Sri M Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI M RAMAIAH S/O MUTHURAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1308, RAMAIAH GARDEN, VIDYASAGARA, DR. SHIVARAMKARANTH NAGAR POST, THANISANDRA VILLAGE, K.R PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 077

¶12

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, COURT OF SRI R SRINIVAS, KARNATAKA S/O SRI M RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT THANISANDRA VILLAGE, K.R PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 036.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. MITHUN G.A, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41662-DB WP No. 20791 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU. KARNATAKA - 560 020.

¶21

THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶22

JUSTICE K N KESHAVANARAYANA COMMITTEE (CONSTITUTED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, IN WRIT PETITION NO. 51929/2014) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KRISHI BHAVAN, 4^TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶23

SMT. NARAYANAMMA K AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT ARKAVATHI LAYOUT 6^TH BLOCK, THANISANDRA VILLAGE BENGALURU-560 077 (AMENDMENT CARIED OUT IN CONSONANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2025)

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. G.R. ARUNA, AGA FOR R1, SMT. DEEPTI AYATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3, SRI. ARNAV A BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHIMANYA D, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41662-DB WP No. 20791 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE RECOMMENDATION/ ORDER DATED 11.07.2022 PASSED IN KNKC No-27/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No-4 COMMITTEE FOR ACQUIRING THE LAND BEARING Sy No-84/7 MEASURING 10 GUNTAS OUT OF 21 GUNTAS AND ETC.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶31

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶34

The petitioner in this Writ Petition sought the following

¶35

relief:

¶36

"a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing the Recommendation/order dated 11.07.2022 passed in KNKC No.27/2022 Vide ANNEXURE-A issued by the Respondent No.4 Committee for acquiring the land bearing Sy No.84/7, 'measuring 10 Guntas out of 21 Guntas;

¶37

b) Declare that the Schedule Property i.e., land bearing Sy. No.84/7 measuring 10 guntas out of 21 Guntas is liable to be dropped from

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41662-DB WP No. 20791 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

acquisition in the light of the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bondu Ramaswamy and others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others reported in 2010 7 SCC 129 and the directions issued in Writ Petition No.51929/2014."

¶41

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.84/7, measuring 21 guntas, being the purchaser of the same vide registered Sale Deed dated 02.02.1985 and thereafter, vide conversion order dated 25.10.1991, the said land was converted. However, out of 21 guntas, 10 guntas had been acquired for Arkavathi Layout vide preliminary notification dated 03.02.2003 and final notification dated 23.02.2004. It is his further case that since his name was reflecting in the RTC in respect of land in question, his name was also reflected in the aforesaid notifications. Thereafter, he submitted his objections and also an application to exclude the said land from acquisition in view of directions of this Court in WP.No.51929/2014, wherein a Committee was constituted

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41662-DB WP No. 20791 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

to submit a report whether the land in question falls within

¶45

the ambit of directions issued in the said writ petition.

¶46

It is the further case of the petitioner that since the

¶47

land in question was a converted land prior to preliminary notification and the adjoining lands around Sy.No.84/7 were left out from acquisition, the land in question ought to have been excluded from acquisition as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - (2010) 7 SCC 129 . However, based on the report of the Committee, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) demolished the compound and construction on the land in question without issuing any intimation/notice. As such, the petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the report

¶48

of the Committee dated 11.07.2022 in Petition KNKC No.27/2022 (Thanisandra) seeking to quash the same and to exclude the land in question from acquisition proceedings.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41662-DB WP No. 20791 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

We have heard Sri Mithun G.A., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri G.R.Aruna, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Smt.Deepti Ayathan, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri Arnav A.Bagalwadi, learned counsel for Sri Abhimanya D, learned counsel appearing for

¶52

respondent No.5.

