Writ Petition Nos. 38868-38870 and 38871-38874 of 2015 (LA-UDA), 35858 and 35880-35881 of 2013 (LA-BDA), 82, 26980-26982 and 83 of 2015 (LA-BDA), 15616-15620 of 2013 (LA-UDA) and 40076 of 2014 (LA-BDA). Case: K.M. Chikkathayamma and Ors. Vs The State of Karnataka and Ors.. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition Nos. 38868-38870 and 38871-38874 of 2015 (LA-UDA), 35858 and 35880-35881 of 2013 (LA-BDA), 82, 26980-26982 and 83 of 2015 (LA-BDA), 15616-15620 of 2013 (LA-UDA) and 40076 of 2014 (LA-BDA) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: L. Nageshwara Rao, Senior Advocate for B.L. Sanjeev, Advocate and For Respondents: Madhusudhan R. Naik, Advocate General for Laxminarayana and D. Nagaraja, Additional Government Advocates |
| Judges | Anand Byrareddy, J. |
| Issue | Atomic Energy Act, 1962 - Section 21; Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 - Sections 13, 14; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 141, 19, 19(1)(f), 19(f), 226, 254(1), 300A, 31, 31(2), 31A; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 6, 8, 8(1); Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 10, 17(1), 19(1), 2(e)... |
| Judgement Date | March 10, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Order:
Anand Byrareddy, J.
-
These petitions are heard and disposed of together. The legal issues arising for consideration are similar.
-
The facts as stated in the petitions may be restated briefly as follows:
WP 38868-38870/2015
The petitioners are said to be owners of lands bearing survey No. 185 and portions of lands bearing survey No. 176 and 183/1, measuring 8 acres 26 guntas and 1 acre 33 guntas, respectively, of Dattagalli, Kasaba hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. These lands, apart from lands belonging to several others, were said to have been notified for acquisition, for the formation of a residential layout, Dattagalli Extension, by recourse to the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KUDA Act' for brevity). A notification under Section 17(1) of the KUDA Act was said to have been issued and duly published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 26.12.1991. Thereafter, a notification under Section 19(1) and (2) of the KUDA Act, was also said to have been issued and duly published in the Karnataka Gazette on 7.1.1993.
The petitioners are said to have challenged the acquisition proceedings before this court by way of a writ petition in WP 27994/2001. The said petition is said to have been allowed by a learned single judge of this court by an order dated 15.12.2003. The same was said to have been challenged in a writ appeal in WA 1863/2004. The division bench is said to have set aside the order of the learned single judge and is said to have remanded the matter for a fresh consideration. On such remand, the petition is said to have been dismissed on merits, by an order dated 7.2.2011. A writ appeal in WA 15445/2011, was said to have been filed against the said dismissal order. The appeal was said to have been allowed and remanded for a fresh consideration by a judgment dated 13.9.2012. The learned single judge had then allowed the petition and had quashed the acquisition proceedings by an order dated 10.10.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents are said to have filed a writ appeal in WA 6829-6830/2013, which is said to be pending consideration.
It is said that with the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act, 2013', for brevity) with effect from 1.1.2014, the petitioners are said to have filed an application in the pending writ appeals, before the division bench, as on 29.8.2015, seeking a declaration that by virtue of Section 24(2) of the LA Act, 2013, the acquisition proceedings in question stood lapsed by efflux of time and by operation of law. The division bench is, however, said to have expressed that such a prayer could only be made by way of a fresh writ petition and hence the present writ petition.
WP 38871-38874/2015
These petitioners are said to be owners of lands bearing survey No. 168 and 169/1 and portions of land in survey Nos. 176 and 183/1 of Dattagalli, Kasaba hobli, Mysore taluk and District. These lands were also the subject matter of acquisition under the very notifications issued in respect of the lands which are the subject matter of the writ petitions in WP 38868-38870/2015, mentioned above, as they are neighboring lands.
The petitioners herein and the petitioners in the first of these petitions above, have proceeded hand in hand, though in independent petitions and appeals, at all stages, as stated in the writ petition in WP 38868-38870, resulting in the present petitions.
WP 35858/2013 and 35880-35881/2013
The petitioners are said to be the owners of lands bearing survey No. 70/7 measuring 14 guntas of Bommanahalli, Begur hobli, Bangalore South taluk. It transpires that acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act', for brevity) was said to have been initiated by the issuance of a notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act, dated 17.1.1985. The acquisition was for the formation of a residential layout known as Hosur-Sarjapur Road layout. A final notification is said to have been issued on 28.11.1986. However, an award in respect of the petitioner's land is said to have been passed only as on 30.4.2010. It is claimed that physical possession of the land continues to remain with the petitioners. It is hence contended that the award not having been passed within a period of five years from the date of final notification and possession of the land not having been taken, the Scheme under which the acquisition was initiated has lapsed and consequently the acquisition as well.
