Allowed

Sri. Anjanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jan 2025WP/18273/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed four connected writ petitions challenging land acquisition notifications issued in 2002-2003 by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The court quashed the notifications and all consequent actions, holding that the BDA failed to take lawful possession under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act and failed to deposit compensation before the Civil Court as r

What did the court decide?

Preliminary Notification dated 07.11.2002 and Final Notification dated 09.09.2003 quashed in respect of the petitioners' lands; all further consequent actions of the BDA set aside.

Sri. Anjanappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶2

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

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 18269 OF 2016 (LA-BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 18271 OF 2016 (LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 18272 OF 2016 (LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 18273 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)

¶5

IN WP NO. 18269/2016

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MUNEERAMMA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, W/O. LATE MUNINANJAPPA,

¶8

HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNINANJAPPA,

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF GUBBALALU VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN - 560 061

¶10

MANJANNA E

¶11

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.30 14:31:15 +0530

¶12

BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SMT. T.A.GAYATHRI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O. SRI. T. N. JAVARAYI GOWDA, R/AT NO. 121, MADILU, 1^ST E MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE - 560 072.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 026 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 026.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OF SIMILAR NATURE, QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17[1] OF THE BDA ACT BEARING NO.BDA/SLAO/A4/P.R./194/02-03 DATED 07.11.2022, ISSUE BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO FINAL DECLARATION NO.UDD/750/BLA/2003 DATED 09.09.2003 AS PER ANNEXURE-C ISSUED UNDER SECTION19(1) UNDER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1,: IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND IS CONCERNED AS IS LAPSED.

¶24

IN WP NO. 18271/2016

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS W/O. LATE KAVERAPPA

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶28

SUKUNDAR RAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE KAVERAPPA

¶29

NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE KAVERAPPA

¶30

SURESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O. LATE KAVERAPPA

¶31

RAMESH KUAMR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O. LATE KAVERAPPA,

¶32

ALL ARE R/O GUBBALALU VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN -560061 BOTH ARE REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SMT.T.A.GAYATHRI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O. SRI. T.N. JAVARAYI GOWDA R/AT NO.121, MADILU,1^ST E MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE – 560072.

¶33

...PETITIONERS

¶34

(BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶37

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶40

BANGALORE-560026 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶41

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560026.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶44

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OF SIMILAR NATURE, QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION, ISSUE UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE BDA ACT BEARING NO.BDA/SLAO/A4/P.R./194/02-03 DATED 07.11.2002, ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO FINAL DECLARATION NO.UDD/750/BLA/2003 DATED 09.09.2003 AS PER ANNEXURE-C ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1) UNDER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1”, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND IS CONCERNED AS IS LAPSED.

¶45

IN WP NO. 18272/2016

¶46

BETWEEN:

¶47

SMT. PUTTAMMA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O. LATE. PAPAIAH,

¶48

P. NARAYANAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O. LATE. PAPAIAH,

¶49

P. GOVINDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE. PAPAIAH,

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶51

P. VAJARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE. PAPAIAH,

¶52

P. DEVARAJA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O. LATE. PAPAIAH,

¶53

P. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. LATE. PAPAIAH,

¶54

P. MANJU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O. LATE. PAPAIAH, ALL ARE R/O. GUBBALALU VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PINCODE 560061.

¶55

BOTH ARE PRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SMT. T.A. GAYATHRI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O. SRI. T.N. JAVARAYI GOWDA, RESIDING AT NO. 121, MADILU, 1^ST -E-MAIN, 1^ST -BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE - 560072.

¶56

...PETITIONERS

¶57

(BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶58

THE STATE OF KARNTAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPEMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001.

¶59

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶62

KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE 560026

¶63

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISSTION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE 560026.

¶64

...RESPONDENTS

¶65

(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶66

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OF SIMILAR NATURE, QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION, ISSUE UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE BDA ACT BEARING NO.BDA/SLAO/A4/P.R./194/02-03 DATED 07.11.2002, ISSUE BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE B AND ALSO FINAL DECLARATION NO.UDD/750/BLA/2003 DATED 09.009.2003 AS PER ANNEXURE – C ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1) UNDER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1”, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND IS CONCERNED AS IS LAPSED.

