Smt. Ramamani v Vs Bangalore Development Authority

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION OF LAND INITIATED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.HUD 206 MNX 86 DATED 05.08.1986 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976, IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY. NO.14/1 OF MALAGALU VILLAGE, YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, (NOW KNOWN AS NAGARABHAVI LAYOUT II STAGE) VIDE ANNEXURE-H HAS LAPSED IN SO FAR AS PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a declaration that the acquisition of the land in Sy. No.14/1 of Malagalu Village / Malagala Village, Yeshwanthapura hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, (now known as Nagarabhavi Layout II Stage) in terms of the notification bearing No.HUD 206 MNX 86 dated 05/08/1986 under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 has lapsed. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from dispossessing her or demolishing the house constructed by her in the petition schedule property.

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28276 WP No. 35150 of 2016

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

The petitioner contends that she had purchased Site Nos.6 and 7 formed in Survey No.14/1 of Malagalu Village, Papareddy Palya, Nagarabhavi II Stage, Bengaluru, with a building thereon in terms of a sale deed dated 27.07.2006. She claimed that after purchasing the property, she put up additional construction thereon, which was assessed to tax by the erstwhile City Municipal Council, Rajarajeshwari Nagar and now by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) which is collecting the property tax. She contended that during the first week of March 2016, some officials of the respondent No.1 visited the area where the petitioner's property is situate and informed her that Sy. No.14/1 is acquired by the respondent No.1 in the year 1982 vide a preliminary notification dated 15.07.1982 and a final notification dated 05.08.1986. The petitioner claimed that various persons who had purchased property from the owners of the land in Sy. No.14/1 are residing in the said layout and the buildings are all provided with all civic amenities. She further claimed that during the last week of May 2016, the officials of respondent No.1 threatened to demolish the construction put up on the land bearing Sy. No. 14/1. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court.

¶27

4 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:28276 WP No. 35150 of 2016

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 has not taken possession of the land bearing Sy. No.14/1 of Malagala village till date and hence, the acquisition has lapsed. He also contended that the land in Sy. No.14/1 is fully developed and it is not possible for the respondent No.1 to take possession of the property and assimilate it into a layout. He therefore claimed that the acquisition made by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is abandoned in so far as the land bearing Sy. No.14/1 of Malagala village is concerned.

¶31

4 (i). The petition is opposed by the respondent No.1 who contends that the petition is filed by a person who has purchased the property long after the notification was issued on 05.08.1986 in respect of the land in Sy.No.14/1 of Malagala Village. Further, it is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the petitioner has questioned the acquisition proceedings that have become final on 05.08.1986. It is contended that the land in Sy. No.14/1 of Malagala Village measuring 5 acres 11 guntas including 19 guntas of kharab land along with certain other lands were notified for public purpose for the formation of a

¶32

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28276 WP No. 35150 of 2016

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

layout called ‘Nagarabhavi layout’ vide preliminary notification dated 15.07.1982 and a final notification dated 05.08.1986. As per the revenue records, the occupant of the aforesaid land was one Sri Byrappa, (Son of Sri Seethappa) to whom a notice under Section 17(5) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the BDA Act’) was issued but was received by one Sri N. Krishna Murthy, who is a family member of the notified khatedar. The said Sri N. Krishna Murthy filed W.P No.1370/1987 before this Court challenging the notifications acquiring the aforesaid land, which was dismissed in terms of an order dated 27.07.1987. A spot inspection of the property was done on 15.12.1987 and it was found that the entire land was vacant on which two trees stood. A mahazar was drawn recording the above fact and thereafter, an award was passed on 02.01.1988 which was approved on 13.01.1988. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act, 1894’) was issued to Sri Byrappa and others on 12.02.1988 and possession of the said land was taken on 22.02.1988 and handed over to the Engineering Section of the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘the BDA’) for development. The award amount was deposited in

¶35

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28276 WP No. 35150 of 2016

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

the Civil Court on 27.05.1988 and on 24.01.1990, the Civil Court returned the reference to BDA and called upon it to resubmit the same with the correct address of the persons interested. Accordingly, the compensation was re-deposited on 31.12.1990 in LAC No.130/1988. A notification under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 06.07.1991, which was published in the Gazette on 26.09.1991.

¶38

(ii). It is contended that one Sri Venkatesh, the son of the notified Khathedar – Sri Byrappa, filed an application dated 29.11.2001 before the BDA, seeking clarification regarding purchase of a site in Sy. No.14/1 of Malagala Village. The BDA by its endorsement dated 21.01.2002 stated that the BDA had acquired the entire land and compensation amount was already deposited before the Civil Court. This was followed by another representation by the Dalitha Sangharsha Samiti to the State Government contending that more than 100 families were residing in the land bearing Sy. Nos.14/1 and 14/2 of Malagala village and sought for de-notification of the said land. The State Government by a letter dated 22.12.2005 called for a status report from the BDA and the BDA submitted a status report on 09.01.2006 to the State Government stating that the

¶39

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28276 WP No. 35150 of 2016

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

acquisition proceedings were completed and the property stood vested in the BDA. Similar applications were filed by several persons on 23.05.2014 to the State Government seeking regularization of their revenue sites and constructions thereon. The said applications were placed before the Karnataka Legislative Assembly who by letter dated 11.06.2014, called upon the Additional Chief Secretary to get a status report. Thereafter, the BDA sent a status report on 09.09.2014 to the State Government. Likewise, several persons filed W.P Nos.23562-574/2016 and 23377/2021 claiming to be the owners of the land in Survey No.14/1 of Malagalu village and sought for a declaration that the Scheme has lapsed in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.14/1. Sri Byrappa the notified khatedar and others had filed W.P No.34956/2016 before this Court seeking the very same reliefs which is pending consideration. It is contended that as per the final notification issued in respect of Nagarabhavi II Stage layout, the total extent of land acquired was 604 acres 23 guntas including 175 Acres and 21 guntas of Government kharab land. The Scheme was implemented as follows:

¶42

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28276 WP No. 35150 of 2016

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Total extent notified in Final Notification	604 A – 23 gts.
Total extent of possession taken area	553 A – 28 gts.
Total Layout formed area	378 A – 28 gts
Total vacant area	13 A – 36 gts
Built up area	72 A - 01 gts
Private Layout	65 A - 28 gts
Water Bodies	5 A – 38 gts
De-notified area	17 A – 17 gts

¶45

It is therefore contended that the Scheme is substantially implemented and hence, the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of Section 27 of the BDA Act.

¶46

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 reiterated the above submissions.

¶47

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶48

It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased the two sites bearing Nos.6 and 7 formed in Sy. No.14/1 of Malagala village on 27.07.2006 while the preliminary

¶49

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:28276 WP No. 35150 of 2016

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

notification for acquiring the land in Sy. No. 14/1 was issued on 15.07.1982 and the final notification was issued on 05.08.1986. Therefore, the petitioner cannot assail the final notification in any manner whatsoever. As to whether the petitioner can challenge or can claim the relief that the Scheme has lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, the issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran and another v. Administrative Officer and others [(2012) 12 SCC 133], where it was held as follows:

¶52

" Whether subsequent purchaser can challenge the acquisition proceedings

¶53

15. The issue of maintainability of the writ petitions by the person who purchases the land subsequent to a notification being issued under Section 4 of the Act has been considered by this Court time and again. In Lila Ram v. Union of India [(1975) 2 SCC 547] this Court held that, any one who deals with the land subsequent to a Section 4 notification being issued, does so, at his own peril. In Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [(1996) 7 SCC 426], this Court held that a Section 4 notification gives a notice to the public at large that the land in respect to which it has been issued, is needed for a public purpose, and it further points out that there will be “an impediment to any one to encumber the land

¶54

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:28276 WP No. 35150 of 2016

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

acquired thereunder”. The alienation thereafter does not bind the State or the beneficiary under the acquisition. The purchaser is entitled only to receive compensation. While deciding the said case, reliance was placed on an earlier judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Shivkumar Bhargava [(1995) 2 SCC 427] .

¶57

16. Similarly, in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. [(1996) 3 SCC 124], this Court held that, purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser may be a person interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation. [See also Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [(1996) 11 SCC 698]].

¶58

17. In Ajay Krishan Shinghal v. Union of India [(1996) 10 SCC 721], Mahavir v. Rural Institute [(1995) 5 SCC 335], Gian Chand v. Gopala [(1995) 2 SCC 528] and Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [(2008) 9 SCC 177] this Court categorically held that, a person who purchases land after the publication of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not entitled to challenge the proceedings for the reason, that his title is void and he can at best claim compensation on the basis of vendor's title. In view of this, the sale of land after issuance of a Section 4 notification is void and the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. [See also Tika Ram v. State of U.P. [(2009) 10 SCC 689]].

¶59

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:28276 WP No. 35150 of 2016

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

18. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that a person who purchases land subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at the most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor's title."

¶62

Similarly, in Delhi Development Authority v. Manpreet Singh and Others [(2023) 19 SCC 549] , it was held as

¶63

follows:

¶64

"6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that the original writ petitioner is a subsequent purchaser, who has acquired the right, title or interest in the land in the year 2018. The original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner at the time when the award with respect to the land in question under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) was issued. From the material on record, it appears that before the High Court, the original writ petitioner claimed the right, title or interest on the basis of the assignment deed of 2015. In the present case, the Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued on 25-11-1980 and the award was declared on 5-6-1987.

¶65

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:28276 WP No. 35150 of 2016

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

7. Therefore, the short question, which is posed

¶68

for the consideration of this Court is:

¶69

Whether the original writ petitioner being a subsequent purchaser had locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition?

¶70

8. The aforesaid issue is now not res integra in view of the three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar [(2019) 10 SCC 229], which has been subsequently followed by another Bench of this Court in Godfrey Phillips [(2022) 8 SCC 771] and Pawan Kumar [(2022) 7 SCC 470]. The decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar [(2019) 10 SCC 229] is a three-Judge Bench decision by which a contrary view taken by the two-Judge Bench of this Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust [(2017) 6 SCC 751] has not been accepted and is found to be not a good law. That thereafter after following the three-Judge Bench decision in Shiv Kumar [(2019) 10 SCC 229] in Godfrey Phillips [(2022) 8 SCC 771] and Pawan Kumar [(2022) 7 SCC 470], this Court has subsequently observed and held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings/lapsing of the acquisition under the 2013 Act."

¶71

Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs sought for in the petition, more particularly, the relief that the Scheme has lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. If the petitioner is in possession of the

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:28276 WP No. 35150 of 2016

¶73

13 -

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

petition schedule property, she may take necessary steps as provided in law to protect her possession. It is needless to mention that the respondents are always at liberty to take necessary action to recover possession of the property in

¶76

accordance with law.

¶77

Accordingly, the Petition is disposed off .

¶78

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶79

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Smt. Ramamani v. Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ramamani v. Vs 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

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

R Kumaraswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chikkatayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Byregowda Alias Krishnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raja B M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka