IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL WRIT PETITION Nos.19117-19118/2016 (LA - BDA) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. K.V.INDIRAMMA W/O SRI.K.K.VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS NO.47, 3RD CROSS BHAVANINAGAR BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 029 2. SRI.K.V.MURALIDHAR S/O SRI.K.K.VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.47, 3RD CROSS BHAVANINAGAR BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 029 3. SRI.K.V.MADHUSUDAN S/O SRI.K.K.VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NO.37, I B CROSS, S BLOCK BHAVANI LAYOUT BANAGIRINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 085 4. SRI.K.V.HARISH S/O SRI.K.K.VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.47, 3RD CROSS BHAVANINAGAR BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 029 5. SRI.K.V.RAMULU S/O SRI.K.K.VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.47, 3RD CROSS BHAVANINAGAR BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 029 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE – 560 020 BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE – 560 020 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1; SRI.K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE SCHEDULE LANDS BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 15.12.1981 VIDE ANNEXURE – H AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 28.11.1986 VIDE ANNEXURE – J HAVE BEEN LAPSED BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 24[2] OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that acquisition proceedings initiated vide preliminary notification dated 15.12.1984 and the final notification dated 28.11.1986 thereby acquiring the land bearing Survey No.32/4(Kanesumari No.46) of Roopena Agrahara Village, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore South Taluk described in schedule “A” and “B” of the petition schedule measuring East to West 200 ft. and North to South 75 Ft.(Schedule “A”) and East to West 80 Ft and North to South 75 Ft(Schedule “B”) as abandoned/lapsed.
2. The undisputed facts as they emerge from the pleadings and the documents produced including the statement of objections filed by the BDA are that the land in question was notified for acquisition vide preliminary notification dated 15.12.1984 under Section 17(1) followed by final declaration dated 28.11.86 issued under Section 19 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976.
3. After the final declaration was made in the year 1986, the BDA has neither taken over possession of the land nor passed any award let alone paying compensation in respect of the acquired land to the petitioners. It is in this background, petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking the aforesaid relief.
4. Petitioners have also urged that entire acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed in terms of the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(for short “2013 Act”).
5. During the course of arguments, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil, submits that it is not necessary for the petitioners to press the contention raised with regard to Section 24(2) of 2013 Act inasmuch as even as per the general principles enunciated by the Apex Court and this Court, the entire proceedings have stood lapsed as BDA has abandoned the acquisition by not passing any award even after lapse of 31 years from the date of issuance of final notification in the year 1986.
6. In the statement of objections filed by the respondent-BDA, it is indeed admitted that no award has been passed and acquisition proceedings have not been pursued because several constructions had come up in the area. From the statement of objections filed by BDA, it is clear that out of total extent of land, 7 guntas was acquired by the National Highway Authority. Petitioners urge that the first petitioner has received compensation for the said portion and the National Highway Authority has utilized the land for formation of highway. Be that as it may, the question is whether the acquisition proceedings have been abandoned and have to be declared as such having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Chand and others .vs. Union of India and others[(1994)1 SCC 44] and this Court in Smt. Andalamma .vs. State of Karnataka and others [2002(4) KCCR 2361] and H.N. Shivanna and others .vs. The State of Karnataka, Department of Industries and Commerce, Bangalore and another [2013(4) KCCR 2793] and in catena of other cases has held that when a power is conferred on an authority to do certain things such power has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and reasonable exercise of power includes exercise of power within a reasonable period and that proceedings initiated for acquisition have to be completed by passing an award within a reasonable period although there is no statutory limit for passing such award and for completing the acquisition proceedings. It has been therefore held in catena of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court that even where Section 11 A of the L.A. Act is not applicable, the authority enjoined with the duty to pass award and complete the acquisition proceedings has to act within a reasonable period.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, although 30 years have elapsed from the date of final notification, no award is passed, possession of the land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. Therefore, this is a clear case of respondents abandoning the acquisition proceedings. Hence, following the decisions referred to above, these petitions deserve to be allowed.
9. Indeed in respect of the very acquisition proceedings under the same notification, this Court in W.P.No2.10286-291/14 disposed of on 5.12.2016 in the case of Suryaprakash and others .vs. State of Karnataka and others has elaborately discussed this aspect of the matter by referring to various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court while allowing the writ petitions declaring that acquisition proceedings in respect of the land involved therein had stood elapsed and was abandoned. The observations made in paragraph 10 of the order in the said writ petitions are usefully extracted hereunder:-
“10. Having carefully considered the respective contentions, the undisputed facts that emerge are, that though final notification was issued as back as in the year 1986(28.11.1986), BDA has not chosen to pass any award even as on today. Though 30 years have elapsed, possession of the land remained with the original owners and subsequently with the purchaser. The owners and purchaser from them have altered their position by developing the land. They have put up construction of residential houses over the land.”
10. Petitioners in these cases are similarly placed.
In the light of the above, these petitions are allowed. It is hereby declared that acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question are declared as abandoned and lapsed.
11. Parties to bear their respective costs.
*alb/-.
Sd/- JUDGE