Karnataka High Court
H Nagarajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 16865 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. H. NAGARAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
SON OF HONAMARAPPA,
R/AT #175, ANUGRAHA
6TH STATE, 3RD BLOCK,
30TH ROAD,
CHIKKAGOWDANA PALYA,
TALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH - 560062.
2. NAGARAJAPAP ALIAS NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
SON OF KARIYAPPA, #43,
CHIKKEGOWDANAPALYA
NEAR KABBHALAMMA TEMLPLE,
TALAGHATTAPURA
VN BANGALORE SOUTH - 560062
BADIGER
3. VAJRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by V N SON OF HONMARAPPA, #43,
BADIGER CHIKKEGOWDANAPALYA
Date:
2025.01.29 NEAR KABBALAMMA TEMPLE,
15:13:37 TALAGHATTAPURA
+0530
BANGALORE SOUTH - 560062
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
4. SIDDAGANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
SON OF MARAPPA, #109,
CHIKKEGOWDANAPALYA
NEAR KABBHALAMMA TEMPLE,
THALAGATTAPURA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
BANGLAORE SOUTH - 560062.
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIEMED)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. HANUMANTHRAYAPPA
D. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560001
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560020,
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. G.C. KANNUR, SR.
COUNSEL FOR SRI. BASAVARAJ.H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
------
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT, THE
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY R2 AS AGAINST THE
LANDS BEARING SY.NOS.78/11, 78/12, 78/15, 78/16, 78/21, 94/9,
94/7, 94/14, 94/17, 94/18, 94/24, 97/1, 84, 85 IN HEMMIGEPURA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
VILLAGE, KENGERI AND SY.NO.16/1 OF GANKALLU VILLAGE,
KENGERI HAS LAPSED, SINCE R2 HAS FAILED TO IMPLEMENT THE
SCHEME (ANNEXURE-A, B, D AND E) AND DECLARE THAT, THE
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY R2 AS AGAINST THE
LANDS BEARING SY.NOS.78/11, 78/12, 78/15, 78/16, 78/21, 94/9,
94/7, 94/14, 94/17, 94/18, 94/24, 97/1, 84, 85 IN HEMMIGEPURA
VILLAGE, KENGERI AND SY.NO.16/1 OF GANKALLU VILLAGE,
KENGERI STAND ABANDONED, SINCE R2 HAS FAILED TO TAKE
PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES
(ANNEXURE-A, B, D AND E) AND DECLARE THAT, THE RESPONDENTS
HAVE WITHDRAWN LANDS BEARING SY.NOS.78/11, 78/12, 78/15,
78/16, 78/21, 94/9, 94/7, 94/14, 94/17, 94/18, 94/24, 97/1, 84, 85
IN HEMMIGEPURA VILLAGE, KENGERI AND SY.NO.16/1 OF
GANKALLU VILLAGE, KENGERIFROM ACQUISITION, BY VIRTUE OF
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE CHIEF MINISTER AND
CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A DIRECTION TO R1 TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE
SAID DECISION BY CAUSING THE PUBLICATION OF A FORMAL
NOTIFICATION AS REQUIRED U/S 48(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1894 (ANNEXURE-K).
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS,
COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
In this Writ Petition, petitioners have sought for
declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the
respondent No.2-Bengaluru Development Authority (for short,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
hereinafter referred to as 'BDA') insofar as the schedule
property has become lapsed, since the respondent No.2-BDA
failed to implement the scheme (Annexure-A, B, D and E) inter-
alia sought for direction to the respondent No.2-BDA to give
effect to the letter addressed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister for
de-notification of the schedule land at Annexure-K under
Section 48(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'L.A. Act').
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition
are that, the petitioners claim to be the absolute owner of land
bearing Sy.Nos.78/11, 78/12, 78/15, 78/16, 78/21, 94/9,
94/7, 94/14, 94/17, 94/18, 94/24, 97/1, 84, 85 of
Hemmigepura village, Kengeri Bengaluru South taluk and land
bearing Sy. No.16/1 of Gankallu village, Kengeri. It is stated in
the petition that the respondent No.2-BDA proposed for
acquisition of lands for formation of Banshankari VI stage
layout and as such issued preliminary notification dated
15.11.2000 under Section 17(1) and (3) of Bengaluru
Development Authority Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as
'BDA Act') and Final Notification dated 21.08.2001 under
Section 19(1) of the BDA Act and same is produced at
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
Annexures-A and B, respectively. It is also stated that, awards
came to be passed by the respondent No.3 under Section 11 of
L.A. Act on 18.10.2001, 20.10.2001, 05.11.2001 and
20.11.2001 notifying that the possession of land in question
has been as per the notification issued under Section 16(2) of
L.A. Act. A copy of the award and notification under Section
16(2) of the L.A. Act is produced at Annexure-C series and
Annexure-D. It is also stated in the petition that the
respondent No.2 by letter dated 23.01.2002 (Annexure-E)
stated that the possession of the schedule property has not
been taken, however, petitioners have stated that, possession
notification dated 29.05.2007 is produced at Annexure-H. It is
the case of the petitioners that no possession was taken by the
respondent-authorities and as such the petitioner No.1 has
submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister as per
Annexure-J and pursuant to the same, Hon'ble Chief Minister by
order dated 15.12.2010 directed the authorities to take
necessary steps for withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings in
respect of the subject land. However, no action was taken
thereafter and as such petitioner No.1 has made one more
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
representation 22.06.2022 (Annexure-L) however, same is
pending consideration before the competent authority.
