Sri N.Lakshminarayan Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:937 WP No. 31209 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 31209 OF 2019 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. N. LAKSHMINARAYAN S/O LATE G.NANGUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.66, NEW MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶9

SMT. PRABHAVATHI W/O LATE NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶10

SRI. N. KUMAR S/O LATE G.NANGUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶11

SRI. N. SRINIVAS S/O LATE G.NANGUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. N. ANAND S/O LATE G.NANGUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶14

SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR N. S/O LATE G.NANGUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶15

PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO.43, HARECHAND LAYOUT, 3^RD CROSS, JEEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 005.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:937 WP No. 31209 of 2019

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶22

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUITHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶23

ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD, NOW BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶24

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.4, NORTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶25

ASSISTANT ENGINEER NO.4, NORTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPCT OF IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 24.12.1971, DECLARE THAT THE AQUISITION IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN SY NO.98/4 SITUATED AT KADAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE NOW COMING UNDER THE JURISIDCTION OF BRUHATH BENGLAURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE MUNICIPAL NO.417, WARD NO.94, 13^TH CROSS, PILLANNA GARDEN, 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE PURSUANT TO THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 24.12.1971 ISSUED BY THE R-1 [ANNEXURE-A] HAS LAPSED AND ETC.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:937 WP No. 31209 of 2019

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Petitioners are before this Court seeking following reliefs:

¶34

"….

¶35

(b) Declare that the acquisition in respect of the land in Sy.No.98/4, situated at Kadagondanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, now coming under the jurisdiction of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru Municipal No.417, Ward No.94, 13^th Cross, Pillanna Garden, Bengaluru pursuant to the final notification dated 24.12.1971 bearing No.HMA 131 MNJ 71 issued by the respondent No.1 (Annexure-A) has lapsed; (c) Declare that the respondents have no right, interest or title land in Sy.No.98/4 situated at Kadagondanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, now coming under the jurisdiction of Bruhuth Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru, Municipal No.417, Ward No.94, 13^th Cross, Pillanna Garden, 3^rd Stage, Bengaluru in the interest of justice and equity.

¶36

(d)Pass any other order which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit including the cost of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:937 WP No. 31209 of 2019

¶39

The case of the petitioners is that they being

¶40

the sons and daughter of one Sri.G.Nanjundappa, had inherited the agricultural property to an extent of 1 acre and 3 guntas in Sy.No.98/4, Kadagondanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, now within the limits of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. That a notification dated 24.12.1971 was issued by the respondent-BDA, purportedly a final notification in which the name of the father of the petitioners was found at Sl.No.2. An award notice was issued by respondent No.3 under the then Mysuru Land Acquisition Act, in respect of the aforesaid property. That though the award notice was issued, no notification under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act taking possession was ever issued, as such possession of the property remained with the petitioners.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the documents enclosed to the petition takes this Court through the records of rights for the years 1983-84 upto 2018-19 to contend that even to this date, the name of

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:937 WP No. 31209 of 2019

¶44

the father of the petitioners is reflected in the Revenue Records in respect of scheduled property. Thus, he submits that acquisition has not been completed.

¶45

He further submits that though initially one of the grounds urged by the petitioners is that the acquisition of the property was without issuing a preliminary notification in respect of property belonging to the petitioners, however, he fairly submits that in view of the production of copy of the preliminary notification by the respondent-BDA, petitioners would not press that ground into service. He however empathically insists that since the possession of the property has remained with the petitioners, as such the scheme shall have to be construed to have lapsed.

¶46

He also referred to the mahazar report produced by the respondent-BDA pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12.01.2023, produced at Annexure-R4 to the statement of objections to contend that as per the details obtained during the mahazar, there

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:937 WP No. 31209 of 2019

¶49

are about 20 sites formed in the schedule property of which sites at Sl.Nos.1 to 8 and Sl.No.12 and 20 have not been allotted and they are admittedly lying vacant. That there is sufficient material on record to show that the scheme has not been substantially implemented. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed holding that the scheme to the extent of the property belonging to the petitioners has stood lapsed.

¶50

In response, the learned counsel for the respondent- BDA submits that preliminary notification was issued on 29.03.1967, final notification was issued on 24.12.1971 acquiring total extent of 92 acres 18 guntas of land for forming of layout known as Pillanna Garden, 3^rd Stage. He submits that an award was passed on 28.06.1974. An award notice admittedly was issued on 31.12.1976 which is even produced by the petitioners as per Annexure-B. He further submits that possession of property was taken on 16.05.1978, sites have been formed to the entire extent of 92 acres 18 guntas of land

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:937 WP No. 31209 of 2019

¶53

and have been allotted to the various allottees. He further

¶54

submits that though a few sites are lying vacant forming part of the subject matter of property, the same does not mean that the scheme has not been substantially complied with. Hence, he submits that petition lacks merits and requires to be dismissed.

¶55

Heard and perused the record.

¶56

Since the only ground urged by the petitioners

¶57

is lapsing of the scheme under Section 27, same may have to be referred, which reads as under:

¶58

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

¶59

What is required to be seen is whether the scheme has been substantially implemented or whether the implementation has not been done in view of dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent-BDA. Admittedly, total extent of the land acquired by the

¶60

8 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:937 WP No. 31209 of 2019

¶62

respondent-BDA is 92 acres 18 guntas way back in the year 1967-1971. It is also not in dispute that entire layout has been developed, sites have been allotted, which is now consists of various buildings. Merely because few sites as mentioned in the mahazar report at Annexure-R5 produced along with the memo at Annexure-R4 are lying vacant, it cannot be construed that the scheme has lapsed. Provisions of Section 27 of the Act is therefore not applicable. In that view of the matter this Court do not see any ground to interfere and grant the relief as sought for.

¶63

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as the same lacks merits.

¶64

At this juncture counsel for the petitioners submits that a liberty be reserved to the petitioners to seek allotment of vacant site. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the petition, since admittedly, few sites are lying vacant as per mahazar report, petitioners are at liberty to make application/representation to the respondent-BDA seeking allotment and the BDA shall consider the same and pass

¶65