¶67

IN WP NO. 18273/2016

¶68

BETWEEN:

¶69

SRI. ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O. LATE VAJARAPPA,

¶70

SRI. MUNIKRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. ANJANAPPA

¶71

SRI. GOPALKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. ANJANAPPA,

¶72

SRI. HARISH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. ANJANAPPA,

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶74

¶75

SRI. MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O ANJANAPPA, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF GUBBALALU VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN:560 061 REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SMT.T.A.GAYATHRI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O. SRI.T.N.JAVARAYI GOWDA RESIDING AT NO. 121, MADILU, 1^ST E MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI BANGALORE-560 072

¶76

...PETITIONERS

¶77

(BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)

¶78

AND:

¶79

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶80

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAK PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560026 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶81

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAK PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560026.

¶82

...RESPONDENTS

¶83

(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1;

¶84

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶86

SRI. G.M. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶87

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OF SIMILAR NATURE, QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION, ISSUE UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE BDA ACT BEARING NO.BDA/SLAN/A4/P.R./194/02-03 DATED 07.11.2002, ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO FINAL DECLARATION NO.UDD/750/BLA/2003 DATED 09.09.2003 AS PER ANNEXURE-C ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1) UNDER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1”, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND IS CONCERNED AS IS LAPSED.

¶88

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13.01.2021 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶89

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

¶90

ORAL ORDER

¶91

In these Writ Petitions, petitioners are assailing

¶92

the Preliminary Notification dated 07.11.2002 and Final Notification dated 09.09.2003 issued under Section 17(1) and 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') respectively, passed by the respondent– authorities, inter-alia , the petitioners have also sought for alterative prayer to issue writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to compensate the

¶93

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶94

petitioners as per 40-60 Scheme, in the event, acquisition of petitioners’ lands is completed in all process.

¶95

In W.P.No.18269 of 2016, it is the case of the petitioners that, the land bearing Sy.No.47/1 measuring 35 guntas, situate at Gubbalalu Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, belong to the petitioners and the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioners. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the respondents have issued the impugned Notifications and sought to acquire the subject land and thereby, the petitioners have assailed the acquisition Notifications in W.P.Nos.2308-27 of 2004 and this Court by order dated 06.06.2006, disposed of the Writ Petitions, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent-authorities for dropping the acquisition proceedings if the lands are situate in built-up area and such other acceptable reasons. In

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶97

10 -

¶98

terms of the direction issued by this Court, petitioners have made representation to the respondent - authorities to delete the land in question from the acquisition proceedings and pursuant to the same, the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’) has issued the Endorsements dated 12.10.2007 and 05.10.2007 and same were questioned in W.P.No.19994 of 2007 and this Court, by Order dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure-D), quashed the impugned Endorsements therein and directed the respondent-authorities to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of judgment passed in W.P.No.16133 of 2004 and connected matter disposed of on 06.06.2006. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that, respondents have passed Award on 12.12.2003 (Annexure-E) without issuing Award Notice. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that the respondents claim that they to have taken possession as per Annexure-F,

¶99

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶100

11 -

¶101

however, the petitioners are in possession of the schedule land and no notification is issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also stated that, the compensation amount has been credited in Recurring Deposit account (for short, ‘R.D. account’) of respondent-BDA as per Annexure-G and as such, the petitioners have presented the Writ Petition on the ground that the respondents have not taken possession of the land in question and also notimplemented the scheme.

¶102

In W.P.No.18271 of 2016, it is the case of the petitioners that, land bearing Sy.No.47/3, measuring 35¹ /2 guntas situate at Gubbalalu Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, belong to the petitioners and the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioners. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the respondents have issued the acquisition Notifications and sought to acquire the subject land

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶104

12 -

¶105

and thereby, the petitioners have assailed the said Notifications in W.P.Nos.2308-27 of 2004 and this Court, by order dated 06.06.2006, disposed of the Writ Petition and reserved liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent-authorities for dropping the acquisition proceedings if the lands are situate in builtup area and such other acceptable reasons. In terms of the direction issued by this Court, petitioners have made representation to the respondent - authorities to delete the lands in question from the acquisition proceedings and pursuant to the same, the respondent-BDA has issued the Endorsements dated 12.10.2007 and 05.10.2007 and same were questioned in W.P.No.19994 of 2007 and this Court, by Order dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure-D), quashed the impugned Endorsements therein and directed the respondent-authorities to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of judgment passed in W.P.No.16133 of

¶106

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶107

2004 and connected matter disposed of on

¶108

06.06.2006. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that,

¶109

respondents have passed Award on 12.12.2003 (Annexure-E) without issuing Award Notice. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that the respondents claim that they to have taken possession as per Annexure-F, however, the petitioners are in possession of the schedule land and no notification is issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also stated that, the Award amount has been credited in R.D. Account of respondent -BDA as per Annexure-G

¶110

and as such, the petitioners have presented the Writ Petition on the ground that the respondents have not taken possession of the land in question and also not implemented the scheme.

¶111

In W.P.No.18272 of 2016, it is the case of the petitioners that, land bearing Sy.No.47/4 measuring 35¹ /2 guntas situate at Gubbalalu Village, Uttarahalli

¶112

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶113

14 -

¶114

Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, belong to the

¶115

petitioners and the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioners. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the respondents have issued the acquisition Notifications and sought to acquire the subject land and thereby, the petitioners have assailed the impugned Notifications in W.P.Nos.2308-27 of 2004 and this Court by order dated 06.06.2006, disposed of the Writ Petition and reserved liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent-authorities for dropping the acquisition proceedings if the lands are situate in built-up area and such other acceptable reasons. In terms of the direction issued by this Court, petitioners have made representation to the respondentauthorities to delete the lands in question from the acquisition proceedings and pursuant to the same, the respondent-BDA has issued the Endorsements dated 12.10.2007 and 05.10.2007 and same were

¶116

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶117

questioned in W.P.No.19994/2007 and this Court, by Order dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure-D), quashed the impugned Endorsements therein and directed the respondent-authorities to reconsider the issue afresh. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that, the respondents have passed Award on 12.12.2003 (Annexure-E) without issuing Award Notice. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that the respondents claim that they have taken possession as per Annexure-F, however, the petitioners are in possession of the schedule land and no notification is issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also stated that, the Award amount has been credited in R.D. account of respondent-BDA as per Annexure-G

¶118

and as such, the petitioners have presented the Writ Petition on the ground that the respondents have not taken possession of the land in question and also not implemented the scheme.

¶119

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶120

16 -

¶121

In W.P.No.18273/2016, it is the case of the petitioners that, land bearing Sy.No.47/5 measuring 35 guntas situate at Gubbalalu Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, belong to the petitioners and the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioners. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the respondents have issued the acquisition Notifications and sought to acquire the subject land and thereby, the petitioners have assailed the impugned Notifications in W.P.Nos.2308-27 of 2004 and this Court by order dated 06.06.2006, disposed of

¶122

the Writ Petitions and reserved liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent-authorities for dropping the acquisition proceedings if the lands are situate in built-up area and such other acceptable reasons. In terms of the direction issued by this Court, petitioners have made representation to the respondent-authorities to delete the lands in question

¶123

17 -

¶124

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶125

from the acquisition proceedings and pursuant to the

¶126

same, the respondent-BDA has issued the Endorsements dated 12.10.2007 and 05.10.2007 and same were questioned in W.P.No.19994 of 2007 and this Court, by Order dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure-D), quashed the impugned Endorsements therein and directed the respondent-authorities to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of judgment passed in W.P.No.16133 of 2004 and connected matter disposed of on 06.06.2006. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that, the respondents have passed Award on 12.12.2003 (Annexure-E) without issuing Award Notice. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that the respondents claim that they have taken possession as per Annexure-F, however, the petitioners are in possession of the schedule land and no notification is issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also stated that, the Award amount has

¶127

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶128

been credited in R.D. account of respondent-BDA as per Annexure-G and as such, the petitioners have presented the Writ Petition on the ground that the respondents have not taken possession of the land in question and also not implemented the scheme. Hence, these Writ Petitions are filed challenging the acquisition proceedings.

¶129

I have heard Sri. Rajaram Sooryambail, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners; Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. Murugesh V. Charati, Sri. B.S. Sachin and Sri. G.M. Ananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA.

¶130

Sri. Rajaram Sooryambail, learned counsel

¶131

appearing for the petitioners, contended that, the petitioners are in possession of the land in question

¶132

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶133

and the petitioners have constructed residential houses in the respective land in question and therefore, disputes the contention of the respondentBDA with regard to taking possession of the land in question. He also referred to revenue documents to substantiate possession in respect of the schedule property by the petitioners and further submitted that, the respondent-authorities have not substantially implemented the scheme as required under Section 27 of the Act and also in terms of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of OFFSHORE

¶134

HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY reported in (2011) 3 SCC 139 . It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to Order dated 04.12.2009 in W.P.No.19994 of 2007, that, the respondent- authorities have not taken possession of the land in question and accordingly, sought for

¶135

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶136

interference of this Court. By referring to Notification issued under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, (Annexure-F), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, no notice has been issued to the petitioners and the Notification under Section 16 of Land Acquisition Act at Annexure-F is in cyclostyle form, no mahazar has been drawn, nor the signature of the witnesses find place in Annexure-F and that apart, disputes the signatures in the said Notification, where no address of the witness is mentioned and as such, refers to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of DR. A.

¶137

PARTHASARATHY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF

¶138

KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2017 KAR 3489 and contended that, the impugned Notifications in the present case are liable to be quashed as the respondent-authorities have abandoned the

¶139

acquisition proceedings. Learned counsel appearing for

¶140

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶141

the petitioners also places reliance on the Order passed by this Court in the case of SRI. MUNISWAMY REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in W.P.No.45498 of 2014 disposed of on 13.04.2016 and the recent Order of this Court in the case of MOODALAPPA , REPRESENTED BY Lrs. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.33208 of 2016 and connected cases disposed of on 13.08.2024 and in the case of SRI. H. CHIKKA PUTTAIAH Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS in W.P.No.16216 of 2016 disposed of on 19.03.2024 . He also contended that, the petitioners have sold small portion of the land for the purpose of putting up compound wall in the land in question and therefore, contended that,

¶142

the petitioners are in possession of the schedule land.

¶143

22 -

¶144

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶145

Per contra, Sri. Murugesh V. Charati, Sri. B.S.

¶146

Sachin, and Sri. G.M. Ananda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-BDA, argued that the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and further, the petitioners have not disclosed the alienation of the land in question and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA that the respondent-BDA has taken possession of the land in question and Layout Plan has been produced in W.P.No.18273 of 2016 and as such, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions as the respondents have implemented the scheme substantially. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA, that as the possession of the land in question has been taken under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act and compensation is deposited in the

¶147

23 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶148

R.D. Account of BDA and therefore, contended that,

¶149

no interference is called for insofar as the impugned Notifications are concerned and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

¶150

Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-State argued in similar lines with learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA and sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.

¶151

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the respondent-authorities have issued the Preliminary Notification on 07.11.2002 under Section 17(1) of the Act followed by Final Notification dated 09.09.2003 under Section 19(1) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the Award came to be passed on 12.12.2003. It is argued by the learned

¶152

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶153

24 -

¶154

counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA that, the petitioners have alienated a portion of the land in question and in this regard, perusal of the Sale Deed dated 13.08.2001 (Annexure-R1 in W.P.No.18269 of 2016), wherein, an extent of 35 x 40 ft in Sy.No.47/1, an extent of 40 x 30 ft in Sy.No.47/1 (Annexure-R2 W.P.No.18269 of 2016), an extent of 40 x 44 ft in Sy.No.47/1 (Annexure-R3 W.P.No.18269 of 2016), wherein, small bits of land has been sold by the petitioners as per Annexures-R1 to R3 in W.P.No.18269 of 2016, which is less than 5% of the total extent of land sought to be acquired by the respondent-BDA and therefore, the contentions raised by the respondent-BDA that the entire extent / major portion of the land is sold, cannot be accepted. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, small bit of land was sold to put up compound wall as well as making the landscape suitable for

¶155

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶156

residing in the house. That apart, except order passed in W.P.No.18269 of 2016, nothing is produced insofar

¶157

as other Writ Petitions are concerned and therefore, the contention raised by the respondents cannot be accepted and on this score itself, the Writ Petitions cannot be dismissed as larger extent of the land (nearly 95%) is in possession of the petitioners.

¶158

Insofar as the contention raised by the respondents with regard to the delay in passing of the Award is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD. Vs. MAST RAM & ORS ., reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2598 has held that the right to property is a human right and failure to pay the compensation is a violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is to be noted that, Award came to be passed on 12.12.2003 and perusal of the Order Sheet of the respondent-BDA at Annexure-G insofar as payment of

¶159

26 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶160

compensation is concerned, the compensation is said to have been deposited in the R.D. Account of the respondent-BDA itself on 27.07.2005 and same has not been deposited before the Civil Court till date as required under Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act. This would makes it clear that the petitioners were unaware about the deposit of the compensation by the respondent-BDA and therefore, the delay and laches in filing the petitions does not arise in these petitions and further, the petitioners were approaching this Court challenging the Endorsements and acquisition proceedings earlier also.

¶161

Nextly, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners about the Notification issued under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act is concerned, on careful examination of the Notification issued under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, patently reveals that, there is no

¶162

27 -

¶163

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶164

mahazar witness to the Notification nor the addresses of the persons who had taken the possession of the schedule land at their instance is reflected in the notification under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, and that apart, the Notification issued under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act is in a cyclostyle form to be filled up by the respondent-authorities and at this stage, it is relevant to cite the Judgment of the

¶165

Division Bench of this Court in DR. A. PARTHASARATHY (supra), wherein, paragraph

¶166

Nos.8 to 12 read as under:

¶167

“8. From the facts of this case we can conclude that more than 131 acres 33 guntas of land was initially notified for acquisition, whereas in the final notification only 108 acres 17 guntas of land was notified. The land used for implementing the scheme was to the extent of 13 acres 34 guntas, which comprised barely 12% of the land finally notified for acquisition. The BDA has not been able to place on record any valid reason for not proceeding to implement the scheme with regard to the land beyond 13 acres 34 guntas.

¶168

28 -

¶169

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶170

Land was initially notified for acquisition in the year 1978 which is more than three and a half decades back. The award, though passed in 1986, was not complied with by the BDA, as admittedly the compensation so awarded (particularly in the case of the appellants) was deposited after twenty-three years, in the year 2009. All this clearly shows the nonseriousness of the BDA in implementing the scheme for which acquisition of a vast tract of land was made by it.

¶171

9. From the above, it is clear that the Authority did not have intention of implementing the scheme over the entire portion of land which was acquired, but it had done so only to create a land bank, which is not the purpose for which Development Authorities have been created. If this is permitted, then any Development Authority can misuse the land acquisition proceedings by notifying and acquiring large tracts of land which may be in hundreds, or even thousands of acres, for future development, which may be proposed to be carried out even after three, four or five decades, and deposit the compensation at the rate as on the date of notification which may be awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, and deposit the same after several years, as in the present case, it is after thirty one years of the initial notification for acquisition, and twenty three years even after the award had been

¶172

29 -

¶173

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶174

passed. The Development Authorities are not in the business of land dealing, as the purpose is different, which is proper development of cities, which may include providing of residential accommodation to citizens, but not create a land bank by way of compulsory acquisition of land, thereby depriving the legitimate owners of land for profiteering purpose by BDA. In the present case, nearly 90% of the land so notified to be acquired, has remained unutilized for more than three and a half decades. The possession of the land belonging to the appellants is said to have been taken in the year 1986 under a ‘mahazar’ which cannot be relied upon, and we have no reason to disturb the finding of fact recorded by the Writ Court in this regard, in para 27 of its judgment, which was on perusal of the original record and is reproduced below:

¶175

The first question that falls for my consideration is, whether the possession of the land is taken by the Government from the petitioners ? My answer to this question is emphatically ‘no’, for the following reasons:

¶176

(a) The perusal of the records reveals that the things are not done in a manner known to law. The mahazar on which all reliance is placed is deficient in more than one respect. It contains the signatures of five persons, but their names, much less their addresses, are available.

¶177

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶178

30 -

¶179

(b) The alternative portions like (i) the petitioners were present/not present (ii) BDA has taken over the possession/the owners have handed over the possession (iii) malkies are existing/not existing are retained as they are. The non-applicable portion is not even struck off. The mahazar prepared is in the cyclostyled form. It is hard to give any credence to such a mahazar.

¶180

(c) No acknowledgments for having served the copy of the mahazar on the petitioners is produced. It is also not the case of the respondent BDA that the notice calling upon the petitioners to handover the possession was sent under RPAD.

¶181

10. The facts in the case before the Apex Court in the case of TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD (AIR 1986 SC 3377) 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

¶182

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶183

31 -

¶184

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.

¶185

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

¶186

32 -

¶187

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶188

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.

¶189

12. From the facts, it is also clear that since the BDA had failed to execute the scheme substantially, as it could utilize only about 12% of the land notified for acquisition within five years from the publication of the declaration under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act. In our view, in the facts of the present case, the provisions of Section 27 of the BDA Act would be applicable and thus, provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act providing for applicability of certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act would become inoperative."

¶190

It is the case of the petitioners that, the possession of the land in question is with the petitioners and further neither possession nor

¶191

mahazar has been drawn to take possession of the land in question. In this backdrop of the facts on record and looking into the Notification issued under

¶192

Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act referred to above, as well as the revenue records produced in the

¶193

33 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶194

Writ Petitions, I am of the view that, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has to be accepted. In the case of MRS.

¶195

POORNIMA GIRISH Vs. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2011 KAR 574 , this Court, at paragraph Nos.8 and 9, held as follows:

¶196

" 8. Having heard Sri. Krishnappa, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Abdul Khader, Learned Counsel for the respondent - Authority on merits, it is found that the situation is one which is irredeemable and irretrievable for the Authorities as the Authority by its own inaction and letharginess has allowed the acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned to lapse. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings in terms of the Preliminary Notification under Section 17 of the Act and Final Notification under Section 19 of the Act are hereby quashed only insofar as it relates to the land in possession of the petitioner in terms of the report now placed before the Court according to which the petitioner is in possession of site measuring 40 feet by 60 feet.

¶197

34 -

¶198

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶199

9. It is also open to the authority to ensure that the structure, if any, on the site is brought in conformity with the building bye-laws and regulations which are in force in the concerned area. It is rather surprising nay annoying that a public authority like the Bangalore Development Authority behaves in a most irresponsible manner to remain inactive without responding to either the land owners' travails and even has the tenacity to ignore and bypass even Court orders, as if this Court had in a situation similar and in a cause brought before this Court earlier by a group of land owners, has already passed orders [passed in writ petition No.16133 of 2004 and connected matters disposed of on 6.6.2006], it is the bounden duty of the public Authority like the Bangalore Development Authority to have implemented and obeyed that order in letter and spirit and not to drive every citizen to seek relief only before this Court."

¶200

It is also pertinent to mention here that the aforementioned Judgment of the learned Single Judge was confirmed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF

¶201

BDA Vs. MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH in Writ Appeal

¶202

No.4824/2010 disposed of on 01.03.2014, by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶203

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶204

35 -

¶205

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that compensation is not deposited before the Civil Court as required under Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act and the said submission was not countered by the learned counsel for the respondent-BDA who submitted that, compensation is deposited in R.D. account of respondent-BDA itself and in this regard, it is apt to cite the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2016) 16 SCC 258 . Paragraph Nos.9 to 9.3 therein, read as under:

¶206

"9. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, in so far as the making of award and the payment of compensation to persons interested, is as follows.

¶207

On the day fixed, the Collector after the inquiry that is contemplated under Section 11, has to make an award which must contain the necessary ingredients mentioned in Section 11. As soon as the award is

¶208

36 -

¶209

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶210

made, under Section 12(2) of the Act, the Collector is to give immediate notice of the award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally. This provision, when read with Section 31 of the Act, makes it clear that the statutory scheme is that the Collector is to tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons who are interested and entitled thereto, according to the award, on the date of making the award itself. It is therefore, clear that under the statutory scheme, the Collector must be armed with the amount of compensation payable to persons interested as soon as the award is made. Such persons have to be paid the sum mentioned in the award, it being well settled that the award is only an offer which may be accepted or rejected by the claimants. If accepted, whether under protest or otherwise, it is the duty of the Collector to make payment as soon as possible after making the award. It is only in a situation where the persons interested refuse consent to receive monies payable, or there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to title to receive compensation or its apportionment, is the Collector to deposit the amount of compensation in the reference court. It is only after these steps have been taken that the Collector may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. The Act further makes it clear, on a

¶211

37 -

¶212

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶213

reading of Section 34, that where such compensation is neither paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, interest is payable at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for one year and 15 per cent per annum thereafter. This is because a person becomes divested of both possession and title to his property without compensation having been paid or deposited, as the case may be. This statutory scheme has been adverted to in some of the decisions of this Court.

¶214

9.1. In New Reviera Coop. Housing Society v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [(1996) 1 SCC 731] at para 3, this Court held:

¶215

“3.…Once the award has been made and compensation has been deposited or paid under Section 31 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer is entitled to take possession and the possession thereby taken stands vested in the State under Section 16 of the Act free from all encumbrances…”

¶216

9.2. In Sunder v. Union of India, [(2001) 7 SCC 211] at para 24, this Court held:

¶217

“24.… What the legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest

¶218

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶219

38 -

¶220

on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the legislature when that section was framed or enacted.”

¶221

9.3. In Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah, [(2005) 12 SCC 508] at para 47, this Court held:

¶222

“ 47.…Section 31 contemplates that on making of an award under Section 11 the Collector shall tender amount of compensation awarded by him to the person interested and entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay to them unless prevented by any one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the subsequent clauses. None of those contingencies arose in the present case. Thus, once the amount was tendered and paid the acquisition process was complete. After making the award under Section 11 the Collector can take possession of the land under Section 16 which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. In the instant case, after making the payment in terms of the award, possession was taken. The acquisition process stood completed. …”

¶223

(underlining emphasised)

¶224

39 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶225

16. Indisputably, Award amount is not deposited

¶226

before the Civil Court as required under law and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the procedure adopted by the respondent-BDA to deposit the compensation in their R.D. Account is contrary to the Judgment in SUKHBIR SINGH (supra). Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA refers to the Layout Map enclosed in W.P.No.18273 of 2016 and on careful examination of the same would indicate that no steps have been taken by the respondent-BDA after issuance of the acquisition Notifications except drawing up of the Layout Map and no allotment of sites has been made insofar as the land in question is concerned nor development of the

¶227

land for Layout is given effect to. That apart, as observed above, Award amount is not deposited in a manner known to law and therefore, following the

¶228

40 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶229

declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. SMT. VIDHYA DEVI AND OTHERS in C.A.No.14473 of 2024 disposed of on 13.12.2024,

¶230

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay of 21 years in approaching the Court for redressal of grievance of the respondents therein. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS. BIMAL KUMAR SHAH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2024 SC 2819 . Paragraphs 28 to 31 reads as under:

¶231

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 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

¶232

41 -

¶233

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶234

‘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.

¶235

29. 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.

¶236

30. Following are the seven principles:

¶237

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 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.

¶238

42 -

¶239

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶240

(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.

¶241

(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.

¶242

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.

¶243

(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 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.

¶244

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶245

43 -

¶246

(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.

¶247

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.

¶248

(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.

¶249

(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.

¶250

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 the authorities to acquire. This requirement, which conditions the purpose of acquisition must stand to

¶251

44 -

¶252

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶253

reason with the larger constitutional goals of a welfare state and distributive justice.

¶254

(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.

¶255

(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.

¶256

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 similar

¶257

45 -

¶258

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶259

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

¶260

(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.

¶261

(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

¶262

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.

¶263

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶264

46 -

¶265

(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.

¶266

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

¶267

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

¶268

47 -

¶269

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶270

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

¶271

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.

¶272

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.

¶273

31. The seven principles which we have discussed are integral to the authority of law enabling compulsory acquisition of private property. Union and State

¶274

48 - NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶275

statutes have adopted these principles and incorporated them in different forms in the statutes provisioning compulsory acquisition of immovable 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.

¶276

Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA, that the writ petitions have to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶277

In the result, as the respondents have not taken possession of the land in question in a manner known to law nor deposited the compensation before the Civil Court and that apart, the perusal of the Order dated 04.12.2009 in W.P.No.19994 of 2007, wherein, this Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners herein and thereafter, the petitioners are agitating

¶278

NC: 2025:KHC:3935 WP No. 18269 of 2016 C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016 WP No. 18272 of 2016 AND WP No. 18273 of 2016

¶279

49 -

¶280

their rights continuously, which could be inferred from

¶281

the Note Sheets/Order Sheets produced at Annexure-

¶282

G to the Writ Petitions that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for interference in these Writ Petitions.

¶283

Hence, I pass the following:

¶284

ORDER

¶285

(i) Writ Petitions are allowed .

¶286

(ii) Preliminary Notification dated 07.11.2002

¶287

and the Final Notification 09.09.2003 issued by

¶288

the respondent-BDA are hereby quashed in respect of the subject land in these Writ Petitions. All further consequent actions of the respondent - BDA, are hereby set aside.

¶289

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶290

SB: List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2

Sri. Anjanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Anjanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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

Smt. Chikkamuniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Muneeramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Prakash N Baldota Vs the State of Karnataka