IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS.42771-42773/2016 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN 1. Smt.Madduramma W/o. late Puttaiah, Aged about 70 years, If any benefits of Senior Citizens are not claimed 2. Sri.Krishnappa S/o. late Puttaiah, Aged about 51 years 3. Smt.Chandrakala D/o.late Puttaiah, Aged about 36 years, All R/at No.482, Balagere Main Road, Varthur, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 087 (By Smt.Nalini Venkatesh, Advocate) AND 1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001 2. The Commissioner Bengaluru Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020 ... Petitioners 3. The Dy.Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020 4. Smt.Bhavya.R W/o.Chikkarevanna, Aged about 30 years, R/at No.255/N, Banashankari VI Stage, III Block, Chikkegowdanaplaya, Bengaluru – 560 062 5. Smt.Parratamma W/o.H.Manju Ramaswamy, Aged about 50 years 6. Sri.Amruth Raju @ Amruth Gowda.T.M.S S/o.H.Manju Ramaswamy, Aged about 33 years, Both are R/at 10/5, Rajatatri Nilaya, KKP Main Road, Thalagattapura, Bengaluru – 560 062.
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 amended vide Court order dated 20.03.2018 (By Sri.Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1; Sri.M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate for R4; Sri.Bipin Hegde, Advocate for R2 & R3;
…Respondents Sri.Shivaprasad Shanthanagoudar, Advocate for R5 & R6) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 13.04.1989 vide Annexure-E and also the final notification dated 09.05.1994 published in Karnataka Gazette dated 18.05.1994 vide Annexure-F wherein the petitioners land is notified at Sl.No.229 issued by the respondent No.1 and etc., These writ petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER In these Writ Petitions, petitioners are calling in question the acquisition of their lands, that was initiated by the Preliminary Notification dated 13.04.1989 followed Final Notification dated 09.05.1994, on the ground that the scheme in question having not been implemented within the statutory period, has lapsed and therefore, the lands have to be reverted back to the petitioners.
2. After service of notice, the 1st respondent has entered appearance through the learned High Court Government Pleader. The respondents 2 & 3 have entered appearance through their Panel Advocate Sri.Bipin Hegde, 4th respondent has entered appearance through Sri.M.S. Bhagwat; respondents 5 & 6 who are impleaded later are represented by Sri.Shivaprasad Shanthanagoudar.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners Smt.Nalini Venkatesh vehemently contends that the acquisition is liable to be set-aside inasmuch as the co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide judgment dated 08.12.2011 in W.P.No.19792/2010 and the judgment dated 14.02.2014 in W.P.Nos.12962-12970/2012 have held that the entire Scheme in question has lapsed. The learned counsel also points out the Division Bench judgment of this Court made on 04.02.2015 in BDA’s W.A.No.662/2012 (LA-BDA) challenging the former judgment referred to above having failed.
4. Per contra, all the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that in the judgments in the aforesaid Writ Petitions which the petitioners have banked upon, it is nowhere stated that the entire Scheme has lapsed; on the contrary the judgment dated 08.12.2011 specifically states at Para 22 that the Scheme for the formation of Banashankari V Stage has lapsed so far as it pertained to the Petition lands in question.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents 5 & 6 Mr.Shivaprasad Shanthangoudar vehemently submits that Smt.Munivenkatamma, the first widow of late Puttaiah had filed W.P.No.34214/2014 challenging the very same acquisition in respect of these lands only and that the same came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 08.06.2015; later, she filed another W.P.No.21057/2015 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2015 on the ground that the earlier Writ Petition was withdrawn without reserving liberty.
6. Mr.Shanthangoudar further submits that Smt.Munivenkatamma had filed W.A.No.2498/2015 (LA-BDA) challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dated 03.08.2015 made in her W.P.No.21057/2015 which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 30.09.2015 specifically observing at para 6 thereof that there was an abuse of process of the court. Thereafter, the said Smt.Munivenkatamma had filed SLP (C) No.2667/2016 against the same, which came to be disposed off by the Apex Court vide Order dated 05.02.2016 reserving liberty to her to seek review before this Court and that till this day, this remedy is not fructified.
7. Mr.Shanthangoudar also submits that the first petitioner herein is none other than another widow of the kathedar namely Mr.Puttaiah who had never challenged the acquisition in question; when the challenge by one widow is negatived by the court in two Writ Petitions, it is unconscionable on the part of the other widow and her children to lay a fresh challenge to the acquisition.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the Petition Papers and also judgment and orders filed by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 & 5 pointing out earlier rounds of litigations launched by the other widow of the kathedar Mr.Puttaiah (deceased).
9. The only contention of the petitioners that the Scheme in question has lapsed in its entirety and therefore, the petition lands should be reverted to them, is not substantiated by the very judgments which they have annexed to these Writ Petitions. There is no such finding as asserted by the petitioners as to the lapse of the Scheme in entirety. On the contrary, the observations in these judgments show that the lapse of the Scheme was partial and in fact, the layout formed in part of the other property comprised in the Scheme has been left intact.
10. It is not the case of the petitioners that the possession of their properties have not been taken by the BDA. The possession was taken and the Scheme has been partly executed and the site has been allotted to the 4th respondent Smt.Bhavya vide allotment letter dated 03.04.2014, as admitted by the petitioners at para 6 of their Petition. The respondents 5 & 6 have bought the site in question from the 4th respondent and have put up the construction also. In fact, that was the stand of the petitioners in their application for impleadment of these respondents. The petitioners had also produced a copy of the sale deed and the photographs concerning the property of these respondents.
11. Admittedly, the other widow of original kathedar Mr.Puttaiah from whom the lands were acquired had unsuccessfully laid multiple challenges to the acquisition in question. At one stage, the matter went to the Apex Court and the liberty was reserved to the said widow to seek review of the judgment. No material is produced by the petitioners to show that any review has been done. That being so, it will be unconscionable for the other widow and her children to lay a fresh challenge to the acquisition. If such challenge is upheld, this court would run the risk of ridicule.
In the above circumstances, no other ground having been urged, these Writ Petitions fail and accordingly, they are dismissed.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS