Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 1612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. Srishananda, J.
The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority T.Chowdaiah Road Bangalore - Appellant
Vs.
S Venkatarama Reddy S/o Srinivasa Reddy - Respondent
R.F.A.NO.2045 of 2011 (INJ)
Decided On : 29-11-2022
Subject
Property Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT: S.19
LAND ACQUISITION ACT: S.16, S.16(2), S.30, S.31
UTTAR PRADESH SALES TAX ACT: S.4
Headnote
(B) Land acquisition and private layout permissions - Statutory bodies must act in a manner consistent with fairness in litigation - BDA's failure to process plaintiffs' application post-conversion approval led to unnecessary litigation - Imposition of exemplary costs deemed necessary to curb frivolous appeals by public officials. (Paras 68-79)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Advocate A/W Sri G.M.Ananda, Adv.
For the Respondent:Sri S.K.V.Chalapathy, Sr. Advocate A/W Smt. Anagha Jayaprakash, Adv.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of the appeal process initiated by the commissioner bda. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. ownership and acquisition notifications affecting the plaintiffs' property. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. conversion application processes for the property. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. evidence and proceedings related to the plaintiffs' possession and acquisition. (Para 9 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. arguments surrounding the validity of the bda's actions. (Para 17 , 20 , 22) |
| 6. application of doctrines like estoppel in dispute resolution. (Para 43 , 48 , 51) |
| 7. duty of statutory bodies in litigation and consequences of their actions. (Para 68 , 76) |
| 8. final decision on appeal with imposition of costs. (Para 79) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The defendant, Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority, [hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA' for short] has challenged the validity of the judgment and decree passed in OS No.10158/2005 dated 10.08.2011 on the file of the XL Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in this appeal.
2. The parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendant for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, factual matrix of the case on hand reveals as under:
Plaintiffs being the brother and sister are the absolute owners in possession of the property bearing Survey No.26/1 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas situated at Alahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk [hereinafter referred to as the 'suit schedule property' for short]. The plaintiffs have purchased an extent of 32 guntas in Survey No.26/1 of Alahalli village from the previous owners by names Sheik Kumruddin and Sheik Fakru Rehaman and thereafter, they again purchased the remaining 2 acres of land, in the same Survey Number through a registered sale deed dated 23.01.1992 from its previous owners Smt.Chand Bibi and her sons Sheik Khasim and Sheik Basheer and their children. On purchase of the said land, the plaintiffs got mutated the revenue entries in respect of the suit schedule property and they were paying taxes regularly.
4. When the matter stood thus, Bengaluru Development Authority notified their land for acquisition and also neighboring lands in the same village by issuing notifications dated 26.07.1991 and 14.12.1993. A mistake occurred in those notifications inasmuch as the name of the plaintiffs was wrongly shown as Venkataramappa S/o.Srinivasa Reddy instead of Venkataramana Reddy S/o.Srinivasa Reddy. Since, there was a mistake committed by the Bengaluru Development Authority in wrongly mentioning the name of the owner, the plaintiffs could not file any objections before the Land Acquisition Officer. Subsequently, the plaintiffs challenged the acquisition and notifications issued in respect of the land bearing Survey No.26/1 (suit schedule property) in Writ Petition Nos.32760 and 32761/1996 before this Court. When the said Writ Petition was pending, the Government of Karnataka introduced a scheme whereby if the owners of the lands notified for acquisition want to form a private layout, they would be permitted to do so, provided they agree to surrender 30% of the sites so formed in the lands intended for acquisition by the Bengaluru Development Authority, to be handed over to the Bengaluru Development Authority free of cost subject to few other conditions.
5. When the Writ Petitions were listed for final hearing, plaintiffs and defendant filed a joint memo on 06.09.1999 stating that the plaintiffs would be permitted to form a private lay out and they should surrender 30% of the sites formed in the lay out to the Bengaluru Development Authority free of cost. As such, the Bengaluru Development Authority did not take possession of the land and permitted the plaintiffs to form a private lay out and to surrender 30% sites to Bengaluru Development Authority. Placing joint memo on record, the Writ Petitions were permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 20.08.1999.
6. Thereafter, plaintiffs applied for conversion of the land to non-agric
