IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NOS.1411-1431 OF 2015 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020.
(BY SRI M.V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DR. K.S. SUNDARAM AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS SON OF K.A. SANJEEVI CHETTY PRESENTLY AT PADMA SANJEEVINI CLINIC NO.17/1, PATALAMMA TEMPLE STREET NEAR SOUTH END CIRCLE BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.
...APPELLANT 2. DR. PATTABHI RAMAN DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 2(A) DR. SHASHI RAMAN AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS WIFE OF LATE DR. PATTABHI RAMAN RESIDING AT NO.HA-1, 2ND BLOCK KRISHNA REGENCY APARTMENT TATA SILK FARM, NO.23 K.R. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.
3. DR. RAMYA GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DAUGHTER OF DR. GANGAPPA RESIDING AT NO.186, 38TH CROSS 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 041.
4. SMT C. THAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS WIFE OF DR. B. MARI GOWDA RESIDING AT NO.2541, GUTHAL POST THAVAREKERE MANDYA-571 403.
5. SMT. D.V. PADMAVATHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WIFE OF DR. G.K. SWETHADRI RESIDING AT NO.D42, SRIRAMA SADANA GOKULA, MSR ROAD BENGALURU-560 054.
6. SMT. RABIA BANU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WIFE OF MOHEMMED HANEEF RESIDING AT NO.22 S.R. KRISHNAPPA GARDEN TILAK NAGAR, JAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 041.
7. DR. N. NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS SON OF NARASIMHAIAH RESIDING AT NO.920, 22ND MAIN ROAD 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 041.
8. SMT. SYEDA JABEEN F AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WIFE OF MR. MOHD MARGOOD UR. REHMAN RESIDING AT NO.24, HMI HOUSE NEAR HOLY MOTHER ENGLISH SCHOOL PUTTENAHALLI EAST, J.P. NAGAR BENGALURU-560 078.
9. SMT. T.D. BANUMATHI AMMAL AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS WIFE OF T.G. DHANRAJ RESIDING AT NO.341, 6TH CROSS LAKSHMI LAYOUT, PUTTENAHALLI BENGALURU.
10. SMT. S.K. NAZEEM SULTANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WIFE OF S.K. SAJJAD AHMED RESIDING AT NO.4, KHAZI STREET BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.
11. SRI K. MONOHARLAL AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS SON OF LATE KISHEN CHAND RESIDING AT NO.119, CHURCH ROAD 3RD CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027.
12. SMT. RENU M. MAKHIJA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WIFE OF K. MONOHARLAL RESIDING AT NO.119, CHURCH ROAD 3RD CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027.
13. SRI SUNIL M. MAKHIJA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS SON OF K. MONOHARLAL RESIDING AT NO.119, CHURCH ROAD 3RD CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027.
14. SRI S.K. SAJJAD AHMED AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS SON OF S. ABDUL KHALUQ NO.4, KHAZI STREET BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI MOHAMMED SAFIULLA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS SON OF ABDUL RAHAMAN RESIDING AT NO.5/2, CHURCH ROAD CROSS BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.
15. SMT S.K. NAZEEM SULTHANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WIFE OF S.K. SAJJAD AHMED RESIDING AT NO.4, KHAZI STREET BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI MOHAMMED SAFIULLA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS SON OF ABDUL RAHAMAN RESIDING AT NO.5/2, CHURCH ROAD CROSS BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.
16. SRI ADAM CHALLAWALA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS SON OF SHAIKH MOHSIN RESIDING AT NO.15, ROYAL HOUSE F STREET KALASIPALYAM BENGALURU-560 002.
17. SRI MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS SON OF SRI CHALLAWALA RESIDING AT NO.15, ROYAL HOUSE F STREET KALASIPALYAM BENGALURU-560 002.
18. SRI V. BALAJI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS SON OF SRI R. VENKATRAMAN RESIDING AT FLAT NO.2, ROOPASHRI APARTMENT NO.42, GOVINDAPPA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.
19. SRI RAHAMAN KHAN SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 19(A) SMT. MAHABOOBBI R.K AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS DAUGHTER OF RAHMAN KHAN AND WIFE OF PARVEZULLA KHAN RESIDING AT NO.7/2, 7TH CROSS LBF ROAD BENGALURU-560 004.
20. SMT. NAYEEMA KHANUM AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WIFE OF RAHAMAN KHAN RESIDING AT NO.7/2, 7TH CROSS LBF ROAD BENGALURU-560 004.
21. SMT C. CHANDRAKALA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WIFE OF M.R. VENUGOPAL REDDY RESIDING AT AREKERE VILLAGE VINAYAKANAGAR IIM POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560 067.
22. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, 4TH FLOOR BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2(A), R3 TO R18, R19(A), R20 TO R21; SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R22) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOS.16015-16035 OF 2013, AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 16015- 16035 of 2013, wherein the writ petitions were allowed by declaring that the impugned acquisition proceedings have lapsed insofar as they pertain to the petitioners’ sites are concerned, respondent No.2 therein has filed the instant appeals.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and hence interference is called for. That the learned Single Judge misdirected himself in considering the acquisition only so far as the Gottigere Village is concerned. The same is an error committed by the learned Single Judge.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents disputes the said contention.
4. Heard the learned counsels and examined the records.
5. The lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired vide a preliminary notification in the year 2001, by the Bengaluru Development Authority. A final notification was issued in the year 2002. The case of the petitioners is that the said lands were not developed even after a long period of time and hence, the instant writ petitions were filed seeking for a declaration that the proposed scheme, so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners as lapsed, in terms of Section-27 of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act (‘BDA Act’ for short).
6. The learned Single Judge while considering the petitions took into account the particulars insofar as the lands of the petitioners were concerned and by according various reasons, allowed the writ petitions.
7. On considering the reasons assigned, we are unable to accept the same. What was sought to be evoked is Section-27 of the BDA Act. The said Section postulates that in case where a scheme is not substantially executed within a period of five years from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section(1) of Section-19, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section-36 shall become inoperative. Therefore, what the learned Single Judge would have to have examine was the lapsing or otherwise of the entire scheme. The scheme that was promulgated by the BDA would necessarily include various villages. Therefore, the question was not with regard to a particular portion of the lands or a particular village, but whether the entire scheme has lapsed. On the contrary to hold that the scheme is lapsed only so far as the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the petitioners’ sites are concerned, runs contrary to the mandate provided under Section-27 of the BDA Act. Therefore, the findings of the learned Single Judge with regard to the portions of the lands sought to be acquired, therefore, cannot be sustained.
8. Under these circumstances, the scheme of acquisition to be considered as having lapsed or not, would necessarily be referable to the entire scheme as envisaged under Section-27 of the BDA Act. But, non- implementation of the scheme over a portion of the land cannot be considered as non-implementation of the entire scheme. The same would run contrary to Section-27 of BDA Act.
9. Under these circumstances, the writ appeals are allowed. The order dated 10.06.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions Nos.16015-16035 of 2013 is set-aside. The matter is required to be considered afresh by the learned Single Judge.
10. In view of the long lapse of time, the learned Single Judge is requested to dispose off these matters as expeditiously as possible.
All contentions of the parties are left open. The parties are permitted to file any additional documents / pleadings, if necessary.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JJ/-