IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT APPEAL NO.766 OF 2015 AND WRIT APPEAL NOS.99-103 OF 2016 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
1. A VENKATESH SON OF LATE ANNAIAHAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT SY.NO.8/33 ANNAIAH THOTA, CHUNCHUGHATTA MAIN ROAD GANAPATHIPURA, KONAKUNTE POST BENGALURU-560 078.
2. A NARAYAN SON OF LATE ANNAIAHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.16 SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA NILAYA ANNAIAH SAPOTA GARDEN GANAPATHIPURA KONAKUNTE POST BENGALURU-560 078.
3. B.A. SRINIVAS SON OF LATE ANNAIAHAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT SY.NO.8/33 ANNAIAH THOTA, CHUNCHUGHATTA MAIN ROAD GANAPATHIPURA, KONAKUNTE POST BENGALURU-560 078.
4. A. PADMAVATHI DAUGHTER OF LATE ANNAIAHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT SY.NO.8/33 ANNAIAH THOTA, CHUNCHUGHATTA MAIN ROAD GANAPATHIPURA, KONAKUNTE POST BENGALURU-560 078.
5. A. KRISHNAVENI DAUGHTER OF LATE ANNAIAHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT SY.NO.8/33 ANNAIAH THOTA, CHUNCHUGHATTA MAIN ROAD GANAPATHIPURA, KONAKUNTE POST BENGALURU-560 078.
6. A. SHAMALA DAUGHTER OF LATE ANNAIAHAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT SY.NO.8/33 ANNAIAH THOTA, CHUNCHUGHATTA MAIN ROAD GANAPATHIPURA, KONAKUNTE POST BENGALURU-560 078.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001, BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2015 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.57217-57222 OF 2014 (LA-BDA) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL AND TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 12-1-2015 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition Nos.57217-57222 of 2014, the petitioners has filed these appeals.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the writ was on the ground that the acquisition has lapsed by efflux of time and non- implementation. Hence, the possession continues with the petitioners Rather than considering the same, the learned Single Judge was misguided while holding that there was delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings. Hence, he pleads that the appeals be allowed. The same is disputed by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent - State.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for. The writ petitions were filed seeking for a relief that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed due to efflux of time, non- implementation of the scheme, non-payment of compensation and that the possession still continues with the petitioners etc. There are no grounds challenging the validity of the acquisition Notification. Therefore, what was the subject matter before the learned Single Judge is quite different from what has been considered. There is no delay in challenging the said inaction of the respondents. The writ petitions were filed because of the delay by the respondents in implementing the acquisition. We are of the view that, the learned Single Judge therefore committed an error in dismissing the petitions on the ground of delay. The plea of the petitioners with regard to non-implementation of scheme, non-payment of compensation, etc., are all matters that require to be considered by the learned Single Judge.
For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeals are allowed.
1) The order of the learned single Judge dated 12-1-2015 passed in writ petition Nos.57217-567222 of 2014 is set aside.
2) The writ petitions are restored to file.
In view of the long pendency of the dispute, the learned Single Judge is requested to dispose off the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to possession, till the disposal of the petitions.
The learned counsel for the respondents have not filed statement of objections. The respondents are permitted to file statement of objections.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Rsk/-