Mr T Rama Rao Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.17146 OF 2013 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR T RAMA RAO S/O LATE THIMMAPPAIAH SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

¶9

1. RATHNAMMA

¶10

W/O LATE RAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT SY.NO.36/1 HOUSE NO.49, 89FT RING ROAD 10^TH MAIN, KRISHNA TEMPLE MALLATHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 056.

¶11

JAYAPRAKASH B.R

¶12

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶13

S/O LATE RAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT SY NO.36/1, HOUSE NO.49, 89FT RING ROAD 10^TH MAIN, KRISHNA TEMPLE MALLATHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 056.

¶14

SATISH KUMAR B.R., S/O LATE RAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT SY NO.36/1, HOUSE NO.49, 89FT RING ROAD 10^TH MAIN, KRISHNA TEMPLE

MALLATHALLI,

BANGALORE - 560 056.

MR. VASU B.R., S/O LATE RAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OFFICE AT NO.03, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018.

¶19

SMT. SUDHAMANI S/O LATE RAMA RAO AGED MAJOR R/AT RAGHAVENDRA COLONY 1^ST CROSS, # 17/1 NEW NO.53 CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018.

¶20

...PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.B. AJIT, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

SHRI R. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO. 16, GAJENDRA NAGARA,

¶26

¶27

AVALAHALLI, GEF POST, BENGALURU - 560 026.

¶28

SHRI. G. S. SHANTHA KUMAR, S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO. 185, 5^TH MAIN, 11^TH CROSS, NGEF LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072. 5. SMT. N. PREMA KUMARI, W/O SRI. PUTTAHONNEGOWDA M.Н., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.537, 9^TH MAIN, M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, 4 BENGALURU - 560040

¶29

SMT. CHAITRA S, W/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO. 15, 1^ST MAIN, RHCS LAYOUT, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶30

SMT. R. JAYAMMA, W/O. SRI T. MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 702. "CHIRANJEEVI", 9^TH MAIN ROAD, 9^TH BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560072

¶31

DR. N.S.MAMATHA DEVI W/O DR. MNJUNATH GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANJANADRI, 2^ND MAIN, SIDDAGANGA LAYOUT, TUMKUR-572 102.

¶32

¶33

MR. H.D.MOHAN KUMAR S/O DHARANI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 21, 6^TH CROSS, PRIYADHARSHINI LAYOUT, MUDALAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 072

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. G.S. KANNUR SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6; SRI. SANTHOSH S. GOGI, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. G. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO DEMARCATE THE TOTAL EXTENT OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.36/1, MEASURING 5 ACRES 28 GUNTAS OF MALATHAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK AND THE PETITIONER'S LAND [SCHEDULE PROPERTY] IN SUCH SURVEY NUMBER MEASURING 5 ACRES 28 GUNTAS WHICH IS CONVERTED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUMS DATED 27.04.1989 BEFORE EXECUTING ANY WORK IN PORTION OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.36/1, MALLATHAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-A & B.

¶37

ALTERNATIVELY QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 9^TH SEPTEMBER 2003 AS PER ANNEXURE-D IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER'S LAND [SCHEDULE PROPERTY] MEASURING 5 ACRES 28 GUNTAS CONVERTED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE IN SURVEY NO.36/1, MALLATHAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, WHICH IS CONVERTED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUMS DATED 27.04.1989 BEFORE EXECUTING ANY WORK IN PORTION OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.36/1, MALLATHAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE A & B.

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶41

CAV ORDER

¶42

This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶43

'' (a). Directing the respondents to demarcate the total extent of land in Sy.No.36/1 measuring 5 acres and 28 guntas of Malathahalli village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and the petitioner's land (schedule property) in Sy.No.36/1, measuring 5 acres 28 guntas which is converted for residential purpose vide official memorandum dated 27.04.1989 before any executing work in portion of the land instead of Sy.No. 36/1 Malathahalli village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk vide Annexure-A & B .

¶44

b) Alternatively issue Writ of Certiorari quashing the Notification dated 9^th September 2003 as per Annexure 'D' in so far as the Petitioner's land (Schedule Property) measuring 5 acres 28 guntas converted for residential purpose in Survey No.36/1, Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, which is converted for residential purpose vide Official Memorandums dated 27.04.1989 in B.DIS.ALN.SR(N)104/88-89 and B.DIS.ALN.SR(N)131/88-89 before executing any work in portion of land in Survey No.36/1, Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, vide Annexure A & B

¶45

c) To quash the endorsement dt:08.07.2022 in No.BDA/LAO145/2022-23 as the Annexure-R by Respondent No.1

¶46

d) For such other orders as deemed fit to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case to serve the interest of justice and equity and

¶47

e) For Costs. ''

¶48

¶49

2. The case of the petitioner is ;

¶50

(a). That he is the absolute owner in possession of a residentially converted land bearing Sy. No.36/1, measuring 5 acres and 28 guntas of Malathahalli Village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore, North Taluk (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’). That by a notification dated 09.04.2003, issued under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'BDA Act'), respondent No.1-BDA had sought to acquire certain lands including the subject land for the purpose of formation of ''Sir M Vishweshwaraiah further extension layout'' followed by final notification dated 10.09.2003 issued under Section 19 of the BDA Act.

¶51

(b). That on an earlier occasion by a notification dated 31.12.1987, respondent No.1-BDA had sought to acquire subject land for the formation of layout called ''Malathahalli Layout''. The said notification was withdrawn in view of respondent No.1-BDA resolving to form a new layout called ''Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah further extension Layout'' by excluding the lands which were already converted for the residential purposes. As such, the respondent No.1-BDA could not have issued the present notification proposing to acquire subject land.

¶52

(c). That in the aforesaid notifications, the respondent No.1BDA had mentioned the extent of land in Sy.No.36/1 as 6

¶53

¶54

acres and 28 guntas, while the actual extent is only 5 acres 28 guntas. Petitioner had sought details of the land which was acquired under the said notifications. In response, respondent No.2-SLAO had issued an endorsement dated 20.01.2004 affirming that the residentially converted land of the petitioner in Sy.No.36/1 measuring 5 acres and 27 guntas was not part of the final notification and that the Government had issued notification dated 19.09.2003 for levy of development charges as required under Section 20 of the BDA Act.

