IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL No.3884 OF 2019 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 020.
APPELLANT NO.1 REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT NO.2 ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI G.M.ANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. HUCHAMMA WIFE OF LATE SRI MARAPPA @ CHIKKAMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.270/B, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, 3RD STAGE, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT DATE 15.09.2017 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.21831 OF 2016[LA – BDA] AS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.21831 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge, in allowing the writ petition and holding that the acquisition of the land so far as the petitioner is concerned is declared to have been abandoned and consequently lapsed, the respondents – Bengaluru Development Authority is in appeal.
2. The appellants’ counsel contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and that the acquisition proceedings are in accordance with law. If there is any infraction of law with the acquisition proceedings, in that case, the interference is warranted. In the absence of any violation, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in passing the impugned order.
3. On considering the contentions of learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The final notification was issued on 03.11.1990, the award was passed on 09.08.1994, but the compensation was neither paid to the land owners, namely, the petitioner nor deposited before the Civil Court.
4. The learned Single Judge has rightly recorded the findings that there was no legally acceptable material on record to show that the possession has been taken by the appellants’ – Bengaluru Development Authority. The petitioner has produced RTC extracts for the year 2015- 16 at Annexure ‘A’ to the writ petition, which shows that the land is still recorded in the name of the petitioner.
5. So far as the deposit of the compensation amount is concerned, the same is not tendered or paid. The learned Single Judge has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MEGH SINGH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2016 SC 2912, wherein the facts of the case was similar to the facts in the instant writ petition. The compensation was neither paid nor tendered by the Bengaluru Development Authority and hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the acquisition was abandoned. Following the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition.
However, in the absence of any material to indicate that the compensation is paid or tendered or that the possession is taken, the acquisition cannot stand. Hence, we find no good ground to interfere with the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
There is a delay of 743 days in filing the appeal. Since the appeal is dismissed, considering I.A.No.1 of 2019 would be a futile exercise and hence, the same is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj