Acquisition of isolated lands is unjustified if neighboring lands are excluded, necessitating adherence to Committee recommendations as per judicial directives.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioners are before this Court, calling in question a final notification dated 18-06-2014, insofar as the lands of the petitioners are concerned. The lands are as described in the schedule appended to the prayer. For the sake of convenience, facts obtaining in W.P.No.33644 of 2024 would be narrated.

2. Heard Sri Radhanandan B S, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri M Rajakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri B Vachan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, in both the petitions.

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

3.1. The petitioners are the absolute owners of the schedule property. They had executed a full settlement sale agreement along with a General Power of Attorney on 25-09-1992 in favour of one M/s. Pooja Builders, which was coupled with interest and the schedule property being handed over to the agreement holder. They get their lands converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes on 03-10-1992. When things stood thus, the subject property was notified for acquisition for formation of Arkavathi Layout. The acquisition was upheld by the Division Bench in the case of THE COMMISSIONER, BDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported ILR 2006 KAR 318. The Division Bench held that the land owners, if aggrieved by the discrimination of the Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’) in identifying the lands for acquisition, may submit a representation seeking exclusion of such acquired lands on several grounds. This was called in question before the Apex Court in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY reported in (2010)7 SCC 129. The said judgment affirmed the order passed by the Division Bench, while directing consideration of the representations of the farmers, pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench.

3.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the possession of the land was not taken and award was not passed in respect of Sy.No.89/1 of Nagawara village. In terms of the direction issued by the Apex Court, the petitioners submitted representations seeking exclusion of the lands from acquisition. The said representation met with a cryptic endorsement claiming that since the land is already acquired, it cannot be taken away from the acquisition. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said endorsement, prefer writ petition in W.P.No.52816 of 2013 and the endorsement was quashed and a direction to consider the representation afresh was passed.

3.3. In the interregnum, a modified final notification emerges from the BDA, all of this become the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.51929 of 2014. The coordinate Bench, in terms of its order dated 27-09-2021 disposed the cases by a detailed order giving several directions. The directions rendered therein are as follows:

“…. …. ….

91. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The challenge made to the Notifications Nos. BDA/COMMR, KLAO/LA9/104/2002-03, BANGALORE, dated: 03.02.2003, No. UDD 193 MNX 2004, BANGALORE, dated: 23.02.2004 and No. UDD 426 MNJ/2011, BANGALORE, dated 18.06.2014, stands rejected and acquisition of the lands for the formation of Arkavati Layout is upheld.

(ii) W.P.No.*815/2017 * is allowed and writ of mandamus issues to the BDA – respondent No.1 to conclude the allotment process of site No.BK90, Arkavati Layout, expeditiously, at any rate within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of this order. In the alternate, if site BK90 is not available BDA shall allot alternate site and execute Lease-cu