¶55

(d). That despite having issued the aforesaid endorsement dated 20.01.2004, respondents illegally attempted to enter upon the subject land. Petitioner therefore filed a writ petition in W.P. No.19838/2004. During the pendency of the said writ petition, respondent No.2-SLAO had issued an endorsement dated 30.04.2004 informing the petitioner that the earlier endorsement dated 20.01.2004 was withdrawn. Consequently, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition with liberty to challenge the said endorsement dated 30.04.2004.

¶56

(e). That the petitioner accordingly filed another writ petition in W.P.No.31322/2004. During the pendency of the said writ petition, respondent No.2-SLAO issued a notice dated 26.05.2006 in LAC No.88/2003-2004 under Section 20 of the BDA Act, calling upon the petitioner to pay betterment charges in a sum of Rs.95,39,640/- for an extent of 5 acres and 19 guntas. Even the said the writ petition was

¶57

¶58

disposed of by this Court on 11.12.2006, reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation in view of there being an error in mentioning the extent of land in Sy.No.36/1 both in the preliminary and the final notifications.

¶59

(f). That the respondent No.1-BDA did not intend to acquire the subject land as the requirement was for a small extent of land to build a road for proposed further extension of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout and as such the respondents issued notification excluding the subject land, which is clear from the resolution dated 17.01.2003 of the respondent No.1-BDA.

¶60

(g) That subsequent to disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, though petitioner repeatedly approached the respondents contending that the total extent of the subject land is only 5 acres and 28 guntas and had even sought clarification with regard to the actual extent of land in Sy.No.36/1, he was informed that the appropriate decision for survey of land in Sy.No.36/1 would be taken pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 11.12.2006 passed in W.P.No.31322/2024.

¶61

(h). That since the respondents were precipitating their unlawful acts of entering upon the subject land asserting that the land in Sy.No.36/1 measures 6 acres and 28 guntas of which 1 acre and 1 gunta was acquired, without

¶62

¶63

taking any decision on the representations, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

¶64

That during the pendency of the present writ petition, respondents had issued an endorsement dated 08.07.2022 stating that the endorsement dated 30.04.2004 was withdrawn as the earlier endorsement dated 20.01.2004 and the survey that was conducted on 09.10.2013 disclosed that an extent of 1 acre and 1 gunta of land has been acquired out of 5 acres and 28 guntas of land and the representation of the petitioner seeking no objection to the extent of 5 acres and 27 guntas had been rejected. In view of the endorsement dated 08.07.2022, petitioner sought for amendment of the writ petition seeking deletion of prayer column No.(a) and addition of prayer No.(c) which was allowed. Accordingly, the original prayer column No.(a) was deleted and the petitioner restricted the writ petition to the reliefs at column Nos.(b) and (c) as extracted herein above.

¶65

In the meanwhile original petitioner passed away and is represented by his legal representatives. Subsequently on 17.03.2023 on their instructions learned Senior counsel submitted that they would not seek any prayer as against the

¶66

10

¶67

allottees of land who are impleaded, which was placed on record. However an application under Section 151 of CPC in I.A.No.3/2024 is filed seeking modification of the said order dated 17.03.2023. Objection statement to the said application has been filed.

¶68

5. Statement of objections has been filed by the

¶69

respondent No.1-BDA contending that:

¶70

(a). An error had occurred while notifying the land both in the preliminary notification dated 09.04.2003 and the final notification dated 10.09.2003, in that, instead of mentioning the total extent of land in Sy.No.36/1 as 5 acres and 28 guntas, the extent is shown as 6 acres and 28 guntas. The respondent No.1-BDA has rectified the said mistake by issuing an Erratum Notification published in the Gazette on 03.06.2004 showing the actual extent of land as 5 acres and 28 guntas out of which an extent of 1 acre and 1 gunta has been acquired.

¶71

(b). That the endorsement dated 20.01.2004 that had been issued to the petitioner calling upon him for payment of betterment tax was withdrawn by the respondent No.1BDA. Further, in the light of the order dated 11.12.2006 passed by this Court in W.P.No.31322/2004 to consider the representation of the petitioner, on 09.10.2013

¶72

11

¶73

respondent No.1-BDA had conducted a survey of the land to find out the factual position as to how much of the land had been utilized for the purpose of road and for formation of layout. That as per the report out of 5 acres and 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.36/1, 7 guntas of land was kharab and of the remaining 5 acres and 21 guntas of land, an extent of 1 acre and 1 gunta of land has been utilized for formation of road and the layout.

¶74

(c). That the said extent of acquired land has already been notified in the preliminary notification dated 09.04.2003 and the final notification dated 10.09.2003. Award is passed on 29.12.2003 to an extent of 1 acre and 1 gunta of land in a sum of Rs.8,77,252/- per acre, which has been deposited before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru on 07.12.2012. The possession of the acquired land has been taken in terms of Section 16(2) of the BDA Act and the same has been handed over to the Engineering Section on 09.01.2004. Layout and the road have already been formed in the said acquired land. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶75

Respondent Nos.3 to 9 were impleaded subsequently.

¶76

Respondent Nos.3 to 6 filed their statement of objection

¶77

on 16.08.2022, contending;

¶78

(a). That in the land measuring 1 acre and 1 gunta that was acquired by the respondent-BDA from and out of total

¶79

¶80

extent of 5 acres and 28 guntas of land being claimed by the petitioner, the Respondent No1-BDA has formed sites and the respondent Nos.3 to 6 have been allotted sites and the deeds of sale in that regard have been executed in their favour.

¶81

(b). That Khathas have been registered in their name in the records of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and that they have been paying the property taxes. Thus, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the sites allotted by the respondent No.1-BDA in their favour.

¶82

(c). That earlier the petitioner himself had formed a layout consisting of sites in 1 acre and 1 gunta of land out of 5 acres and 28 guntas and sold the same in favour of various purchasers. That after issuance of impugned notifications petitioner had made representation to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for himself and on behalf of said site owners seeking payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of the said land. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 passed award and had issued notices under Sections 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That the petitioner has suppressed and concealed these aspects of the matter. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶83

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

¶84

Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court extensively

¶85

¶86

through the averments made in the writ petition and the

¶87

documents produced therewith, submitted;

¶88

(a). That the subject land was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purposes vide Official Memorandum dated 27.04.1989. That the subject land had earlier been notified for formation of ''Mallathahalli Layout'', vide notification dated 31.01.1987. That the respondent No.1-BDA in its meeting held on 17.01.2003 vide subject No.54/3 had resolved to withdraw the earlier notification and to continue with acquisition of 700 acres of lands, for the purpose of formation of “Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah further extension Layout” by excluding the lands consisting of unauthorized constructions, private layouts and converted lands. Thus, respondent No.1-BDA could not have issued impugned notifications, notifying the subject land.

¶89

(b). That in the preliminary notification extent of land in Sy.No.36/1 is shown as 6 acres and 28 guntas while in the final notification only an extent of 1 acre and 1 gunta is shown to have been acquired. Thus, an extent of 5 acres and 19 guntas has been left out from acquisition.

¶90

(c). Referring to the endorsement dated 20.01.2004 at Annexure-E, learned Senior Counsel insisted that there is a specific reference to exclusion of 5 acres and 27 guntas of land in said Sy.No.36/1 and to the provisions of

¶91

¶92

Section 20 of the BDA Act requiring payment of betterment charges thereon.

¶93

(d). That by the endorsement dated 30.04.2004 the earlier endorsement dated 20.01.2004 has been withdrawn, which constrained the petitioner to file writ petition in W.P.No.31322/2004. Referring to paragraph No.3 of the Order dated 11.12.2006 passed in the said writ petition, he emphatically submitted that even according to the respondent No.1-BDA only a portion measuring 1 acre and 1 gunta of land has been acquired for the purpose of formation of a road and not entire extent of 5 acres and 28 guntas.

¶94

(e). Referring to erratum dated 01.06.2004 learned Senior counsel submitted that same is not in compliance with the provisions as contemplated either under Section 17 or Section 19 of the BDA Act. In that, he submitted that the said erratum is not preceded by any resolution by the respondent No.1-BDA but it is only signed by the Commissioner. No sanction is obtained by the Government for change of extent of land. The said document is contrary to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act as it is not in accordance with provisions of Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the BDA Act. Therefore, the same is nullity and nonest in the eye of law.

¶95

(f). Referring to paragraph No.5 of the order dated 11.12.2006 passed in W.P.No.31322/2004, learned

¶96

¶97

Senior Counsel submitted that a specific direction had been given to the respondents to consider the representations to be filed by the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously. He further referred to a notice dated 26.05.2006 produced at Annexure-J, which was issued during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, wherein the respondent-BDA had called upon the petitioner to pay the betterment charges in respect of 5 acres and 19 guntas of land. He also referred to the representations produced at Annexure-K1 dated 27.03.2012, given by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner had again raised the issue with regard to the actual measurement of the land in Sy.No.36/1, being 5 acres and 28 guntas and not 6 acres and 28 guntas. Thus referring to these documents he submitted that Respondents 1 and 2 could not have declined the request of the Petitioner to issue no objection in respect of subject land.

¶98

(g). In support of the application in I.A.No.3/2024, learned Senior counsel submitted that submission/undertaking as recorded by this Court on 17.03.2023 was given on mistake of facts. He further submitted that from details/documents that are produced along with memo of compliance that was filed by the respondent No.1-BDA after conducting the survey as per the order passed by this Court on 17.03.2023, it is clear that subject land in Sy.No.36/1 totally measures 5 acres and 28 guntas

¶99

¶100

including 7 guntas of Kharab and that only a portion of the subject land is used only for the purpose of formation of road and no sites have been formed in the said land.

¶101

(h) That the present writ petition was filed on 15.04.2013 and the interim order restraining respondents from dispossessing the petitioner was passed on 24.06.2013. That the details of the sale deeds in respect of the seven sites which are mentioned in the report indicate that they are executed subsequent to the date of the interim order granted by this Court.

¶102

(i). Referring to the layout plan enclosed to the compliance memo, he submitted that the said layout plan is of the year 2015 which was challenged in writ petitions in W.P.Nos. 34009/2017, 4480/2017, 35396/2016, and that by order 23.07.2021 said layout plan has been quashed, as such no sites are formed in the land of the petitioner. That except the road formed by the respondent No.1-BDA there is nothing existing on the land of the petitioner.

¶103

(j). He also referred to the mahazar dated 09.01.2004 produced at Annexure-R6 to the statement of objection of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 to contend that there has been no witnesses to the said mahazar. As such, the said mahazar cannot be believed. Thus he submitted that the possession of the subject land has always remained with the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the concession that was given as recorded by this Court in its order

¶104

¶105

dated 17.03.2023 was one under mistake of facts. As

¶106

such, the same is sought to be withdrawn.

¶107

(k). In support of his aforesaid submissions, learned Senior counsel relied upon the following judgments:

¶108

(a). Narendrajit Singh and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (1970) 1 SCC 125 ,

¶109

(b). B.K. Srinivas and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others , reported in (1987) 1 SCC 658 ,

¶110

(c). Ms. Asiya Mariyan Vs. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu reported in (2000) (iv) CTC 125 ,

¶111

(d). The State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Istal Ahmed Mohammad Saheb reported in ILR 2016 KAR 98

¶112

(e). Gautham Kamath Hotels Pvt. Ltd., and others Vs. BDA Rep. by its Commissioner and others reported in ILR 2016 KAR 98

¶113

(f). Dr. A. Parthasarathy and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2017 KAR 3489 .

¶114

(g). State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak and Another reported in (1982) 2 SCC 463 .

¶115

Submissions on behalf of Respondent- BDA

¶116

Sri. G.S. Kannur, learned Senior counsel appearing for learned counsel for respondent No.1-BDA submitted that;

¶117

¶118

(a). That the actual extent of land in Sy.No.36/1 as per of revenue record is 5 acres and 28 guntas and said extent has been admitted by the petitioner himself in the representation dated 27.03.2012 produced at AnnexureK1.

¶119

(b). Referring to paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the order dated 11.12.2006 passed by this Court in W.P.No.31322/2004 learned Senior counsel submitted that though in the notifications, extent of land is erroneously shown as 6 acres and 28 guntas, said error has been rectified by issuing as erratum dated 01.06.2004 which is taken note of by this Court making it clear that in the erratum the extent of the land of the petitioner is shown to be measuring 5 acres and 28 guntas. That since the same is admitted by the petitioner no prejudice is caused to the petitioner.

¶120

(c). The petitioner is though aware of issuance of the erratum even when the order dated 11.12.2006 was passed in W.P.No.31233/2004, but has not challenged the same till date.

