IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.42161-42170/2017 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN 1. MR. N.PURUSHOTHAMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE A.H.NARASIMHAIAH, R/AT NO.74, ALAHALLI ROYAL PARK RESIDENCY & SADGURU TAPOVANA, ANJANAPURA, BANGALORE-560 062.
2. MRS.JAYALAKSHMAMMA N., W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA D., AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT 88, MAADI MAIN ROAD, JATTIPALYA, KADABAGERE, BANGALORE-562 130 3. MR.N.HANUMANTHAIAH, S/O LATE A.H.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT 783, ALAHALLI SOUTH, BANGALORE-560 062.
4. MR.N.RAVINDRA S/O LATE A.H.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R.AT NO.7, SRINIVAS REDDY LAYOUT, ALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 062.
5. MR.N.RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE A.H.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.63, ALAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560 062.
6. MRS.LALITHAMMA N. W/O LATE JAYARAM.B.N.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.209, ALAHALLI, ANJANAPURA POST, HARI NAGAR, KOTHANUR MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, BANGALORE-560 062.
7. MRS.RAJAMMA N., W/O MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.2, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, TAVAREKERE, KURUBARAHALLLI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, BANGALORE-562 130.
8. MRS.BHAGYAMMA N., W/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.51, HEMMEGEPURA, VIDYA PEETHA POST, KENGERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 060.
9. MR.GANGADHARA S/O LATE KADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT VARTUR, MADHURA NAGAR HOSTEL, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 087.
10. MR.MALLEGOWDA S/O LATE KADAPPA, R/AT NO.311, ALAHALLI, ANJANAPURA POST, HARI NAGARA, NEAR RAMA MANDIRA, 3RD CROSS, BANGALORE-560 062. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SR.COUNSEL FOR FOR Sri IRISHAD AHMED B.M., ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALAORE-560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PAEK, BANGALAORE-560 003. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri VIJAYA KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1; Sri NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV. FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD.17.11.1988 ISSUED BY R2 VIDE ANENX-A AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DT.22.7.1991 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEX-B IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SY.NO.81 BLOCK 2 KHATA NO.68 OF ALAHALLI VILLGE, MEASURING 2 ACRES 20 GUNTAS IS CONCERNED, AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Petitioners are before this Court laying a challenge to the preliminary and final notification dated 17.11.1988 and 22.07.1991 issued under Section 17(1) and 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act respectively acquiring the land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas comprised in Sy.No.81, Block 2 of Alahalli Village for the purpose of formation of J.P.Nagar 9th Phase. A declaration is sought to the effect that land in question is free from acquisition proceedings.
2. It is the case of petitioners that 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.81 of Alahalli Village was granted by the competent authority in favour of their father A.H.Narasimhaiah on 07.03.1978. Pursuant to the grant made, name of the father of petitioners was entered in the revenue records by virtue of certified mutation entry dated 07.03.1978. A copy of the mutation entry is produced at Annexure-C. The same was carried into the revenue records and the name of the father of the petitioners was entered as owner and anubavdar in the revenue records right from 1978-79. In support of this, records are produced at Annexures-C2 to C22. It is relevant to notice that in 1988-89 during which year preliminary notification dated 17.11.1988 was published proposing to acquire the land in question, name of the father of petitioners was very much found as cultivator in the revenue records. Despite these revenue entries, in the preliminary notification issued proposing to acquire the land for formation of J.P.Nagar 9th phase, name of the father of the petitioners was not shown as khatedar, instead it was notified as ‘Sarkari Kharab’. Petitioners’ father was unaware of the acquisition. Therefore, he could not lay any challenge to the acquisition proceedings at an earlier point of time, nor could he file any objections. Final notification was issued on 22.07.1991. According to petitioners, land continues to be in their possession and their names appear in the revenue records. Indeed, this contention is probablised by the revenue entries in the RTC produced at Annexure-C series and the mutation entry found at Annexure-C.
3. Yet another important aspect that emerges from the materials on record is that in the report submitted by the Tahsildar, though it is stated that land in question is claimed as a granted land, no records pertaining to grant were available in the office of the Tahsildar and therefore, the grant deserved to be cancelled and the land resumed to the Government. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act in RRT/2/CR/61/2007-08. By a detailed order dated 18.07.2014, the Deputy Commissioner after holding enquiry has held that name of the grantee A.H.Narasimhaiah was rightly recorded in the revenue records and there was no reason to set aside the same. This order is produced at Annexure-C23. It is thus clear that land has continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and no proceedings have been initiated notifying the land either in the name of father of the petitioners or petitioners herein who have succeeded to the estate of their father to acquire the land. Admittedly, no award has been passed. Therefore, question of payment of any compensation to the petitioners who are the lawful owners of the land does not arise.
4. As rightly contended by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri P.S.Rajagopal, petitioners cannot be deprived of their land by virtue of the impugned notifications by proceeding on the basis that the land was a Government land and was required for being acquired for the purpose of formation of layout by the BDA. It is his further submission that several lands abutting the lands situated in and around the land in question have been deleted from acquisition and no layout has been formed in the vicinity of the land in question and it is for this reason, the BDA has not bothered to take possession of the land though acquisition has commenced in the year 1988.
5. A perusal of the statement of objections filed by the respondent – BDA makes it clear that no award has been passed and there is nothing to show that possession of land has been taken over in accordance with law from the petitioners.
There is no denial of assertion made by the petitioners that several lands situated abutting the land of the petitioners have been excluded from acquisition and no layout has been formed. In such circumstances, having due regard to the rights of the petitioners and the provisions contained under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, petitioners cannot be deprived of their valuable land by virtue of the impugned notifications whereunder the name of the father of the petitioners or petitioners have not been shown. They have not been notified as khatedars of land and although three decades had elapsed from the date of issuance of preliminary notification, no action has been taken for passing any award or for payment of any compensation.
6. It is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAM CHAND & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – (1994)1 SCC 44 and of this Court in W.P.No.15249/2012 and W.P.No.21135/2012 disposed of on 22.4.2013, where it has been held that where an authority is vested with a power, it has to exercise the power in a reasonable manner, that reasonable exercise of power includes exercise of power within a reasonable period.
7. Therefore, keeping in mind facts and circumstances of the case and the judgments referred to above, acquisition proceedings have to be declared as lapsed.
Hence, these writ petitions are allowed. Acquisition proceedings are declared as lapsed in respect of land in question.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS