Mr. S. N. Shiva Kiran Vs Bangalore Development Authority

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:32209 WP No. 45917 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 45917 OF 2019 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. S.N.SHIVA KIRAN, S/O S.N.NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.46, IN R.S.NO.39, A.D.HALLI, 4^TH BLOCK, 4^TH STAGE, W.C.ROAD, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AKANKSH ASHOK, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA KRUPA, BENGALURU - 560 020, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA KRUPA, BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCESS TAKEN UP BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.A10-8 152-63 DATED 08.01.1964 (ANNEXURE-A) AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 28.10.1971 (ANNEXURE-B) bearing No.HMA88 MNJ71 STAND LAPSED BY VIRTUE OF OPERATION OF SECTION 24(2) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32209 WP No. 45917 of 2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶24

prayers:

¶25

"(a) Declare that the acquisition process taken up by the Respondent No.2 vide Preliminary Notification bearing No.A10-8-152-63 dated 08.01.1964 (ANNEXURE-"A") and Final Notification dated 28.10.1971 (ANNEXURE-"B") bearing No.HMA 88 MNJ71, stand lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;

¶26

(b) Declare that the entire acquisition process stand lapsed by virtue of non-compliance of Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976;

¶27

(c) Any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶28

Heard Sri.Akanksh Ashok, learned counsel

¶29

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.B.S.Sachin, learned counsel

¶30

appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32209 WP No. 45917 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

¶34

submits that the petitioner being a subsequent purchaser cannot maintain the petition, particularly challenging the acquisition proceedings and would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SHIVA KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA , reported in (2019) 10 SCC 229 .

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would not dispute the position that he is the subsequent purchaser who has purchased the property long after the Final Notification issued by the BDA for acquisition of the subject property.

¶36

In the light of the admitted fact, the judgment of

¶37

the Apex Court in the case of Shiva Kumar supra would cover the issue, wherein, at paragraphs 8, 9, 18 to 24 and 26, it is observed as follows:

¶38

" 8. It has been laid down that the purchasers on any ground whatsoever cannot question proceedings for taking possession. A purchaser after Section 4 notification does not acquire any right in the land as the sale is ab initio void and has no right to claim land under the policy.

¶39

9. When we ponder as to beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act, they also intend to benefit landowners

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:32209 WP No. 45917 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

mentioned in the notification under Section 4, not for the benefit of such purchasers who purchase the land after it has been vested in the State.

¶44

18. Even otherwise, proviso to Section 24(2) does not recognise a purchaser after Section 4 notification inasmuch as it provides that where an award has been made, and the compensation in respect of a majority of landholdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition issued under the 1894 Act, shall be entitled to compensation under the provisions of the 2013 Act. The proviso makes it clear that in case of compensation concerning the majority of landholdings has not been deposited, then recorded owner(s) at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall have the right to receive the compensation. Purchasers after Section 4 notification have not been given the right to receive the higher compensation under the provisions contained in the 2013 Act.

¶45

19. The 2013 Act presupposes that a person is required to be rehabilitated and resettled. Such a person who has purchased after Section 4 notification as sale deed is void under the 1894 Act, cannot claim rehabilitation and resettlement as per policy envisaged under the 2013 Act, as his land has not been acquired, but he has purchased a property which has already been acquired by the State Government, he cannot claim even higher compensation, as per proviso to Section 24(2) under the 2013 Act. An original landowner cannot be deprived of higher value under the 2013 Act, which higher compensation was not so contemplated when the void transaction of sale had been entered, and right is conferred under the proviso to Section 24(2) on recorded owners under the 1894 Act. We have come across instances in which after notifications under Section 4 were issued and, the property was purchased at throwaway prices by the builders and unscrupulous persons, such purchases are void and confer no right even to claim higher compensation under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as it is to be given to the owner as mentioned in the notification.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:32209 WP No. 45917 of 2019

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

20. Given that, the transaction of sale, effected after Section 4 notification, is void, is ineffective to transfer the land, such incumbents cannot invoke the provisions of Section 24. As the sale transaction did not clothe them with the title when the purchase was made; they cannot claim “possession” and challenge the acquisition as having lapsed under Section 24 by questioning the legality or regularity of proceedings of taking over of possession under the 1894 Act. It would be unfair and profoundly unjust and against the policy of the law to permit such a person to claim resettlement or claim the land back as envisaged under the 2013 Act. When he has not been deprived of his livelihood but is a purchaser under a void transaction, the outcome of exploitative tactics played upon poor farmers who were unable to defend themselves.

¶50

21. Thus, under the provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, challenge to acquisition proceeding of the taking over of possession under the 1894 Act cannot be made, based on a void transaction nor declaration can be sought under Section 24(2) by such incumbents to obtain the land. The declaration that acquisition has lapsed under the 2013 Act is to get the property back whereas, the transaction once void, is always a void transaction, as no title can be acquired in the land as such no such declaration can be sought. It would not be legal, just and equitable to give the land back to purchaser as land was not capable of being sold which was in process of acquisition under the 1894 Act. The 2013 Act does not confer any right on purchaser whose sale is ab initio void. Such void transactions are not validated under the 2013 Act. No rights are conferred by the provisions contained in the 2013 Act on such a purchaser as against the State.

¶51

22. “Void is, ab initio,” a nullity, is inoperative, and a person cannot claim the land or declaration once no title has been conferred upon him to claim that the land should be given back to him. A person cannot enforce and ripe fruits based on a void transaction to start claiming title and possession of the land by seeking a declaration under Section 24 of the 2013 Act; it will

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:32209 WP No. 45917 of 2019

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

amount to conferment of benefit never contemplated by the law. The question is, who can claim declaration/rights under Section 24(2) for the restoration of land or lapse of acquisition. It cannot be by a person with no title in the land. The provision of the 2013 Act cannot be said to be enabling or authorising a purchaser after Section 4 to question proceeding taken under the Act of 1894 of taking possession as held in U.P. Jal Nigam [ U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. , (1996) 3 SCC 124] which is followed in M. Venkatesh [ M. Venkatesh v. BDA , (2015) 17 SCC 1 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 387] and other decisions and consequently claim declaration under Section 24 of the 2013 Act. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted in an indirect method.

¶56

23. The provisions of the 2013 Act aimed at the acquisition of land with least disturbance to the landowners and other affected families and to provide just and fair compensation to affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected and to make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement. The provisions of the 2013 Act aim at ousting all intermeddlers from the fray by ensuring payment in the bank account of landholders under Section 77 of the Act.

¶57

24. The intendment of the 2013 Act is to benefit farmers, etc. Subsequent purchasers cannot be said to be landowners entitled to restoration of land and cannot be termed to be affected persons within the provisions of the 2013 Act. It is not open to them to claim that the proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2).

¶58

26. In Manav Dharam Trust [ State (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust , (2017) 6 SCC 751 : (2017) 3 SCC (Civ) 611] , even the provisions of the Act of 2013 have not been taken into consideration, which prohibits such transactions in particular provisions of Section 11, including the proviso to Section 24(2). Apart from that, it was not legally permissible to a Division Bench to ignore the decisions of the larger Bench comprising of three Judges and of coordinate Bench. They were not per incuriam and were relevant for

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:32209 WP No. 45917 of 2019

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

deciding the issue of taking possession under the 1894 Act, at the instance of purchaser. In case it wanted to depart from the view taken earlier, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench. It has been ignored that when a purchase is void, then no declaration can be sought on the ground that the land acquisition under the 2013 Act has lapsed due to illegality/irregularity of proceedings of taking possession under the 1894 Act. No declaration can be sought by a purchaser under Section 24 that acquisition has lapsed, effect of which would be to get back the land. They cannot seek declaration that acquisition made under the 1894 Act has lapsed by the challenge to the proceedings of taking possession under the 1894 Act. Such right was not available after the purchase in 2000 and no such right has been provided to the purchasers under the 2013 Act also. Granting a right to question acquisition would be against the public policy and the law which prohibits such transactions; it cannot be given effect to under the guise of subsequent legislation containing similar provisions. Subsequent legislation does not confer any new right to a person based on such void transaction; instead, it includes a provision prohibiting such transactions without permission of the Collector as provided in Section 11(4)."

¶63

In the light of the said admitted circumstance and the matter covered by the judgment of the Apex Court, the petition being devoid of merit, would undoubtedly meet in dismissal and is accordingly dismissed .

¶64

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶65

CBC

Mr. S. N. Shiva Kiran v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. S. N. Shiva Kiran v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Yogeesh Vs Shri T P G Rajith Rudra

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs M/S. Inspira Builders LLP

Smt Shobha Vs Sri Nagendra Naik

Mr N R Surendranath Vs Mr R K Surendra Babu

Mr. P N Lokesh Vs Mr.K. Rajendra Prasad Reddy

Bindu Balakrishna Patali Vs Smartowner Services India Private Limited