SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Kar) 172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.
Sri. Umashankar And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.11021 of 2011 (LA-BDA)
Decided On : 22-04-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Reuben Jacob, Advocate (Noc)
For the Respondent:Sri. Srinivasa Gowda, Aga, Sri. Murugesh V. Charati, Advocate For Bda Sri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate, Sri. A.S. Ponnanna, Sr. Counsel For Sri. Arnav A. Bagalwadi, Advocate, Sri. K. Suman, Advocate, Sri. K.N. Krishna Rao, Advocate

Point of Law:Land acquisition – Delay - Delay and laches would not be a hurdle in questioning the acquisition proceedings, since petitioners have made out that fraud has been played in the subject acquisition proceedings

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - BDA Act - Sections 17(5), 17(6) and 9(3) - Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4(1), Sub-section (2) of Section 16 - Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4 and 5 - U.L.C. Act - Section 34 - Preliminary notification - Acquisition of Land - Revenue - Possession of subject land Respondent No.1 - Development Authority initiated proceedings for acquisition of land for the purpose of formation of OMBR layout - Preliminary notification and final notification was issued. Portion of survey numbers in Binnamangala Village had been identified by the officials of the Revenue Department and BDA - acquisition of Sy.No. of Binnamangala Village to an extent of 1 guntas, number of correspondences took place –

Finding of the Court:

Mahazar relating to taking over the possession of the subject land is not in accordance with law wherein this Court has elaborately considered how a ‘mahazar’ should be drawn - Mahazar is not in a manuscript form and is a typed copy and addresses of the witnesses are not forth. If spot mahazar was done, in such an event, it should have been in manuscript having regard to of alleged mahazar drawn by the BDA. BDA has not complied with the procedure in taking over possession of the subject land by drawing mahazar - Having regard to the material information read with the arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the BDA, such observation made by the Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru is hereby expunged –

Result:Writ Petition is allowed

ORDER :

In the instant petition, legal heirs of B.Doddamarappa have prayed for the following relief:-

    WHEREFORE the petitioner humbly prays this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the award produced at Annexure-N along with preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/SALAO/C3.PR.301/77-78 dated 3rd November 1977 and final Notification bearing No.HUD 35 MNJ 78 dated 13 November 1980 and consequently sale deed produced at Annexure-R and S by issuing writ of mandamus. Issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit by this Honb'le Court with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Respondent No.1 -Bangalore Development Authority (Herein after referred to as BDA, for short) initiated proceedings for acquisition of land for the purpose of formation of OMBR layout. On 03.11.1977 preliminary notification and on 13.11.1980 final notification was issued. Portion of survey numbers in Binnamangala Village had been identified by the officials of the Revenue Department and BDA. In the present case, for acquisition of Sy.No.78 of Binnamangala Village to an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas, number of correspondences took place among BDA, Revenue and Urban Development Departments. In the correspondences in respect of Sy.No.78 to an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas, Sri.A.Suklal's name is reflected in respect of acquisition. He has also claimed compensation, simultaneously, one Sri.A.Narayan had also claimed, who is stated to be brother of Sri A Suklal. On 01.04.1985 award in respect of Sy.No.78 was passed and it was approved by the Special Deputy Commissioner of BDA on 17.06.1985. It is stated that possession of the property bearing Survey No.78 was taken by drawing the mahazar on 03.10.1985. Sri.A.Suklal filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1894' for short) for reference to the Civil Court. Pursuant to Sri.A.Suklal's application, BDA deposited the award amount in the Civil Court on 24.12.1986. Simultaneously, award amount in respect of Kharab land was forwarded to the office of the Tahasildar, North Taluk on 29.12.1986.

3. When things stood thus, Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society(Hereinafter referred to as 'Society' for short) stated to have requested the State Government for bulk allotment of land on 18.03.1987 and Government had issued certain directions to the BDA for allotment of lands on 18.05.1987 while invoking power under Section 65 of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as 'BDA Act' for short) while issuing notification. On 26.09.1987, Civil Court allowed the reference in favour of Sri.A.Suklal. Pursuant to the State Government's directions, BDA passed resolution No.1085 for bulk allotment in favour of Society on 28.06.1988. BDA handed over the possession of Sy.No.78 of Binnamangala to the Society on 07.02.1989 whereas the sale deed was entered in favour of the Society on 20.04.1989. Notification under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1894 was published in the official gazette on 05.12.1991.

4. In the meanwhile, Sri.A.Suklal and others filed W.P.No.5785/1996 and W.P.Nos.34830-34835/2001 connected with W.P.No.41414/1999 and W.P.Nos.34822-34829/2001 wherein the preliminary notification and final notification issued on 03.11.1977 and 13.11.1980 respectively were challenged and also sought for cancellation of Government Order dated 24.03.1995 and further, direction to the concerned respondent to restore the possession of the property in Sy.No.78 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas of Binnamangala Village. On the other hand, on 01.08.2001, Division Bench disposed of the writ petitions with the following observations:-

    "The government, by its impugned order dated 24.03.1995 issued no objection certificate to the 4th respondent society to sell the land of 1.12 a

                      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                      1
                      2
                      3
                      4
                      5
                      6
                      7
                      8
                      9
                      10
                      11
                      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                      supreme today icon
                      logo-black

                      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                      Please visit our Training & Support
                      Center or Contact Us for assistance

                      qr

                      Scan Me!

                      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                      whatsapp-icon Back to top