IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL No.738 OF 2018 (LA - BDA) BETWEEN:
1 . BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION, BENGALURU – 560 020.
2 . THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION, BENGALURU – 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
NOTE: APPELLANT NO.2 IS REPRESENTING APPELLANT NO.1 IN THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI M. P. GUNDAPPA SON OF LATE PUTTASHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANJANADRI MALLATHAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 056.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.M.NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI KIRAN KUMAR T.L., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE MADE IN WRIT PETITION NO.11063 OF 2014 DATED 19/7/2017.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2017, passed in writ petition No.11063 of 2014, by the learned Single Judge, in allowing the writ petition and declaring that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in respect of the land in question, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein are in appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the petition. That there is a substantial material on record to indicate that the possession of the land has been taken over. That in view of the dispute with regard to the title of the land in question, the amount has been deposited by them before the Civil Court. That all procedures required under the law is complied by them. Hence, the learned Single Judge has wrongly held that the acquisition has lapsed.
3. The same is disputed to by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Each one of the contentions of the appellants have been considered by the learned Single Judge. So far as the contentions of taking possession is concerned, the fact that there was no notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is admitted by the appellants’ counsel. There is no material to indicate that the possession has been taken. There is nothing to show that the possession also has been taken. So far as the deposit of the amount is concerned, the same has been considered by the learned Single Judge at paragraph No.9 of its order. It is noted that there was no such claim from others, except the petitioner. The Bengaluru Development Authority has hurriedly deposited the amount in the Civil Court. This action has also not been explained by the appellants’ counsel before this Court. Therefore, the reason for depositing the amount also becomes doubtful. There is a huge lapse of time between the date of the final notification and the non-development of the scheme is concerned.
5. The preliminary notification was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 19.01.1989 and the final notification was published on 19.01.1994. Even after such a long lapse of time, no development has taken place in the property. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that in view of the huge lapse of time and nothing having been done by the Bengaluru Development Authority, the acquisition cannot stand.
6. For all these reasons, the learned Single Judge was of the considered view that the Bengaluru Development Authority has abandoned the acquisition and has held that the appellants cannot be permitted to proceed with the acquisition initiated during the year 1989. Under such circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.
7. The Bengaluru Development Authority has kept the scheme pending for decades without doing anything on the land. Neither the possession has been taken nor the award is passed in accordance with law. For all these reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj