Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1274
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.I. Arun, J.
Savithramma - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10824 of 2009
Decided On : 05-10-2020
Jagadish P S, Advocate, Arun Kumar K, Advocate, M.V. Sundara Raman, Advocate, B.V. Krishna, Advocate, B.S. Sachin, Advocate, S.S. Nagananda, Advocate, N.N. Harish, Advocate
The lapse of the scheme for which the land was sought to be acquired due to non-substantial implementation within the prescribed time frame led to the revival of the land owners' rights, allowing the court to set aside the acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.2.
Headnote:
Acquisition - Bangalore Development Authority Act - Section 17(1) & (3), Section 19(1), Section 27, Section 36 - The court considered the challenge to the acquisition of lands by respondent No.2 under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 27 and Section 36 of the Act, which require the authority to execute the scheme within five years and regulate the acquisition of land, respectively. The court also examined the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding the power to take possession and the vesting of land in the government. The court referred to various decisions to interpret the legal provisions and their implications on the lapse of the scheme and acquisition proceedings. The court concluded that the scheme for which the land was sought to be acquired was not substantially implemented within the prescribed time frame, leading to the lapse of the scheme and the revival of the land owners' rights. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 and directing the withdrawal of the compensation deposited by respondent No.2. The respondents were permitted to initiate or complete the acquisition proceedings for the purposes of respondent No.4 in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the acquisition of lands by respondent No.2 under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. The petitioners contended that the scheme for which the land was sought to be acquired was not substantially implemented within the prescribed time frame, leading to the lapse of the scheme and the revival of the land owners' rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the scheme for which the land was sought to be acquired was not substantially implemented within the prescribed time frame, leading to the lapse of the scheme and the revival of the land owners' rights. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 and directing the withdrawal of the compensation deposited by respondent No.2. The respondents were permitted to initiate or complete the acquisition proceedings for the purposes of respondent No.4 in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the scheme for which the land was sought to be acquired had lapsed and the effect of it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the scheme for which the land was sought to be acquired had lapsed due to non-substantial implementation within the prescribed time frame, leading to the revival of the land owners' rights. The court referred to various legal provisions and decisions to support its finding.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 and directing the withdrawal of the compensation deposited by respondent No.2. The respondents were permitted to initiate or complete the acquisition proceedings for the purposes of respondent No.4 in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
M.I.Arun, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging the acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners by respondent No.2.
3. It is contended by the petitioners that they are the owners of 5 acres 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.136 and 1 acre 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.138/4 of Kadugondanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
4. A preliminary notification under Section 17(1) & (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) was issued on 29.05.1978 to acquire the said properties for the purpose of forming a layout called "Hennur Bellary Road II Stage" by respondent No.2. A final notification was issued on 28.02.1985 under Section 19 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, on 14.07.1988 an award was passed in respect of the properties situated in Sy.No.136 and on 28.06.1988 the award was passed in respect of the properties situated in Sy.No.138/4.
5. However, the properties in question were not included in the formation of the proposed layout and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 considered the proposal to denotify the lands in question. They also considered, to permit the petitioners to utilize the property for group housing pursuant to a Government Order dated 17.04.1995, which was later quashed by this Court. The properties in question were not used for any developmental activities for the purpose for which it was acquired.
6. However, respondent No.2 deposited the compensation in respect of the lands in question as late as on 26.03.2009 and a publication under Section 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 24.04.2009. Possession Mahazar was drawn on 07.08.2008.
7. Aggrieved by the actions of the respondents in not denotifiying the lands, the petitioners on the ground that respondent No.2 as per Section 27 of BDA Act is required to execute the scheme within a period of 5 years and in the instant case, it has not done so because of which the scheme lapses and the provisions of Section 36 of BDA Act becomes inoperative, filed the above writ petition praying for setting aside the preliminary and final notification by which the properties in question were acquired.
8. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Against which, the petitioners preferred writ appeal Nos.43- 44/2011, 4840/2010 and 5578/2011. The said writ appeals were allowed by holding that there is no delay and laches in filing the writ petitions and the instant writ petitions were restored to file.
9. During the pendency of the writ petition the lands in question has been sought to be acquired for the purposes of respondent No.4 and in this regard, the respondent No.2 BDA executed a possession transfer certificate dated 13.02.2019 in favour of respondent No.4 BMRCL transferring possession of subject lands. Pursuant to the said transfer BMRCL has paid a sum of Rs.37,64,91,600/- to respondent No.2. Presently, the land in question is in possession of respondent No.4 and it has already started construction on the property.
10. Respondent No.2 has filed its statement of objections. It has contended after the preliminary and final notifications, award has been passed. As there was dispute as to ownership, compensation amount has been deposited in the Civil Court in compliance of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Possession has been taken by drawing up a possession Mahazar and a notification under Section 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued. It is further contended that after taking possession of the land in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, land vests absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrances and the proceedings in respect of acquisition does not lapse. It is also contended that it is incorrect to state that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government is not substantially implemented. However, it is noticed that in writ appeal Nos.43-44/2011 and
