IMPORTANT POINT
Government orders cannot override statutory provisions in land acquisition; nurseries must be registered and operational to qualify for exemption.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash proceedings of Justice A.V. Chandrashekar Committee for Dr. Shivarama Karanth Layout dated 08-08-2023 and the final Notification dated 30-10-2018 issued by the State insofar as it concerns the land of the petitioner for formation of Dr. K. Shivaram Karanth Layout or in the alternative, sought for a mandamus directing the 2ndrespondent/Bangalore Development Authority to assess and grant compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’ for short).

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land bearing Sy. No. 11/2 (New No. 11/8) of Kempanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk to an extent of 1 acre (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject property’). It is the claim of the petitioner that he has acquired the subject property through a registered sale deed dated 13-05-2005 and is said to be in peaceful possession of the same since then. The petitioner claims to be a horticulturist and floriculturist by profession. After purchase of the said land, the petitioner is said to be running a nursery in the name of ‘Sri Govardhana Nursery’. The averment in the petition is that he is, among other things, growing rose flowers and all other fruit bearing trees and also ornamental plants in the subject property. To buttress the said submission, the petitioner has placed on record certain RTCs for the years 2009-10 and 2011-12 reflecting the name of the petitioner and certain crops that are grown then.

3. The 1st respondent/State issues a preliminary notification under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA Act’ for short) seeking to form a residential layout called “Dr. Shivarama Karanth Layout” (hereinafter referred to as ‘Layout’ for short). The preliminary notification contained the land of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the preliminary notification knocks at the doors of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 55863-55865 of 2014. This Court, in terms of its order dated 16-12-2014, along with connected cases, declared that the preliminary notification with respect to the land of the petitioner had lapsed. After the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid petitions, the Deputy Commissioner, Land Acquisition attached to the BDA conducts a pre-feasibility study as directed by this Court for the proposed layout. In the meantime, the BDA challenges the order passed in the writ petitions noted supra in Writ Appeal No. 5098 of 2016. The said writ appeal comes to be dismissed in terms of the order of the Division Bench dated 28-04-2017. The order of the learned single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench.

4. The matter was taken to the Apex Court. The Apex Court, in terms of its order dated 03-08-2018 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 7661-63 of 2018 and connected cases set aside the orders passed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court and upholds the preliminary notification dated 30-12-2008 and directs the respondent/BDA to publish the final notification in respect of the layout. The respondent/BDA pursuant to the order of the Apex Court notified the final notification of acquisition of lands for the purpose of formation of layout on 30-10-2018. This final notification included the lands of the petitioner.

5. Several aggrieved persons, venting out various grievances by issuance of the final notification, preferred miscellaneous applications before the Apex Court, as the Apex Court had directed the final notification to be issued. The Apex Court then directed constitution of a Committee to go into the grievance of varied nature of number of applicants before the