WP 82/2015
The petitioner is said to be the owner of land to an extent of 14 guntas of the land bearing survey No. 14/1 of Hosahalli, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South taluk. The said land is said to have been converted for non-agricultural purposes, since the year 1995. It is stated that the above land forms part of a larger extent of 6 acres 7 guntas said to have been purchased by the uncle of the petitioner who had got 5 acres out of the same converted for non-agricultural use and is said to have formed house sites and is said to have sold the same to various third parties and that he had also delivered the above said land to the petitioner under a General Power of Attorney and the petitioner is said to have put up residential buildings after obtaining a sanctioned plan from the Talghattapura Panchayat and that he had also paid betterment charges in respect of the same.
It is claimed that several other third party purchasers had paid betterment charges to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and had obtained 'No Objection Certificates' from the said Authority before putting up constructions on their sites.
It is claimed that when the petitioner approached the BDA seeking to pay betterment charges, it is said, he was informed that the land in question was subject matter of acquisition proceedings. A preliminary notification dated 7.11.2002 and a final notification dated 9.9.2003 are said to have been issued. It is however claimed that physical possession, neither of the petitioner's properties nor that of other property owners in survey No. 14/1 had been taken possession of by the BDA. It is contended that though the final notification was of the year 2003, even as on date, the possession of the land not having been taken, the Scheme as well as the acquisition are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 of the LA Act, 2013.
WP 26980-982/2015
It is stated that petitioner No. 1 and the father of petitioner No. 2 are said to be the owners of land in survey No. 55/1 measuring 38 guntas in Malagala. It transpires they had agreed to sell 9 guntas of land in favour of one Ankappa Reddy.
It is further stated that there are two other land owners in land bearing survey No. 55/2 to the extent of 3.36 acres held by S.M. Kannaiah and 55/1 to the extent of 3 acres. The said extents along with the land of the petitioners totally measures 7 acre 34 acres. It is stated that the entire extent of 7 acre 34 guntas along with other lands was notified for acquisition by the BDA, vide preliminary notification dated 15.7.1982 and a final notification dated 5.8.1986.
It is claimed by the petitioners that as neither an award was passed nor possession of their land had been taken, they had sought no objection from the BDA to have the land converted for non-agricultural use. BDA is said to have issued an Official Memorandum dated 1.8.1994 in that regard, indicating that it has no objection.
Insofar as the extent of land held by S.M. Kannaiah is concerned, the same is said to have been withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings as per notification dated 5.10.2007. However, the said notification was sought to be withdrawn, which was challenged by way of a writ petition in WP 10709/2009, which is said to have been allowed on the ground that possession could not be said to have been taken on the basis of a mahazar which was produced in proof thereof. The petitioners claim that they also would have the benefit of the said finding as it pertains to their land as well. It is contended that in view of possession of the land remaining with the petitioners to this day, the benefit of Section 24(2) of the LA Act, 2013 would extend to them. Hence the writ petition.
WP 83/2015
The petitioner claims to have purchased land bearing survey No. 27/3 measuring an extent of 27 guntas, of Manavarthikaval village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 15.2.2012. The BDA is said to have notified lands at Manavarthikaval and several other villages for the purpose of formation of further extension of Banashankari VI Stage layout, under a preliminary notification dated 7.11.2002. A Final notification is said to have been issued on 9.9.2003. It is claimed that the notifications did not include the portion of land purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner had sought for conversion of the land for non-agricultural user. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have sought a 'No Objection Certificate' from the BDA, it is then that the BDA is said to have claimed on the basis of a joint survey that the land of the petitioner was indeed part of the notifications for acquisition.
It is pointed out that the acquisition proceedings were initiated without reference to any of the predecessors in interest of the land held by the petitioner and hence it is not open to the BDA to claim that the land had been acquired. In any event, there is no award in respect of the property and the petitioner continues in possession of the property. It is hence claimed that the Scheme was never sought to be implemented in respect of the land in question and as there is no award passed, the acquisition has lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the LA Act, 2013.
WP 15616-15620/2013
The petitioner claims that land bearing survey No...
To continue reading
Request your trial