Sri H M Mahesh Vs Bangalore Development Authority

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE FORMATION OF AS PER THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 27.06.1978 BEARING NO.BDA/ALAO/S/11/1978-79 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 (STATED AS RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) AND ALSO FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 09.01.1985 BEARING NO.HUD 567 MNX 84 VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IS LAPSED AND NOT VESTED IN THE AUTHORITY IN SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED IN SY.NO.104/5 OF HENNUR VILLAGE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 20 GUNTAS AS PER SECTION 27 OF THE BDA ACT AND SECTION 24[2] OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30746 WP No. 49022 of 2016

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners have challenged the preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/ALAO/S/11/78-79 dated 27.06.1978 issued by the respondent No.1 and the final notification bearing No.HUD 567 MNX 84 dated 09.01.1985 issued by the respondent No.3 and they have also sought for a declaration that the acquisition in respect of the land in Sy No.104/5 of Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring an extent of 20 guntas has lapsed as per Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act, 2013').

¶33

The respondent No.1 issued a preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/ALAO/S/11/78-79 dated 27.06.1978 followed by a final notification bearing No. HUD 567 MNX 84 dated 09.01.1985 to acquire land in Sy. No.104/5 of Hennur Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 20 guntas.

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30746 WP No. 49022 of 2016

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The petitioners contend that the said property is used for a family burial ground and parts of the property are used for housing, where the petitioners and their family members are residing. It is contended that the aforesaid land though acquired in the year 1978, no steps are taken by the respondents to take over possession of the property and no steps are taken for payment of compensation. Hence, it is claimed that the Scheme for which the land was acquired has lapsed and the acquisition has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) Act, 2013.

¶37

The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who contend that the acquisition of land for Hennur Bellary Road 1^st Stage layout became final in all respects and the layout is fully implemented. It is contended that the writ petition is filed belatedly after nearly 30 years from the date of the final notification and therefore, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioners. It is also contended that an award was passed on 06.03.1987 and possession of 20 guntas was also taken over on 18.03.1987 and handed over to the Engineering Section for formation of the layout. The award amount of

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30746 WP No. 49022 of 2016

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Rs.49,044.40Ps. was deposited before the Civil Court on 21.05.1987. Therefore, it is contended that the acquisition is complete in all respects and neither the Scheme nor the acquisition has lapsed.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition while the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 reiterated the contentions urged in the statement of objections.

¶42

Learned Additional Government Advocate for

¶43

respondent No.3 adopted the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶44

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶45

counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶46

The petitioners have assailed the preliminary

¶47

notification and the final notification issued on 27.06.1978 and 09.01.1985 respectively, not on any other ground, but on the

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:30746 WP No. 49022 of 2016

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

ground that the acquisition has lapsed as possession of the property is not taken over by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has placed on record the award passed and the details of deposit of the compensation deposited before the Civil Court. It is also contended that the possession of the property in question is taken and that the Hennur Bellary Road I Stage Layout is complete in all respects. The petition is bereft of details as there is nothing to show that the Scheme is not implemented substantially as provided under Section 27 of the BDA Act. Further, it is now trite that an acquisition under the BDA Act does not get impacted by Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in view of the judgments of the coordinate benches of this Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to exploit either Section 27 of the BDA Act or Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The only relief that the petitioners would be entitled to is to avail the benefit as provided under Section 38D of the BDA Act, if they are entitled to in law.

¶51

In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is

¶52

disposed off upholding the notifications impugned in the writ

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:30746 WP No. 49022 of 2016

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

petition. It is open for the petitioners to avail the benefit of Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976. If a request is made, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the

¶57

same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶58

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶59

SMA

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

Sri H M Mahesh v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H M Mahesh v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Naveen Vidya Mandira Trust (R) Vs the Secretary to Govt (M & Udd)

Channamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramganesh Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Somashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Kumari Kiran Vinod Vs the State of Karnataka

B a Gunda Bhatta Vs State of Karnataka