.2 in its additional statement of objections has placed on record the details of land notified for formation of Banashankari V stage and the status of the land as on that date. The same is extracted below:

¶206

Sl.No.	Details	Acres- Guntas
1	Built-up area	279-06
2	Deleted subsequent to the orders in Writ Petitions (Hon`ble High Court)	58-03
3	De-notified land	205-18
4	Layout formed by BDA	116-27
5	Government land	255-04
6	Land under litigation	544-03
	Total notified land	1458-21

¶207

Section 16. Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 mandates the following:

¶208

“27. Authority to execute the scheme within five years.-Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 19, the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative.”

¶209

In view of the statement made on oath by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before this Court by their additional statement of

¶210

37 -

¶211

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶212

objections, it is clear that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not substantially implemented the Scheme as mandated. The respondent No.2 has claimed that 544.03 Acres of land was under litigation and that it had formed a layout only in respect of 116.27 Acres while more than 263 Acres was denotified from acquisition. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not disclosed the status of the litigation that afflicted 544.03 Acres of land and as to whether those lands were available for development of the Scheme or not. It is therefore evident that the respondent No.2 and 3 have failed to substantially implement the Scheme and thus, have failed to comply with the mandate of Section 27 of the BDA Act.

¶213

The Apex Court in the case of OFFSHORE HOLDINGS (P) LTD. v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY while considering the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the BDA Act has held as follows:

¶214

“38. On a conjunctive reading of the provisions of Sections 27 and 36 of the State Act, it is clear that where a scheme lapses, the acquisition may not. This, of course, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. Where, upon completion of the acquisition proceedings, the land has vested in the State Government in

¶215

38 -

¶216

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶217

terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition would not lapse or terminate as a result of lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act. An argument to the contrary cannot be accepted for the reason that on vesting, the land stands transferred and vested in the State/Authority free from all encumbrances and such status of the property is incapable of being altered by fiction of law either by the State Act or by the Central Act. Both these Acts do not contain any provision in terms of which property, once and absolutely, vested in the State can be reverted to the owner on any condition. There is no reversal of the title and possession of the State. However, this may not be true in cases where acquisition proceedings are still pending and land has not been vested in the Government in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶218

What is meant by the language of Section 27 of the BDA Act i.e. "provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative", is that if the acquisition proceedings are pending and where the scheme has lapsed, further proceedings in terms of Section 36(3) of the BDA Act i.e. with reference to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act shall become inoperative. Once the land which, upon its acquisition, has vested in the State and

¶219

39 -

¶220

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶221

thereafter vested in the Authority in terms of Section 36(3); such vesting is incapable of being disturbed except in the case where the Government issues a notification for revesting the land in itself, or a corporation, or a local Authority in cases where the land is not required by the Authority under the provisions of Section 37(3) of the BDA Act.”

¶222

(underlining supplied)

¶223

A Division Bench of this Court while considering the case of acquisition of land for formation of RMV II Stage in a judgment rendered in the case of DR. A. PARTHASARATHY AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in Writ Appeal Nos.5752 to 5756 connected with 6828 to 6832 of 2012 (disposed off on 28.10.2015) had held that the Bangalore Development Authority had failed to implement the Scheme within the time allowed and declared that the provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act are not applicable.

¶224

In our view, the learned Single Judge has carefully considered the aforesaid facts and has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have failed to implement the Scheme within the time allowed and therefore, declared that the Scheme of formation of Banashankari V stage in so far as the land of the petitioner is concerned has lapsed. The learned Single Judge also held that

¶225

40 -

¶226

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶227

in view of the fact that the possession of the land was not taken, the document under which possession was taken was clearly nebulous. It is necessary and pertinent to reiterate that once a scheme sanctioned under Section 18 of the BDA Act has lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, then the obvious corollary is that the provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act become inoperative. Under the BDA Act, the land which is acquired vests in the Government only upon a notification under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is issued. However, since we have held that taking over of possession is nebulous, the question of issuing a notification under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would not arise. Hence, we hold that the land acquired is not vested in the Government. Therefore, the lapsing of the Scheme would invariably result in the lapsing of the acquisition. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of ANTHONY REDDY AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2019 (2) KLJ 629 while considering the acquisition has also held that the lapsing of the Scheme would result in lapsing of the acquisition.”

