IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI WRIT APPEAL Nos.1954-1966 OF 2015(LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
1. SHRI BYLAMARAPPA, S/O.LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.
2. SHRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, S/O.BYLAMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
3. SHRI KRISHNAPPA, S/O.BYLAMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
4. SHRI PUTTAMARAYAPPA, S/O.BYLAMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
5. SHRI KARIYANNA, S/O.LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
6. SHRI NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O.KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
7. SHRI MANJUNATHA, S/O.KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
8. SMT.MUNILAKSHMI, D/O.KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
9. SHRI GANGARAJU, S/O.KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
10. SHRI NAGARAJU, S/O.KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
11. SHRI CHIKKA THIMMAIAH, S/O.LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
12. SHRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, S/O.CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
13. SHRI MAREGOWDA, S/O.CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT NARASAPURA VILLAGE, SRIGANDHA KAVAL DAKHALE, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI T.N.JAVARAYI GOWDA, S/O.LATE NIJAGUNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.121, “MADILU” 1ST ‘E’ MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 072.
… APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.S.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVANANDA S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 020, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ACQUISITION), BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 020.
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 020.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO. 53202 OF 2013 DATED 16.06.2015.
THESE WRIT APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH.,J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These writ appeals are filed by the writ petitioners challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.06.2015 in W.P.No.53202 of 2013 and W.P.Nos.16236-16247 of 2014, dismissing the writ petitions.
2. The case of the petitioners is that their lands having been acquired by respondent - BDA, they were entitled for sites under the BDA (Incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of Land) Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘the Rules’). The learned Single Judge, while considering the plea of the petitioners and considering the objection of the respondents was of the view that the acquisition was challenged by the appellants. In view of the challenge to the acquisition proceedings writ petitioners were debarred from seeking any relief under the said Rules, as the Rules are applicable only for those persons who did not challenge the acquisition proceedings.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the challenge to the acquisition proceedings in W.P.Nos.2454-2458/2004 was dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, he pleads that his request for considering his case under the said Rules may be granted.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that appropriate relief is to be granted. Even though the petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief under the Incentive Rules on the ground that they have challenged the acquisition proceedings, in view of the fact that the said challenge has been withdrawn by the appellants, it is to be considered that there is no challenge to the acquisition in the eyes of law. Since there was no order passed on the issue of challenge to the acquisition, we are of the view that the petitioners would be entitled for consideration of their cases under the said Rules.
5. Under these circumstances, the appeals are allowed. The respondent-BDA is directed to consider the case of the appellants under the BDA (Incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of Land) Rules, 1989, in accordance with law. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.
6. In view of disposal of main appeals, pending I.A.s are disposed off as not arising for consideration.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Cm/-