¶53

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Committee while issuing the report has failed to follow the guidelines issued in WP.No.51929/2014 specifically guidelines No.(a), (b), (d) and (xxi) and has erred in recommending for acquisition of land in question. Further, it is contended that since the land of the petitioner i.e., 10 guntas was facing the main road, in order to fetch higher price, based on the report of the Committee, the BDA acquired the same and demolished the compound wall without any

¶54

intimation/notice to the petitioner.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41662-DB WP No. 20791 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

It is also contended that since the land in question falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy cited supra and the same being the converted land in the year 1991 itself i.e., before acquisition and the other adjacent lands having been excluded from acquisition and was fully developed with construction of building and was in the midst of unacquired/denotified lands, the Committee ought not to have recommended for acquisition of land in question. As such, he prays to allow the writ petition by granting the reliefs sought in the petition.

¶58

Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to seek exclusion of land in question from acquisition, as prior to issuance of preliminary notification, he had already sold the sites formed in the land in question and as such, he has no right, title or interest over the land in question.

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41662-DB WP No. 20791 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

It is also contended that though the petitioner in his representation submitted that the sites sold by him have been reconveyed by cancellation of Sale Deeds and as such, he was the owner of the land in question, the Central Power Employees Site Owners Welfare Association, in their response submitted that in all 95 sites were formed, out of which, 76 were sold to its members under various Sale Deeds and as such, they requested for disbursement of compensation in favour of individual site owners and not to the petitioner. Further, the cancellation of Sale Deeds was in respect of sites formed in Sy.No.100/5 and not in respect of sites formed in land in question and even the cancellation of Sale Deeds were executed 2013 onwards, by which date the final notification had already published and the land vested with the State.

¶62

Further, it is contended that as per layout plan, 7 sites were carved out in the land in question and out of which, two Sale Deeds produced reflected sale of 3 sites

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41662-DB WP No. 20791 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

and the representation of Central Power Employees Site Owners Welfare Association reflected sale of other sites formed in the land in question. Thus, as on the date of preliminary notification, the petitioner was not the owner of any portion of land in question. Thus, the case of the petitioner does not come under any one of the guidelines issued by this Court in WP.No.51929/2014 and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bondu Ramaswamy 's case. As such, the Committee, after examining all the above aspects, has rightly recommended for rejection of request of the petitioner for exclusion of land in question from acquisition.

¶66

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 contended that pursuant to the scheme of compensation for landlosers, respondent No.5 was allotted three sites carved out in the land in question and Sale Deeds were executed on 18.01.2025 and possession certificates were also issued on 20.01.2025. As such, the petitioner not being the owner of the land in question cannot claim any right, title

¶67

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:41662-DB WP No. 20791 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

or interest in the land in question, after acquisition and allotment to third party.

¶70

With these submissions, learned counsel for the respondents pray to dismiss the writ petition.

¶71

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the report of the Committee as well as the documents placed before us, it is seen that the sites formed in the land in question were sold by the petitioner in favour of third parties before issuance of preliminary and final notification and that the cancellation of Sale Deeds were in respect of sites formed in Sy.No.100/5 and not in respect of sites formed in land in question i.e., Sy.No.84/7 and that the said Reconveyance Deeds had been executed only from the year 2013 onwards i.e., after issuance of preliminary and final notification. Thus, the land in question being vested with the State, the petitioner has lost his right, title or interest over the same. It is also noticed that in a mahazar which was conducted on 27.07.2004, it was recorded that land in

¶72

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:41662-DB WP No. 20791 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

question was a vacant land and hence, the BDA proceeded to acquire the same based on the report of the Committee.

¶75

The Committee, after verification of all the

¶76

documents relating to land in question and after providing opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and having conducted spot inspection and having found that the petitioner has sold all the sites formed in land in question and as such, has lost his valid right, title and interest in the land in question as on the date of preliminary and final notification, has correctly recommended for acquisition of land in question. It is also noticed that the award in respect of land in question had already been passed in favour of Members of registered society who established that they were the purchasers of individual sites carved out from the land in question and that the possession of land in question has already been taken and allotted to third parties. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Committee has rightly recommended for rejection of request of the petitioner for

¶77