¶121

(d). Referring to the award produced at Annexure-R8 to the statement of objection filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 6, learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioner has filed his statement of objection on 25.05.2003 seeking deletion of revenue sites/land from the acquisition proceedings. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land

¶122

19

¶123

Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued after issuance of the final notification. In response to the said notices, petitioner along with others filed claim applications and there was no objection for acquisition of 1 acre and 1 gunta of land. That the award has been passed to the extent of 1 acre and 1 gunta of land and the notice of the award has been served on the petitioner.

¶124

(f). Referring to award notices dated 07.01.2004 issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as produced at Annexure-R45 series addressed to the petitioner and other site owners he submitted that there has been complete compliance with the requirement of law in acquiring 1 acre and 1 gunta of land and award determining the compensation in sum of Rs.8,77,252/has been passed and the land has been acquired and possession has been taken in accordance with law. That the present writ petition is filed after lapse of 10 years after the receipt of the award notice.

¶125

(g). Referring to the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.34009/2017 and connected matters, learned Senior counsel submitted that the said order quashing the modified plan was only in respect of land in Sy.Nos.49/1, 49/2 and 49/3 and the said order is in challenge in W.A.Nos.52/2025, 1029/2021, and 1003/2023.

¶126

¶127

(h). That earlier the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petitions in W.P.No.19838/2004 and W.P.No.31322/2004. The present writ petition challenging the acquisition would not survive. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶128

Submission on behalf of private respondents:

¶129

Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6 submitted that;

¶130

(a). That the petitioner has approached this Court by suppressing true and actual facts. That apart, the writ petition suffers from delay and laches.

¶131

(b). That the petitioner after obtaining conversion of subject land had formed a layout and sold sites, executed deeds of sale during the month of August, 1990-91 in favour of various persons referred to at paragraph No.5 of the written submissions. The purchasers of such sites have filed statement of objections specifically contending that they are the registered owners of the sites purchased from the petitioner, in terms of registered deeds of sale. That the award notices have been issued to the petitioner as well as the said purchasers as per Annexure-R45 series. Proceedings were conducted after filing of the objections by the petitioner and the award was passed. That a sum of Rs.8,77,252/- was awarded and the same has been deposited as required under Section 30 of the

¶132

¶133

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in LAC No.140/2003-2004 and the same is evident from Annexure-N produced by the petitioner along with his rejoinder to the writ petition.

¶134

(c). That there was no need for respondent-BDA to acquire only 1 gunta of land as sought to be made out by the petitioner. The award has been passed in respect of entire 1 acre and 1 gunta of land.

¶135

(d). That since the sites forming part of acquired land were sold by petitioner himself during the year 1990-91 and acquisition was during the year 2003 the petitioner was not owner of the acquired lands as on the date of the notifications.

¶136

(e). That in the first writ petition in WP No.19838/2004, the relief sought was only restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from proceeding to form sites and roads and there is no challenge to the acquisition and the said writ petition was withdrawn as not pressed. In the second writ petition in WP No. 31322/2004, the challenge was to the endorsement dated 30.04.2004, as per Annexure-F. Even in the said writ petition there is no challenge to the acquisition. As seen at para Nos.1 to 5 of the said order the issue was only with regard to error in mentioning the measurement of the land and with regard to issuance of the Erratum. That even in the said writ petition there is no challenge or question with regard to the acquisition of the subject land.

¶137

¶138

(f). That the layout plan originally approved on 02.02.2009, in respect of land in Sy. Nos. 47, 48, 49, 36 and 38. Only the size of sites were modified, as per the modified plan dated 04/5.11.2015. Writ petitions in W.P.Nos. 34009/2017 and 4480/2017 were challenging the modified plan insofar as Sy.No.49 and the land in Sy.No.36/1 was not subject matter of the said writ petitions. That even if the modified layout plan is quashed, the acquisition would remain intact.

¶139

(g). That the concession given by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as noted in the order dated 17.03.2023, cannot be withdrawn or modified as there was no any mistake of facts. Further, based on the said concession a detailed order dated 13.10.2023, has been passed which is not questioned. As such, order dated 17.03.2023 cannot be modified. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶140

Sri. Santhosh S Gogi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 adopting the submissions made by Sri. G.S. Kannur, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent-BDA as well as the submissions of Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6 submitted that petitioner has no locus-standi to maintain the petition as he himself sold the sites forming part of the acquired land. The

¶141

¶142

modification as sought for to the order dated 17.03.2023 cannot be granted as there is no mistake of any facts.

¶143

Discussion and Analysis

¶144

Heard and perused the records. Before adverting to the merits of the case, necessary to take note of certain undisputed facts, which have emerged from the pleadings, written submissions and documents produced by the parties as encapsulated hereunder;

¶145

(a). That petitioner was the owner of the subject land which measures 5 acres and 28 guntas.

¶146

(b). That even as per the revenue records the actual extent of land in Sy. No. 36/1 is 5 acres 28 guntas and not 6 acres 28 guntas.

¶147

(c). That though in the preliminary notification dated 09.04.2003, the respondent No.1-BDA has shown the extent of land sought to be acquired in Sy.No.36/1 as 6 acres and 28 guntas, as per the final notification dated 10.09.2003, it acquired only 1 acre and 1 gunta of land.

¶148

(d). That the error in showing the extent of land proposed to be acquired in the notifications has been brought to the notice of respondent No.1-BDA by none other than the petitioner himself.

¶149

¶150

(f). That the Erratum dated 01.06.2004 has been issued by the respondent No.1-BDA rectifying the error in mentioning the extent of land proposed to be acquired. There is no change or alteration in the extent of land actually acquired.

¶151

(g). That the petitioner had earlier formed the sites in 1 acre and 1 gunta of land out of his 5 acres 28 guntas of converted land and had sold such sites in favour of several purchasers. Details of some of them as mentioned in the written submission of Respondents 3 to 6 are;

¶152

B.S. Umesh Rao under deed of sale dated 08.08.1990.

¶153

B.S. Srinivas under deed of sale dated 08.08.1990.

¶154

Smt. Vimala Raghu Kumar, under deed of sale dated 09.08.1990.

¶155

Smt. Hema Vishwanath, under deed of sale dated 09.08.1990.

¶156

1. Smt. Rajalakshmi, under deed of sale dated 01.09.1990.

¶157

Sri D.R. Y.R. Jayaram, under deed of sale dated 29.10.1990.

¶158

Smt. M.P. Meenakshi, under deed of sale dated 17.09.1990.

¶159

Smt. Geetha Jayaram, under deed of sale dated 19.08.1990.

¶160

Smt. Suganamma.

¶161

B.S. Gopala Rao,

¶162

¶163

Sri Lakshmikanthaiah and others.

¶164

(h). Contents of document produced at Annexure-R8 namely the award proceedings under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reveal that, after issuance of the preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act, notices were served on the petitioner. Petitioner had filed his statement of objections on 25.05.2003 seeking deletion of revenue sites/lands from acquisition proceedings. Along with the petitioner, aforesaid persons claiming to be the purchasers of the revenue sites from the petitioner had also sought deletion of their revenue sites from the acquisition proceedings. After sanction of the scheme by the Government under Section 18(3) of the BDA Act vide order dated 04.09.2003 a declaration required under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act in terms of the final notification dated 10.09.2003 had been published. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner along with some of the aforesaid persons/purchasers namely Hema Vishwanath, Vimala. R, Srinivasmurthy, Rajalakshmi, B.S. Umesh Rao, Y.R. Jayram and B.S. Srinivas had filed their claim applications. Award proceedings have been conducted and award has been passed on 09.11.2003, awarding compensation of Rs.8,77,252/- per acre.

¶165

(i). The award notice dated 07.01.2004 as required under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued to

¶166

¶167

the original petitioner (T. Ramarao) has been served/left on the land on 09.01.2004 as seen at Annexure-R9 to the impleading application dated 22.06.2024 filed by the additional respondent No.6 in I.A.No.1/2024. Another notice addressed to the petitioner has been served on his son B.R Jayaprakash on 14.01.2004 as seen at AnnexureR45, page No.194 of the statement of objections filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 6. Similar notices have been issued on aforesaid purchasers of sites from the petitioner as seen at Annexures-R45 series of the statement of objections.

¶168

(j). Award amount has been deposited before the Civil Court vide Cheque dated 12.08.2013 in LAC.No.49/2013 in respect of land measuring 1 acre and 1 gunta for adjudication under Section 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the possession was taken 29.12.2013 as per Annexure-N.

¶169

From the foresaid undisputed facts it is clear that as on the date of the issuance of impugned notifications petitioner had sold the portion of subject land. He and the purchasers of the sites had filed objections and had even participated at every stage of award proceedings.

¶170

Notwithstanding the aforesaid admitted/undisputed factual aspect of the matter, in view of the grounds urged in the writ

¶171

¶172

petition, averments made in the objection statement and the oral and written submissions made on behalf of the parties following points arise for consideration in the matter ;

¶173

(1) Whether the Respondent No.1-BDA, having passed the resolution dated 17.02.2003 to exclude the converted lands from acquisition and thereafter having called upon the Petitioner to pay the development charges by issuing notice dated 26.05.2006 as per Annexure “J” in respect of subject land is estopped from acquiring the same?

¶174

(2) Whether the error in showing the extent of subject land in the impugned Preliminary and Final Notifications dated 09.04.2003 and 10.09.2003 respectively and issuance of Erratum dated 01.06.2004 rectifying the same is contrary to the provisions of Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the BDA Act, vitiating the acquisition process?

¶175

(3) Whether in view of quashing of the modified layout plan dated 04.11.2015 by order dated 23.07.2021 passed in writ petition in WP No. 34009/2017 and connected matters, the Respondent No.1- BDA could not have allotted the sites to the Private Respondents?

¶176

¶177

(4) Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts, delay and laches as contended by the respondents?

¶178

Reg. Point No.1:

¶179

Doctrine of estoppel is based on equity. It is applicable only

¶180

in cases where a party has changed or altered his position relying upon the representation so made by the other party. Authority cannot be prevented from doing something which is otherwise permissible and or authorised under law.

¶181

No specific provision of law has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior counsel for petitioner which prohibits respondent No.1-BDA from acquiring converted land. In fact in the case of Junjamma and others V. The Bangalore

¶182

Development Authority and others 2004 (7) Kar.L.J 677

¶183

involving the acquisition of land for formation of Sir M Visweswaraiah Layout, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while answering point No.9, has specifically held that there is no prohibition for acquiring a land for the purpose of formation of a layout, which is converted from agricultural to any other use.

¶184

Further even though notice dated 26.05.2006 has been issued by the respondent N0.1-BDA calling upon the petitioner

¶185

¶186

to pay betterment charges, nothing is brought on record to demonstrate if the petitioner had complied with the said demand thereby he having altered his position providing ground to raise plea of estoppel.

¶187

Another aspect of the matter is that petitioner after issuance of notifications has participated in the enquiry and award proceedings. He has never raised this plea at any stage not even when he had approached this Court on earlier occasions by filling writ petitions in WP Nos. 19838/2004 and 31322/2004.

¶188

Thus merely because a general resolution had been passed by the Respondent No.1- BDA proposing to acquire lands excluding the converted land in the absence of any statutory provisions prohibiting acquisition of converted land, the Respondent No.1 BDA is not precluded from acquiring the converted land.

¶189

Reg. Point No.2:

¶190

Purpose of issuance of Notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act as also under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act with necessary particulars of the property sought to be acquired is to provide fair and proper opportunity to land owner/s to file

¶191

¶192

his/their objections, participate in the enquiry process and to stake his/their claim for compensation in accordance with law, for no one shall be deprived of his/their property save in accordance with law.

¶193

In the instant case the particulars of property of the petitioner sought to be acquired as given in the Preliminary

¶194

Notifications is as under;

¶195

Survey No.	Total Extent in Sy.No.	Remaining Land.	Land required for acquisition by BDA
36/1 (part)	6 acres 28 guntas Kharab 07guntas	5 acres 21 guntas	6 acres 28 guntas

¶196

Particulars of property of the Petitioner sought to acquired as

¶197

given in the Final Notifications is as under;

¶198

Survey No.	Total Extent in Sy.No.	Remaining Land.	Land required for acquisition by BDA
36/1 (part)	6 acres 28 guntas	5 acres 21 guntas	1 acre 1 guntas
	Kharab 07guntas

¶199

Admittedly even according to the petitioner the actual extent of subject land is only 5 acres 28 guntas. It is not the case of the Petitioner that he was in any manner misled by the description of the property as given in the notifications or that

¶200

¶201

he was deprived of any opportunity of being heard as required under law. It is not even his case that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have included/added or enhanced the extent of land in the final notification without notifying the same in the preliminary notification. Error was in mentioning extent of land larger than the actual. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that some one else owned land in excess of 5 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.36/1. Admittedly it is the petitioner who sought rectification of the said error which is rectified by issuance of erratum dated 01.06.2004.

¶202

The reliance placed on by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narendrajit Singh and another (Supra) in the fact situation of the present matter is of no avail. In that, the notification that was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not contain any details whatsoever with regard to the land that was sought to be acquired. Neither the name of the District nor of the place, nor the extent of land was mentioned in the said notification. It is under the circumstances, the subsequent issuance of notification under

¶203

32

¶204

Section 6(1) of the Act was held to be erroneous. In the instant case as seen above, the preliminary notification specifically refers to the land belonging to the petitioner. However, the extent is shown as 6 acres 28 guntas. Similar is the case in respect of the final notification. As already noted above, petitioner himself has repeatedly averred in all his three writ petitions that land in Sy.No.36/1, measures only 5 acres and 28 guntas and not 6 acres 27 guntas. Therefore the petitioner was clearly aware of actual extent of land. Merely because there was an error in mentioning the measurement which did not cause any prejudice whatsoever to the petitioner and cannot be a ground to intervene in the acquisition.

¶205

The reliance placed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner on to the Judgment of the High Court of Madras in the case of Ms. Asiya Mariyan (supra) is also of no avail inasmuch as the issue involved in the said matter was inability of the petitioners therein to participate in enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act for non service of the notice due to misdescription of the owners in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which is not the case at hand. In the instant case, as

¶206

¶207

already noted above, the petitioner had the full knowledge of the notification, received the notices at every stage and participated in the enquiry and the award proceedings. As such, the said judgment is of no avail.

¶208

Adverting to the contentions urged by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that there has been no compliance with the provisions of Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the BDA Act by the Respondent No.1-BDA while issuing the erratum, it is necessary to note that provisions of Section 17 of the BDA Act envisages the procedure after preparation of the scheme as provided under Sections 15 and 16 of the said Act. Section 18 envisages the procedure for submitting the scheme to the Government for its sanction on compliance with requirement of Section 17 with such modification and alteration if any. Section 19 contemplates declaration and publication of such sanction and particulars of the lands proposed to be acquired pursuant to the scheme so sanctioned. There is no dispute with regard to compliance of these aspects of the matters are concerned. By issuing the Erratum all that is done is showing of actual and correct extent of land proposed for acquisition. Therefore mere reduction of extent of land while rectifying the error in

¶209

¶210

mentioning the land proposed to be acquired, without there being any change whatsoever in the actual extent of land acquired as notified in the final notification, in the considered view of this Court would neither amount to modification nor alteration of sanctioned scheme. As such the vehement submissions of non-compliance with the statutory requirement of provisions of Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the BDA Act going to the root of matter cannot be countenanced. Besides, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has not challenged the validity or otherwise of the said Erratum dated 01.06.2004, except raising the grounds during the arguments. The reliance in this regard placed onto the judgment of B.K. Srinivas and others (supra) therefore is of no avail.

¶211

Reg. Point No.3:

¶212

This point has arose in view of Application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.1/2024 seeking modification of the order dated 17.03.2023. It is necessary to note that on 17.03.2023 this Court passed the following order:

¶213

''This matter was heard for some time. All the parties having argued the matter, now fairly agree with the suggestion of this Court that the subject land be measured with the assistance of

¶214

35

¶215

an expert surveyor of the BDA and with the participation of all stakeholders including the petitioner herein and report as to how much of the same is left unutilized be filed on or before 30.03.2023.

¶216

The responsible statement made by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.P.S.Rajagopal on instruction of the advocate on record standing beside, that the petitioner would not seek any prayer as against the allottees of the land who are now impleaded here, and therefore, their interest shall not be prejudiced in any way whilst disposing of the main matter, is placed on record.

¶217

Call this matter for further hearing on 13.4.2023.''

¶218

In furtherance to the aforesaid order this Court on

¶219

13.10.2023 passed the following order:

¶220

''Heard Sri.P.B.Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri.B.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Sri. H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel along with Sri. D.N.Dhruva Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 and Sri.Santhosh S. Gogi, learned counsel for respondent No.7.

¶221

2. In furtherance to the orders dated 17.03.2023 and 09.10.2023 Sri. P.B.Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions of Sri. Jayaprakash B.R., petitioner No.1(B) who is present before the Court, submits that the petitioners have no objection and would not claim any relief in respect of five sites namely:

¶222

1. Site.No.564/8 belonging to Smt. R. Jayamma, respondent No.7.

¶223

2. Site.No.568 belonging to Sri. R. Muniyappa, respondent No.3.

¶224

3. Site.No.570 belonging to Smt. N Prema Kumari, respondent No.5.

¶225

4. Site.No.575 belonging to Smt. Chaithra S., respondent No.6.

¶226

5. Site.No.576 belonging to Shri.G.S.Shantha Kumar, respondent No.4.

¶227

3. He also further submits that the respondent-BDA has utilized

¶228

¶229

13 guntas of land for formation of road and the petitioners have no claim even with regard to the said extent of 13 guntas of land. Thus it is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners would not seek any relief as regards the aforesaid five sites and the 13 guntas of land and that the petitioner would not press the petition as against the respondent Nos.3 to 7.

¶230

4. Submission taken on record.

¶231

5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA submits that the actual extent of land acquired is 1 acre 1 gunta. However, he submits that there are seventeen sites formed in the same alignment having continuous site numbers starting from 564/6 to 576 and 13 guntas of land has been utilized for the purpose of formation of road.

¶232

6. Submission taken on record.

¶233

7. From the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondentBDA what emerges is that an extent of 13 guntas of land utilized by the respondent-BDA for the purpose of formation of road and area comprising of the aforesaid five sites Nos.564/8, 568, 570, 575 and 576 which have been allotted to the respondent Nos.3 to 7 stands excluded from the subject matter of this petition.

¶234

8. In that view of the matter, the issue which requires to be considered is only in respect of remaining extent of land out of 1 acre 1 gunta which respondent-BDA claimed to have acquired.

¶235

9. List this matter for consideration of the contention of the petitioners with regard to actual acquisition and utilization of land by the respondent-BDA excluding the aforesaid portion of properties namely five sites bearing Nos.564/8, 568, 570, 575 and 576 and 13 guntas of land utilized for formation of road. It is made clear except to the aforesaid extent of land all other contentions of the petitioners are kept open to be considered in this petition.

¶236

10. List this matter on 06.11.2023.''

¶237

¶238

Petitioner by filing above application in I.A.No.3/2024 has sought modification of the aforesaid order dated 17.03.2023 seeking to recall the same to the extent of excluding 5 sites bearing Nos.564/28, 568, 570, 575 and 576 on the premise that, the petitioner had given the said concession under a bonafide belief. That in view of the modified layout plan dated 04.11.2015 prepared by the respondent No.1-BDA itself having been quashed by this Court in W.P.No.34009/2017 connected with W.P.No.4480/2017 and W.P.No.35396/2016, exclusion of aforesaid sites would not arise. That even as per the survey report that is submitted pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2023, the road is formed only to an extent of 12 meters by utilizing 13 guntas of land and the petitioner is in possession of the rest of the land and there are no construction put up by any of the allottees. That the said concession was given, in view of the respondent- authorities withholding the information contrary to the survey conducted as per the orders of this Court.

¶239

At the outset it is to be noted that though the concession was given by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as noted above, by order dated 13.10.2023 this Court had made

¶240

¶241

it clear that the issue with regard to acquisition of entire 1 acre 1 gunta of land was required to be considered despite the concession given by the petitioner which is now sought to be withdrawn.

¶242

Heavy reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner upon the order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the W.P.No.34009/2017 and connected matters, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court had quashed the modified plan dated 04.11.2015 issued by the respondent No.1-BDA. It is contended that the said modified plan dated 04.11.2015 is in respect of land in Sy.No.36/1 subject matter of the present petition as well. That since the said modified plan has been quashed, the respondent No.1-BDA cannot allot the sites to the persons including the private respondents in the instant case.

¶243

Perusal of the copy of the said petition would indicate that the petitioner in the said writ petition claiming to be the owners of land in Sy.Nos. 49/1, 49/2 and 49/3 had approached this Court alleging that out of 4 acres and 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.49 only 3 acres was notified in the final notification dated

¶244

¶245

10.09.2003 leaving out remaining extent of 1 acre and 11 guntas of land. That in the layout plan that was approved by the respondent No.1-BDA on 02.12.2009 only 3 acres of land in Sy.No.49 was included and 1 acre and 11 guntas of land had been excluded. However, in the modified sanction plan dated 04.11.2015 respondent No.1-BDA had included even the said extent of 1 acre and 11 guntas of land which had been left out/dropped by it.

¶246

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the said writ petitions pertain only to the land in Sy.No.49 and there is no reference to land in Sy.No.36/1, which is subject matter of present writ petition. The quashing of the modified sanction plan will have to be read only to the said extent.

¶247

Necessary also to note that copy of the original layout Plan dated 02.12.2009 which is produced for reference of this Court specifically indicates inclusion of 1 acre 1 gunta of land in Sy.No.36/1 belonging to the Petitioner with formation of sites thereon. This aspect of the matter is not disputed by the petitioner. The said layout plan dated 02.12.2009 has been

¶248

¶249

subsequently modified on 04/5.11.2015 in which Respondent No.1-BDA had apparently included additional extent of land forming part of Sy.No.49. Nothing is brought on record to indicate that the original layout plan dated 02.12.2009 which included the portion of land in Sy.No.36/1 has been quashed. Thus, mere quashing of the modified sanction plan dated 04/5.11.2015 would not in any case affect either the acquisition of land in Sy.No.36/1 or the original plan dated 02.12.2009. Thus sites which are formed in the portion of land in Sy.No.36/1 remain intact as shown in the original plan. As already noted, irrespective of the concession, the acquisition of land cannot be found fault with. Application in I.A.No.1/2024 seeking modification of the order dated 17.03.2023 is rejected.

¶250

Reg. Point No.4:

¶251

Petitioner for the first time approached this Court by filing writ petition in WP No.19838/2004 seeking a specific direction to the respondents, not to proceed with formation of road and sites in the land belonging to the petitioner in said Sy.No.36/1. The said writ petition has been withdrawn by the petitioner with the permission to institute proceedings against the endorsement

¶252

¶253

dated 30.04.2004. Accordingly, the said petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as sought for on 16.07.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed writ petition in W.P.No.31322/2004, seeking quashing of the endorsement dated 30.04.2004 as per Annexure-J to the said writ petition issued by respondent No.2-SLAO.

¶254

Necessary at this juncture to note that by endorsement dated 20.01.2004, produced at Annexure-E to the present writ petition, the respondent No.2-SLAO had intimated the petitioner that his land in Sy.No.36/1, measuring 5 acres and 27 guntas had not been included for the purpose of acquisition of land for formation of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout and that the petitioner was called upon to pay the betterment charges in terms of Section 20 of the BDA Act. That by subsequent endorsement dated 30.04.2004 produced at Annexure-F, respondent No.2-SLAO has withdrawn the earlier endorsement dated 20.01.2004. Petitioner had withdrawn the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.19838/2004 and filed the subsequent writ petition in W.P.No.31322/2004 which was disposed of by order dated 11.12.2006 which is as under:

¶255

¶256

' ORDER

¶257

"Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of land bearing Sy No. 36/ 1 measuring 5 acres and 28 guntas situated at Mallathahalli Village, Yashwantpura Hobli, Bengaluru. It is the case of the petitioner that he got converted this land for residential purposes from the competent authority by the order dated 27.04.1989. It is his case that the said land was acquired by the respondent pursuant to a preliminary notification dated 17.12.1987. In the said notification, Sy.No. 36/1 shown to be measuring 6 acres 28 guntas which is found at Sl. No. 142. Suffice it to say that this error committed in the notification was brought to the notice of the Bangalore Development Authority pursuant to a communication issued by the petitioner, a copy of which is produced at the nature edge indicating that indeed the land in question measures 5 acres 28 guntas and not 6 acres 28 guntas and sought for correction. The Bangalore Urban Authority, the respondent issued an Erratum on 23.06.2004 bringing the land in conformity with the actual measurement as 5 acres 28 guntas. The petitioner, it appears sought for conversion of the said land and consequently, endorsement was issued and a copy of which is produced at Annexure- G to the effect that 5 acres 27 guntas is not included in the acquisition proceedings. Subsequently the said endorsement which is produced at Annexure-G was withdrawn by the petitioner by another endorsement which is produced at Annexure-J which is questioned in this petition.

