IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.35657/2017 (LA-BDA) AND 41694/2017 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
SRI. V K JAYARAM S/O VENKATAPPA, R/AT SY NO.60 & 61 SULIKERE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, AND ALSO AT J.P.ESTATE, GOLLARHALLY VILLAGE, GANDSIHOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
(BY SRI NATARAJA H T, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIHATKUMAR A.PATIL, AGA, FOR R-1;
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 21.5.2008 ISSUED BY BDA I.E., R-2 SO FAR AS SL. NO.
1086 AND 1087 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY. NO. 60 & 61 MEASURING TOTAL 3.00 ACRES OF SULIKERE VILLAGE AT ANNEX-G SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND THAT OF THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 18.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA I.E., R-1 SO FAR AS SL. NO. 1010 AND 1011 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY. NO. 60 AND 61 MEASURING TOTAL 3.00 ACRES OF SULIKERE VILLAGE AT ANNEX-H TO W.P. ISSUED BY R-1, AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER Heard Mr.H.T.Nataraj, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.Vijaykumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Mr.B.S.Sachin appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3. Perused records.
2. Petitioner was absolute owner of two properties bearing Survey No.60 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas and Survey No.61 measuring 1 acre 6 guntas situated at Sulikere village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 23.8.1995 produced at Annexure-A. Subsequent to such purchase, revenue records were mutated in his favour.
3. A preliminary notification as per Annexure-G came to be issued on 21.5.2008 to acquire certain lands in and around Kengeri area for formation of a layout known and called as ‘Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout’ whereunder land belonging to the petitioner was also notified at serial nos.1086 and 1087. On 18.2.2010, Final notification as per Annexure-H also came to be issued and petitioner’s land was notified at serial nos.1010 and 1011.
4. Petitioner consented for his lands being acquired and award being passed for grant of compensation. Accordingly, consent awards dated 3.11.2011 and 28.9.2012 came to be passed and the same was also approved by the appropriate Government on 29.3.2012, and 7-11.10.2012 respectively and pursuant to the same, a sum of Rs.77,21,483/- in respect of Survey No.60, and a sum of Rs.49,41,825/- in respect of Survey No.61 as awarded under the consent awards has been deposited before trial court by 2nd respondent.
5. The awards passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act produced at Annexures-J and K clearly disclose that it is a consent award. In fact, petitioner has also filed an affidavit of undertaking before the acquiring authority, namely respondent no.2, consenting for his lands being acquired and pursuant to same, consent award came to be passed. This is referred to in the respective awards and it reads as under:
‘The owner/Khatedhar or Anubhavudar has voluntarily agreed to accept all the guidelines and stipulations of the above Government Order and Bangalore Development Authority regarding compensation payable in respect of the acquired land and accordingly, an agreement is entered into between the Addl.Acquisition Officer as First Party and the Owner/Khatedhar/Anubhavudar as Second Party as per the agreement dated 23.11.2011 stipulating all the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon including the quantum and nature of compensation payable by the Authority to the Owner/Khatedhar of the land who has voluntarily agreed to receive only compensation or developed sites as the case may be as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement and accordingly, the compensation amount is worked out and determined in the Consent-Award/Award. This agreement is part and parcel of the Consent-Award/Award.’ 6. Above consent/undertaking given by the petitioner by way of entering into an agreement to receive said compensation would leave no manner of doubt with regard to consent having been accorded by petitioner for his lands being acquired and compensation as determined thereunder also being received without any demur. In fact, petitioner is also a beneficiary under Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land Rules, 1989, as indicated in consent awards. As such, petitioner cannot be heard to now contend that having given his consent for his lands being acquired and willing to receive the compensation, still he would be empowered to challenge the acquisition, de hors consent given by him. Said contention requires to be considered for purpose of outright rejection.
7. In that view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to entertain these writ petitions. Hence, writ petitions stand rejected.
Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondent no.1 and Mr.B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for Bengaluru Development Authority- respondent nos.2 and 3 shall file memo of appearance and vakalathnama respectively within four weeks from today.
SD/- JUDGE vgh*