Sri S N Mohan Kumar Alias G N R Mohan Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri S N Mohan Kumar Alias G N R Mohan Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: the impugned notifications, i.e. Preliminary Notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B) and Final Notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-C), quashed in respect of the subject land belonging to the petitioners; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Preliminary Notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B) and Final Notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-C) issued for formation of the BTM Scheme, insofar as they pertain to the petitioners' land (Schedule 'A'), are liable to be quashed, the acquisition having remained incomplete without taking possession or paying compensation. +2 more

Court's answer

The acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land are liable to be quashed as no possession has been taken by the respondent-authorities even after four decades from the Preliminary Notification, as evident from the survey sketch at Annexure-K showing the petitioners in possession.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of res judicata: the petitioners challenge the award dated 11.06.1990/18.08.1990 (Annexure-G), which was passed after the earlier round of litigation (dismissed by this Court on 04.06.1984 and confirmed up to the Supreme Court on 29.04.1987) had concluded.

Key takeaways

On careful examination of the original records produced by the respondent-BDA, the award was in fact passed on 11.06.1990, notwithstanding that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court recited that the award was passed during 1983.ratio¶62
The belated issuance of the award notice affected the acquisition proceedings; the respondent-BDA did not complete the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land as required under law, and the petitioners thereby made out a case for interference.ratio¶83
The respondent-authorities did not produce any notification said to have been issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as to taking possession, which makes it clear that the respondent-BDA abandoned the scheme insofar as the land in question is concerned.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition allowed. The High Court of Karnataka (E.S. Indiresh, J.) quashed the preliminary notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B) and final notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-C) issued for formation of the BTM Scheme insofar as they related to the petitioners' land, holding that the Bangalore Development Authority had abandoned the scheme of acquisition insofar as the petition schedule property was concerned. Although the father of the petitioners had earlier challenged the same acquisition unsuccessfully up to the Supreme Court (order dated 29.04.1987 in SLP (C) No.294 of 1985), the Court held the petition was not barred by res judicata because the award dated 11.06.1990/18.08.1990 (Annexure-G) post-dated that round; on examination of original records the award was found to have been passed on 11.06.1990 and not in 1983 as recited in the Supreme Court order. Award notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act were issued only on 13.11.1990 and 13.11.1991 - the latter in the name of an owner who had died on 04.05.1989; no notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act regarding taking possession was produced; no compensation was paid; and a mahazar/survey sketch (Annexure-K, dated 09.09.2021) drawn at the Court's direction in W.P.No.7448 of 2021 showed the petitioners in possession. Applying Savitramma and others vs. State of Karnataka (2021) 1 KLJ 305, Mrs. Poornima Girish vs. Revenue Department (ILR 2011 KAR 574, confirmed in W.A. No.4824 of 2010) and Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka (ILR 2018 KAR 2144), the Court held that the acquisition, left incomplete for over four decades with neither possession taken nor compensation paid, was liable to be quashed; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

WRIT PETITION NO. 31554 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

SRI. S.N. MOHAN KUMAR @ G.N.R. MOHAN

S/O. LATE G. NARAYANA SWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

SRI. S.N. SHEKHAR

S/O. LATE G. NARAYANA SWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

SRI. S.N. BABU @ G.N.R. BABU S/O. LATE G. NARAYANA SWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.172/5/1, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, BTM DOLLARS COLONY, BILEKAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076.

Location: HIGH MOHANKUMAR COURT OF B SHELAR KARNATAKA DHARWADBENCH (BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADVOCATE)

...PETITIONERS

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD), VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR LAND ACQUISITION, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.T. BASAVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARRYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BDA/SLAO (LAPR/(S)131/77/78 DATED 19/09/1977 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION HUDS MNJ, 78 DATED 07/02/1978 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 VIDE ANNEXURES ‘B’ AND ‘C’ IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES AND PERTAINS TO SCHEDULE ‘A’ PROPERTY, HOLDING THAT THE SCHEDULE HAS BEEN LAPSED BY EFFLUX OF TIME AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT; ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD BEARING NO. BDA/DC(LA)/01/90-91 DATED 18/08/1990 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PASS FRESH AWARD IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES AND PERTAINS TO SCHEDULE ‘B’ PROPERTY CONSIDERING THE PRESENT MARKET VALUE SINCE THE PETITIONERS HAVE NOT PARTED WITH THE POSSESSION AND ETC.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19^TH FEBRUARY, 2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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

CAV ORDER

In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the Preliminary Notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B) and Final Notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-C) issued by the respondents, has become lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') insofar as 'A Schedule Property' is concerned, inter-alia, sought for quashing the Award dated 18.08.1980 issued by the respondent No.4 (Annexure-G) and sought for issuance of fresh award in respect of the 'B schedule Property'.

Relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition are that, the land bearing Sy.No.172/2B of Bilekahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring to an extent of 4 acres 29 guntas was purchased by G. Narayana Swamy Reddy (father of the petitioners) as per the registered Sale

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

Deed dated 05.05.1967 and the revenue records stand in the name of the father of the petitioners and on his demise, revenue records transferred into the name of the petitioners. It is further stated in the Writ Petition that the respondent - authorities have issued the Preliminary Notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B) and Final Notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-C) and sought to acquire various lands including the land belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of formation of BTM Scheme, however, no efforts have been made to take possession of

the schedule properties within the reasonable period. Therefore, the petitioners have sought for declaration that, the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed under Section 27 of the Act insofar Schedule ‘A’ to the writ petition and to quash the award dated 18.08.1990 (Annexure-G) insofar as Schedule 'B' property is concerned. Hence, this writ petition.

I have heard Sri. Lokesh R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi Rao,

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. H. T. Basavaraja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Sri. Lokesh R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, father of the petitioners was owner in possession of the land in question and schedule properties have been sought to be acquired by the respondent-authorities for the purpose of formation of BTM Scheme. It is submitted that, the impugned notifications were questioned by the father of the petitioners and same has reached finality, wherein, the acquisition proceedings was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that, even after the conclusion of the proceedings during the year 1987, possession of the land in question has not been taken by the respondent-authorities and the award notice was issued on 13.11.1990 and further, no steps have been taken by the respondent-authorities to complete the

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

Nextly, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, as per Annexure-K to the writ petition, Mahazar was drawn as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.7448 of 2021, and as such, as the petitioners are in possession of the land in question as on today, accordingly, sought for quashing the impugned notifications on the ground of delay in passing the award and no compensation is paid to the petitioner and further, possession of the schedule property is with the petitioner and accordingly, sought for allowing the writ petition.

Per contra, Sri. H.T. Basavaraja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA contended that, the father of the petitioners has challenged the very same notifications, which came to be upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits as res-judicata is applicable to the case on hand. He further contended that, the respondent-BDA has

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

implemented the Scheme substantially and therefore, no interference is called for in this writ petition and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned HCGP appearing for the

respondent-State argued in similar lines with the learned counsel appearing for the respondent –BDA.

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner is assailing the notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B) and Final Notification dated 07.02.1978 (Annexure-C) issued by the respondent-authorities for formation of BTM Scheme and the subject land is also notified for acquisition. It is the principal submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA that, the father of the petitioners has challenged the acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.13115 and 13464 of 1983, wherein, the prayer in the writ petition is to challenge the acquisition proceedings. This Court, by order dated 04.06.1984, dismissed the writ petition. The said

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

judgment is confirmed in Writ Appeal No.1481 of 1984 dated 14.08.1984 and by order dated 29.04.1987 in SLP (C) No.294 of 1985. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Award has been passed during the year 1983, however, the Award notice was issued on 13.11.1990, after lapse of sixteen years from the issuance of the Final Notification. In this regard, it is relevant to deduce the portion of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (CIVIL) No.294 of 1985, which reads as under:

"The petitioner in this case has questioned the validity of the acquisition proceedings under which the land belonging to him was acquired and taken over by the Government for the purpose of utilising it for the B.T.M. Scheme of the Bangalore Development Authority. The preliminary notification was issued on 19^th September, 1977 and the declaration under Section 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published on 17.2.1978. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award in the early part of 1983. The notice

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was served on the petitioner immediately thereafter. The revenue records show that the possession of the land was taken on 15.6.1983."

(underlined by me)

It is pertinent to mention here that, the respondentauthorities after the conclusion of the proceedings by the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the year 1985, issued the award notice under Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, on 13.11.1990 (Annexures-H and J, respectively) after lapse of 13 years from date of issuance of Preliminary Notification. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per Mahazar drawn by the Surveyor of the respondentBDA on 09.09.2021 (Annexure-K), the petitioners are in possession of the schedule properties. It is to be noted that, even after four decades, the respondent-BDA has not take possession of the land in question and therefore, though the impugned notifications have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, however, no steps have been taken by the respondent-BDA to take

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

possession of the land in question even during the year 2021 and to allot the site in favour of the prospective allottees. It is also forthcoming from the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, the Award has been passed during 1983, however, on careful examination of the original records produced by the respondent-BDA, connotes that, the Award was passed on 11.06.1990. It is mentioned in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the award is passed during the year 1983. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, though the father of the petitioners has challenged the acquisition proceedings, however, same was rejected by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, much before the passing of the Award dated 11.06.1990. Therefore, this petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of res-judicata since the petitioners herein have challenged the Award dated 11.06.1990/18.08.1990 (Annexure-G) issued by respondent No.4 and therefore, this Writ Petition cannot be dismissed on the threshold that the acquisition

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

proceedings has reached finality in so far as the land in question is concerned.

It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent-authorities have not produced Notification said to have been issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as to taking possession of the land in question. This would makes it clear that the respondentBDA has abandoned the scheme insofar as land in question is concerned. This court in the case of Savitramma and others vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2021) 1 KLJ 305 under similar circumstances set aside the impugned notification in respect of the Hennur Bellary Road II Stage. It is also to be noted that, this Court in the case of MRS. POORNIMA

GIRISH vs. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT

OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2011 KAR 574, at paragraph 8 held as follows:

“8. Having heard Sri. Krishnappa, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Abdul Khader, Learned counsel

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

appearing 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 latherginess has allowed the acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned to lapse. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings in terms fo the preliminary Notification, under Section 17 of the Act and Final Notification under 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.”

The aforementioned judgment of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.4824 of 2010 disposed of on 01^st March, 2014. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2018 KAR 2144, wherein at paragraphs 5 and 8 held as follows:

"5. It is no longer res-integra that power conferred on any authority be exercised reasonably and reasonable

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

exercise of power includes exercise of the same within a reasonable period. An acquisition proceeding once initiated has to be completed by passing an award and paying compensation followed by taking over possession within a reasonable period. This has to be strictly followed even in the absence of any statutory limit prescribed for passing of award and completing the acquisition proceedings.

In the present cases, though final notification was issued in the year 1971 so far, neither award has been passed nor possession has been taken over by paying compensation. Therefore, the acquiring body has neither exercised its powers in a reasonable manner nor has it completed the acquisition proceeding within a reasonable period. Hence, acquisition having been abandoned stands lapsed on account of omission and commission on the part of the CITB/BDA in respect of writ petitioners/ respondents' herein in so far as the land is concerned."

Having applied declaration of law referred to above,

I am of the view that, as the award notice was issued during the year 1990 and no compensation is paid to the petitioners as on today and that apart, no possession has been taken in respect of the subject land by the respondent-BDA and as acquisition proceedings has not

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

reached its logical end and no material has been produced by the respondent-BDA insofar allotment of sites to the respective allottees in the subject land and further taking into consideration the Sketch produced at Annexure-K to the writ petition, which would demonstrates that, the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and therefore, the contention of the petitioners is to be accepted. It is pertinent to mention here that issuance of the belated award notice by the respondent-authorities would affect the acquisition proceedings and as such, the petitioners have made out a case that, the respondentBDA has not completed the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land as required under law and therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for interference in this writ petition. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land is liable to be quashed as no possession has been taken by the respondent-authorities even after four decades in passing the Preliminary Notification as evident from Survey sketch produced at Annexure-K to the writ petition. It is also

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

pertinent to mention here that as per the records produced by the BDA, notice under Section 12(2) was issued to one Smt. Chayadevi and Sri. G. Narayanaswamy Reddy in respect of the subject matter of the land on 13.11.1990 (Annexure-H) and 13.11.1991 (Annexure-J). It appears that notice under Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act was issued to the daughter of Sri. G. Narayanaswamy Reddy during the year 1990 and thereafter, similar award notice under Section 12(2) was issued in the name of Sri. G.Narayanaswamy Reddy (father of the petitioners), however, the petitioners have produced the death certificate of the father of the petitioners - G. Narayanaswamy Reddy, who died on 04.05.1989, as per Annexure-D. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents have not taken possession of the land in question and

have abandoned the scheme of acquisition insofar as the petition schedule property is concerned. In the result, the writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned

16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12493 WP No. 31554 of 2024

notifications i.e. Preliminary Notification dated 19.09.1977 (Annexure-B) and Final Notification dated 07.02.1978

(Annexure-C) in respect of subject land belonging to the petitioners.

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

SB CT-MCK List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1