¶258

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the first endorsement which is produced at Annx-G would clearly indicate that only an extent of 1 gunta was acquired in Sy.No.36/1 for formation of road and the remaining area of 5 acres 27 guntas was not acquired. Under these circumstances he submits that such an admission given by the respondent as per Annx-G could not have been withdrawn pursuant to an endorsement as per Annx- J without notice to the petitioner.

¶259

3. Mr. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that indeed, the entire extent of 5 acres 28 guntas was not acquired but, however only a portion measuring 1 acre 1 gunta was acquired for the purpose of formation of road. He submits that the respondents have issued an Erratum by noticing the error committed in the notifications.

¶260

¶261

4. Apparently, the stand of the petitioner is that the acquisition is only to an extent of 1 gunta and that of the Bangalore Development Authority is 1 acre 1 gunta. The material and record does not disclose as to the exact extent of land which is acquired but, however the fact remains that an Erratum has been issued and the petitioner's land is shown to be measuring 5 acres and 28 guntas. If, indeed, the petitioner feels that only one gunta of land in Sy.No. 36/1 is acquired it is open for him to make necessary representation to the concerned authorities viz., Bangalore Development Authority to the effect that only a small extent of land is acquired in Sy.No.36/ 1 and the remaining extent of land still remains with him. As and when such representation is given, the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority shall consider the same in accordance with law and in conformity with the notifications, Erratum and extent of land which is acquired. The Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer will also be indicative as to whether the land measuring an extent of 1 acre 1 gunta is acquired or an extent of 1 gunta is acquired.

¶262

5. Accordingly the petition stand disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner make a fresh representation which shall be considered and disposed of by the respondents in accordance with law expeditiously. ''

¶263

Perusal of the aforesaid order dated 11.12.2006, passed in W.P. No.31322/2004, categorically makes it clear that issue with regard to the actual measurement of the land being claimed by the petitioner was raised even before the filing of the said writ petition. In that, petitioner himself has brought to the notice of the respondent No.1-BDA that the land belonging to him measures only 5 acres and 28 guntas and not 6 acres and 28 guntas. It is pursuant to the said clarification/communication

¶264

¶265

issued by the petitioner the Erratum came to be issued showing the measurement of land as indicated by the petitioner himself.

¶266

While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court had reserved liberty to the petitioner to file the representation, to be considered by the respondent-Authorities as expeditiously as possible. In response to the representation, the respondentSLAO had issued an endorsement dated 13.02.2012 as per Annexure-L, apparently referring to an application filed by the petitioner dated 11.11.2011, stating that an extent of 1 acre and 1 gunta of land has been acquired by the respondent No.1-BDA for the purpose of formation of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Extension Layout and the award in this regard has already been passed on 09.01.2004 and the land has been handed over to the Engineering Section under Section 16(2) of the BDA Act.

¶267

As rightly contended by learned counsels for the respondents, petitioner neither in the earlier writ petitions in W.P.No.19838/2004 and writ petition in W.P.No.31322/2004 nor in the present writ petition has brought to the notice of this Court regarding he having received the notices under Section 17(5) of the BDA Act; he having sought for deletion of extent of

¶268

¶269

land converted/revenue sites sold by him in favour of the prospective purchasers; he having received the notice dated 12.09.2003 and having participated in the award proceedings as seen at Annexure-R8 to statement of objections referred to hereinabove. No explanation in this regard is given by the petitioner. This conduct of the petitioner raises question about his bonafides.

¶270

Equally, forceful is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner despite having knowledge of acquisition notifications issued by the respondents-Authorities has not challenged the same in the earlier writ petitions. The present writ petition is filed in the year 2013, that is after lapse of nine years.

¶271

The petitioner has also not denied the fact of he having formed the layout and sold certain sites in favour of prospective purchasers. He was thus not even the owner of the portion of land acquired. Notwithstanding the same, it is settled position of law that a land owner/looser who has participated in the award proceedings seeking compensation cannot later challenge the acquisition. A non-objector would not be entitled to seek

¶272

¶273

quashing of acquisition. Petitioner having participated in the enquiry and award proceedings along with the purchasers of sites sold by him, has allowed the respondent No.1-BDA and the SLAO to proceed and conclude the acquisition process. As such he cannot be heard to say the contrary at this belated stage.

¶274

Further reliance placed on to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gautham Kamath Hotels Pvt. Ltd., (supra) and Dr. A. Parthasarathy and Others (supra) by the petitioner is misplaced inasmuch as the issue that was involved in the said matters was pertaining to lapsing of acquisition under Section 27 of the BDA Act, it is under those circumstances the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had held that taking the possession by drawing up of the mahazar without disclosing the particulars would not amount to taking effective possession. In the instant case, admittedly a road has been formed in the land out of acquired land of 1 acre and 1 gunta. Compensation has been deposited before the Civil Court on 29.09.2013 as per Annexure-R2 for adjudication under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That the said compensation is in respect of 1 acre and 1 gunta of land, in

¶275

47

¶276

which the petitioner had himself formed the layout and sold the sites to the persons named above. Petitioner therefore cannot be heard to say, that he has not been paid compensation for the land acquired. However, petitioner, if entitled to receive any compensation, is at liberty to pursue such remedy as may be available under law in this regard.

¶277

In the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the matter the endorsement dated 08.07.2022 issued by the respondent rejecting the representation of the petitioner seeking no objection to the extent of 5 acres and 27 guntas cannot be found fault with.

¶278

Points answered accordingly. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis:

¶279

ORDER

¶280

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶281

No orders as to costs.

¶282

Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶283

RL

Mr T Rama Rao v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr T Rama Rao v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devaraddi S/O Chanrappa Nandeppanavar Vs Shivanand S/O Basappa Tarikoppa

Maremma W/O. Late Ballari Ramanna Vs Jademma W/O Nagaraj

Smt.Gourawwa W/O Channabasappa Marihal Vs Shri.Dundappa S/O Ramachandrappa Marihal

Shri C Bhaskaran Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Gouramma W/O Ganesh Washappanavar Vs Sri Ganesh S/O Subash Washappanavar

Smt. Gunavathi W/O Girish Hegde D/O Late Shivaraya Acharya Aliyas Shivappa Acharya Vs Girish S/O Dattatraya Hegde