¶228

Applying the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court to the case on hand wherein, the subject matter of the land in the aforesaid appeal was land

¶229

41 -

¶230

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶231

bearing Sy.No.89 of Uttarhalli village, in the vicinity of the land belonging to the petitioner herein and therefore, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that the subject matter of the land in WP No.13374-75 of 2013 was land bearing Sy.No.83 and 84 of Uttarhalli village, which the neighbouring land of the petitioner,where the acquisition proceedings were dropped.

¶232

It is also relevant to mention that the notification has been issued under Section 16 of the L.A. Act and the mahazar said to have been drawn for having taken possession produced by the petitioners at Annexure-P makes it clear that the mahazar has been in the form of printedcyclostyle form, which does not indicate name and address of witnesses and therefore, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-authority cannot be accepted. At this stage, it is relevant to draw the attention of this Court to the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr.A.

¶233

Parthasarathy and others v. State of Karnataka, by its

¶234

42 -

¶235

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶236

Principal Secretary⁵ , wherein paragraph 10 and 11 reads as

¶237

follows:

¶238

“10. The facts in the case before the Apex Court in the case of TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD v. A. VISWAM⁶ were different from the facts of the present case and as such, the ratio laid down in the said judgment would not be applicable to these cases. Possession of land so notified for acquisition has to be taken in a proper and valid manner. The findings recorded by the Learned Single Judge, that there was no independent witness which had signed the mahazar, nor the names and addresses to show the identity of the alleged witnesses was given, would be sufficient to show that the ‘mahazar’ was not prepared in a valid and legal manner. The same was done in a mechanical manner on a cyclostyle form, and the Learned Single Judge has rightly held that ‘it is hard to give any credence to such mahazar’. Learned Counsel for respondents has also not denied the fact that no notice was ever given to the appellants for handing over possession and straight away the ‘mahazar’ had been prepared, the authenticity of which is extremely doubtful.

¶239

Besides this, the other facts as noticed by the Writ Court, are also very relevant and have not been disputed by the parties. The

¶240

5 ILR 2017 KAR 3489

¶241

6 AIR 1986 SC 3377

¶242

43 - NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶243

appellants had been depositing betterment charges and property tax relating to the land in question till the year 2007. The building plan on the schedule property had also been sanctioned by the concerned authority. The BDA itself had passed a resolution on 24.9.1992 to denotify the lands of Sy.No.4 belonging to the appellants, from acquisition. The Joint Director of Town Planning of the BDA had also, on 13.1.1993, certified that there existed residential building, with wells and pump house as well as trees standing on the said land. The said Authority also stated that the BDA would have no objection in the land being developed by the appellants for residential purpose. The BDA had gone to the extent of passing a resolution requesting the State Government to denotify the acquisition of Sy.No.4 belonging to the appellants. All this would clearly go to show that possession of the land remained with the appellants and that BDA was not inclined to utilize the land of the appellants to the purpose of its scheme.

¶244

On similar lines, the Division Bench of this

¶245

Court in the case of Bengaluru Development Authority and others v. Hanumanthappa and others (2023:KHC: 8944:DB) has held that, when mahazar is in cyclostyle proforma and same does not indicate name and addresses of

¶246

44 -

¶247

NC: 2025:KHC:3642 WP No. 16071 of 2021

¶248

witnesses, same cannot be a basis to arrive at a conclusion that the possession of the land is taken and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing

¶249

for the petitioner that the relief sought for in the writ petition is to be accepted. In the result, I pass the following:

¶250

ORDER

¶251

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶252

ii) Preliminary Notification dated 29.12.1988 under Section 17(1)of BDA Act (Annexure-B) and Final Notification dated 17.09.1997 (Annexure-K) under Section 19(1)of BDA Act insofar as the land in question is concerned, is hereby quashed and all further proceedings by the respondent-BDA are hereby quashed and all further action of the respondent-BDA relating to land in question is void and hereby quashed, as contrary to law as per the declaration of law made by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above.

¶253

iii) The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶254

SB/YAN Ct: ANB, List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3

Shri Prakash N Baldota v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Prakash N Baldota v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devaki W/O Ganapati Naik Vs Laxman S/O Venkat Naik

Devaki W/O Ganapati Naik Vs Laxman S/O Venkat Naik

Gangadar Naik S/O. Durgya Naik Vs Smt Pakkiramma W/O Durgya Naik

Sri. Anjanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Chikkamuniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Muneeramma Vs the State of Karnataka