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

2025 Supreme(Kar) 806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.S. KAMAL, J.
Chennamma W/o Late Muniyappa - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 54611 of 2016
Decided On : 02-05-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Lakshmi Iyengar, Srikanth M.
For the Respondents: Hanumantharaya Lagali, Murugesh V. Charati

The court confirmed that land acquisition remains valid despite claims of abandonment if possession was taken and the scheme implemented as per law.

Headnote:(A) Bangalore Development Act, 1976 - Section 27 - Writ petition to declare land acquisition for J.P. Nagar 8th Phase as lapsed due to non-implementation within five years - Petitioners claimed ownership based on inheritance and possession - Respondent emphasized possession had been legally taken and scheme implemented - Court held acquisition proceedings remained valid and were not lapsed - No compelling reason found for interference. (Paras 5, 30, 32)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Clean Hands Doctrine - Petitioners cannot seek relief by not disclosing prior sales of land and related proceedings - Equitable principles require petitioners to disclose full facts and act in good faith. (Paras 28, 30)

Table of Content
1. claimants assert ownership of land. (Para 1 , 2)
2. detailed history of property ownership. (Para 3)
3. respondent's counterarguments and objections. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court's procedural overview and facts. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. principles of parity and burden of proof. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
6. affidavit and evidence submission. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
7. petitioners' claims and responses. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
8. burden of proof on petitioners regarding ownership. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
9. details of land regularization and ownership. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
10. expectation for honesty in legal claims. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
11. legal provisions for lapsing acquisitions. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
12. judgment dismissing the petition. (Para 33)

ORDER :

1. Petitioners claiming to be the owners of land in Sy.No.21/2 admeasuring 2 acres 8 guntas situated at Kothnur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, (hereinafter referred to as “ the Subject Land”) are before this Court seeking following reliefs:

"I. Call for the entire records from the respondent:

II. Issue an appropriate order, writ declaring the scheme J.P. Nagar 8th Phase Bangalore envisaged under preliminary Notification bearing No.BDA/SLAO/A6/PR/229/87-88 dated 23.03.1988 as per Annexure-A and Final Notification bearing No. HUD/292/MNX/93, dated 19.10.1994 as per Annexure-B issued by the 1st respondent, so far as the property of the petitioner, applying the provisions of section 27 of BDA Act be declared as lapsed.

ii(a) Declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of BDA Act 1976 for the JP Nagar, 8th stage as lapsed on account of failure to implement the same within 5 years as contemplated under section 27 and consequently there is no vesting of land.

III. Grant such other relief, as deemed fit, by this Hon'ble Court in facts and circumstances of the case, including the award of the costs of the petition, in the interest of justice and equity".

2. Petitioners had originally sought for quashing of aforesaid preliminary notification dated 23.03.1988 and final notification dated 19.10.1994 as illegal, void ab initio on the grounds of same having lapsed and abandoned in view of provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which was deleted and substituted by the aforesaid prayers by way of amendment vide order dated 12.10.2022.

3. The case of the petitioners is that:

(a) the subject land originally belonged to one Sri.Gullappa who had purchased the same in terms of a registered deed of sale dated 29.09.1967 from one Smt.Papamma. The said Sri.Gullappa was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his demise on 12.05.2000. Thereafter the aforesaid property was inherited by the petitioners being his legal heirs.

(b) That the respondent-BDA sought to acquire the subject land in terms of the Preliminary Notification dated 23.03.1988 followed by Final Notification dated 19.10.1994 for the purpose of formation of residential layout known and called as "Jayaprakash Narayan Nagar 8th Stage". That under the preliminary notification respondent-BDA had proposed to acquire in all an extent of 1009 acres and 14 guntas of land. After deletion, the aforesaid final notification was issued to an extent of 958 acres 15 guntas of land. That a notification under Section 16(2) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT (LA Act), read with Section 36 of the Bangalore Development Act (BDA Act) has been issued on 02.09.2012 stating that possession of certain lands mentioned in the said notification had been taken on the respective dates mentioned therein. That the said notification under Section 16(2) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT had been issued without notice to the petitioners as such the same is unenforceable and inoperative and is thus void ab initio.

(c) That the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and at no point of time physical possession of the same

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