IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NOs.187-188 OF 2017(LA-BDA) AND WRIT APPEAL NOs.698-701 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560 020 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI:NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. SRI V VENKATESH SON OF LATE VASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. SMT MANJULA WIFE OF LATE DAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.4 GURAPPANAPALYA MAIN ROAD GURAPPANAPALYA BENGALURU-560029 4. SMT SHAKUNTALA DAUGHTER OF LATE VASAPPA WIFE OF VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.100 OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL SIDDARAMAPPA COMPOUND A NARAYANAPURA BENGALURU-560016 5. SRI V GANESH SON OF LATE VASAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4 GURAPPANAPALYA MAIN ROAD GURAPPANAPALYA BENGALURU-560029 6. SMT V RENUKA DAUGHTER OF LATE VASAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT THOTHANAHALLI VILLAGE THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 7. SMT V RANI DAUGHTER OF LATE VASAPPA WIFE OF G PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.223 SANGARABOVI DODDI VINAYAKANAGARA RAMANAGARA TOWN-571511 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT (BY MISS:ANITHA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1) ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.1377-1382 OF 2016 DATED 21.04.2016.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2016 passed in Writ Petition Nos.1377-1382 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitions holding that the acquisition in respect of the petitioners’ land has lapsed, the respondent-Bengaluru Development Authority (for short ‘BDA') has filed these appeals.
2. The case of the writ petitioners is that the land bearing Survey No.2 measuring 4 acres 19 guntas situated at Raghuvanapalya Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, belonged to the petitioners’ great grandfather and thereafter the petitioners have inherited the said property. There is no dispute with regard to the title of petitioners over the property. Various proceedings were initiated with regard to the declaration of title of the property and ultimately, the petitioners have inherited the property which is not disputed by the respondents. In the interregnum, the BDA issued a preliminary notification dated 17.11.1998 proposing to acquire this land apart from other lands for the formation of Jayaprakashnarayan Nagar, 9th stage, totally proposing to acquire an extent of 1333.34 guntas including the land comprised in Survey No.2 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas. In the final notification, the land was reduced to 1111 acres 36¾ guntas including the land of the petitioners. Thereafter, fresh proceedings have been taken up. In Writ Petition Nos.3054-3055 of 1992, this Court quashed the notification issued by the BDA in respect of 1 acre and for the remaining 3 acres 20 guntas, liberty was reserved to the BDA to proceed with the acquisition. Since the said scheme was not implemented, the instant petitions was filed. The learned Single Judge considered the objections of the BDA and thereafter held that the acquisition has lapsed. Questioning the same, the instant appeals are filed.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in allowing the petitions. That there is no material to indicate that the scheme has lapsed. There is a delay of 217 days in filing the appeals. However, the appellant’s Counsel submitted his arguments on merits.
4. We have considered the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the statement of objections. The plea of the writ petitioners is that the scheme lapsed due to non implementation. By placing reliance on Section 27 of the BDA Act, it was the specific case of the petitioners that even the possession has not been taken. The said statement of objections runs bald to the allegations made by the petitioners. After narrating the date of acquisition, based on the matters of like nature, there is not even a statement made in the objection stating that the layout has been formed and the scheme has been implemented. In fact, the BDA goes on to plead in para 5 of its statement of objections that the BDA attempted to develop the property, but the same was stopped temporarily. There is only a stray sentence by the BDA in its statement of objections and there is no material which is referable to the development of layout. As the reference of the earlier writ petitions is of no consequence, the respondent-BDA would have to state that the scheme has been implemented and therefore, Section 27 of the BDA Act, is not applicable.
5. We do not find even a single ground being taken even in the present appeal to point out the implementation of the scheme. On questioning, the learned Counsel is unable to show that such a contention has been taken either in the statement of objections or even before this Court. Therefore, there is no contention by the BDA about the fact that the scheme has been implemented.
6. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the scheme has lapsed. The learned Single Judge also relied on the sketch which would indicate that the surrounding lands have been dropped from the acquisition proceedings . The question of dropping certain lands from the acquisition is not disputed by the appellant’s Counsel. Consequently, the learned Single Judge held that if the land that have been dropped from the acquisition are taken into consideration, then the petitioners’ land would be isolated. Therefore, BDA would not be able to integrate the formation of layout.
7. The manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by the BDA is very disturbing. The only objection by the respondent–BDA before the learned Single Judge is that when they attempted to develop the property, the same was stopped temporarily. Nothing further has been stated with regard to the implementation of the scheme. When the main ground of attack by the petitioners is based on Section 27 of the BDA Act, a specific pleading is necessary by the BDA. They have failed to do so. Even before this Court in the appeal, there is no material produced in support of the case of the BDA. We even questioned the learned counsel for the appellant on the same. No effort is made to convince us that the scheme has been implemented. It is extremely unfortunate that matters involving public interest namely, the lands of the BDA are being conducted in such an unfortunate manner. The pleadings before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court are pathetic. Based on the same, no relief can be granted to the BDA.
8. For all these reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Single Judge, that calls for any attention by this Court. Hence, the appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed.
Consequently, IA.3 of 2017 stands rejected.
Registry to send the copy of this order to the Commissioner, BDA to appraise him the manner in which the statement of objections and the writ appeals are filed before this Court.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-