3. It is further stated in the writ petition that RTC
extracts produced at Annexure-N series stipulates the name of
the petitioners and their family members are in possession of
the schedule properties. It is also stated in the petition that
various lands acquired for acquisition proceedings at Gankallu
village was deleted pursuant to the order passed by this Court
in W.P.No.22025/2012 and W.P.No.3509-3510 of 2009 and
W.P.No.3669/2016 (Annexure-N series). It is stated in the writ
petition that the respondent-authorities have abandoned the
scheme of acquisition under challenge and as such produced
photographs at Annexure-P series to substantiate that the
respondent authorities have abandoned the scheme of
acquisition and as such presented this writ petition.
4. Heard Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri. Hanumantharayappa D. learned
counsel for the petitioners, Manjunath K., learned HCGP for
respondent No.1 and Sri. G.C. Kannur, learned Senior counsel
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
appearing on behalf of Sri. H.T. Basavaraja, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
5. Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners argued that in furtherance of impugned
acquisition notifications, the respondent-authorities have not
taken possession of the land in question and the petitioners are
in possession of land in question and as such the respondent
authorities have abandoned the acquisition proceedings and
therefore, sought for quashing of impugned notifications.
Learned Senior counsel further argued that the respondent-
authorities have deleted the acquisition proceedings insofar as
vast extent of lands bearing Sy. Nos.85, 94, 88 of
Hemmigepura village and Sy. Nos.16/1 and 17 of Gankallu
village. It is also argued by the learned Senior counsel that the
respondent authorities have treated the petitioners in different
footing and as such places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram and another Vs.
State of Hariyana and others1 and Sham Lal and others
Vs. State of Punjab and others2. Emphasizing on these
aspects he also argued that the lands bearing SY. Nos.2/1, 6/2,
1
(2010) 3 SCC 621
2
(2013) 14 SCC 393
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
16/1 to 16/15 and Sy.Nos.19/1 and 19/2, 76/5 and 76/6 of
Gankallu village have been deleted pursuant to the orders
passed by this Court. It is also argued that though the award
has been passed, however, possession of the land has not been
taken for more than 20 years and as such the attempt made by
the respondent - BDA is to harass the petitioners in giving up
their lands is contrary to Article 14 of Constitution of India.
Referring to the fact that, preliminary notification was issued
for an extent of 2138.04 acres however, the possession was
taken for about 1203 acres and thereafter, preliminary
notification for further extension was issued wherein, out of
1532 acres, possession was taken for about 395 acres of land
and therefore, he contended that the scheme has lapsed for
non-implementation under Section 27 of the BDA Act.
Referring to the RTC extracts for the year 2022-2023
(Annexure-M series), Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior counsel
contended that the petitioners are in possession and in
cultivation of the schedule land and therefore, argued that if
the revenue records subsequent to acquisition proceedings,
indicate the name of the owners and same has to be taken into
consideration. Referring to the judgments of this Court at
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
Annexure-N and N1, he argued that under similar
circumstances, this Court quashed the impugned notification
and accordingly, invited the attention of the Court to paragraph
No.4 of the judgment above and further argued that mahazars
are in printed form, details and identity are not forthcoming
etc., and therefore a mahazars cannot be taken as proof of
possession to substantiate the notification under Section 16(2)
of L.A. Act. It is also the submission made by the learned
Senior counsel that the mahazars are in cyclostyle forms,
names and address of the witnesses have not been stated and
therefore, sought for quashing the impugned notifications
insofar as subject land. In order to buttress his argument
learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners refers to
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghbir
Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana and others3 and in
the case of S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State
of Bihar and others4 . He also refers to the judgment of this
Court in the case of Mrs. Poornima Girish Vs. Revenue
Department5 and in the case of Bengaluru Development
3
(2012) 1 SCC 792
4
(2004) 7 SCC 166
5
ILR 2011 KAR 574
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
Authority Vs. State of Karnataka and others6 and argued
that, the procedure adopted by the respondent-authorities is
contrary to law.
6. Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for petitioners places reliance on the judgment of this Court in
W.P.No.8873/2011 disposed of on 09.08.2012 and argued that
if the possession of the land has not been taken by the
acquiring authority for more than 15 years and thereafter the
acquiring authority cannot issue notice and seek possession of
the land in question. It is also the submission of the learned
Senior Counsel by referring to the letter dated 23.01.2002
(Annexure-E) wherein the respondent-BDA has addressed letter
stating that the possession of the land has not been taken
despite award has been passed and accordingly sought for
interference of the Court that the entire acquisition proceedings
became lapse on account of procedural illegality by the
respondent-authorities. Learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners refers to Annexure-K and further proceedings of the
State Government and contended that the then Chief Minister
has recommended the respondent-authorities to delete the
6
ILR 2018 KAR 2144
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
acquisition proceedings insofar as 21 acres 18 guntas in
Hemmigepura and Gankallu village including the land belonging
to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are
residing in the land in question and the said aspect of the
matter was not considered by the acquiring authority and
therefore, the acquisition proceedings become lapse on account
of not taking possession by the respondent-authorities for more
than two decades. Learned Senior Counsel also refers to the
judgment in the case of S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P)
Ltd., (supra) and contended that the arguments advanced by
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA
cannot be accepted insofar as the ground of dismissing the
petition on account of delay and laches in challenging the
acquisition proceedings.
7. Per contra, Sri. G. C. Kannur, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA contended that the
writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches. In this regard he refers to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Banda Development Authority, Banda
v. Moti Lal Agarwal7 and argued that, the writ petitions are
7
2011 (5) SCC 394
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
liable to be dismissed as no acceptable ground is urged insofar
as inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. It is also the
submission of the learned Senior Counsel appering for the
respondent-BDA that the possession of the land in question has
been taken as per notification issued under Section 16 of L.A.
Act (Annexure-R1) and same was transferred to the planning
authority for further action in the matter. He also refers to the
award notice issued under Section 12(2) of the LA Act and
contended that compensation has been released to the
concerned persons after drawing mahazar on 12.12.2001. It is
his further submission that for some of the claimants are
concerned, amount of compensation was deposited before the
Civil Court on 29.05.2002 and therefore contended that the
petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the acquisition
proceedings. It is the specific contention of the leaned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent-BDA that award was passed
on 12.11.2001 insofar as Survey No.78/6 and so also insofar as
other lands belonging to the petitioners herein and at this
stage, after the deposit of compensation in Civil Court, no
interference is called for in this petition and accordingly sought
for dismissal of the petitions.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
8. Nextly, it is contended by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA that once the land is
vested with the State, it cannot be divested into the land
owners and also as the possession of land in question has been
taken by the respondent-authorities and as such, no
interference is called for in this petition. In this regard, learned
Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
v. Manoharlal and others8 and contended that the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also argued by the
learned Senior Counsel by referring to Section 27 of the BDA
Act that the factors to be considered for substantial
implementation of the scheme is with regard to taking the
entire acquisition of the land made by the respondent-
authorities as a whole and even if the pockets of the land of
minimum area has not been taken possession for some reason,
same cannot be a ground to interfere with the acquisition
proceedings. In this regard, he refers to the judgment of this
Court in the case of S.Hareesh and others v. State of
8
2020 (3) SCR 1
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
Karnataka and others9, and accordingly sought for dismissal
of this Court.
9. Learned AGA argued on similar lines of the learned
Senior Counsel for the respondent-BDA and sought for
dismissal of the writ petition.
10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties it is not in dispute that the
petitioners are the owners of the land in question. The
respondent-authorities have issued preliminary notification
dated 15.11.2000 (Annexure-A) under section 17(1) of BDA
Act, followed by issuance of final notification dated 21.08.2001
(Annexure-B) under section 19(1) of BDA Act and sought to
acquire the schedule lands for the purpose of formation of
Banashankari VI Stage. The respondents have also issued
notification under Section 16(2) of L.A. Act, published, on
08.05.2003 (Annexure-D) claiming that the possession of land
in question has been taken and also award came to be passed
as per Annexure-C series. Perusal of the Annexure-E would
indicate that the respondent-BDA has addressed letter dated
23.01.2002 to the respondent No.1 stating that, the possession
9
2018 (5) KLJ 7
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
of the land in question has not been taken. It is also to be
noted that the respondent-authorities have issued preliminary
notification dated 07.11.2002 (Annexure-F) and final
notification dated 10.09.2003 (Annexure-G) for the purpose of
formation of further extension of Banashankari VI Stage and in
furtherance of the same, notification under Section 16(2) of LA
Act was issued on 29.05.2007 (Annexure-H). It is also
forthcoming from the writ petition that since the possession of
the land in question has not been taken and in furtherance of
the same, the petitioners have approached the then Chief
Minister for dropping the acquisition proceedings and pursuant
to the same, the then Chief Minister, as per Annexure-K,
directed the Government to drop the acquisition proceedings
insofar as the land in question. Thereafter, the petitioners have
approached the respondent-authorities as per letter dated
22.06.2022 and sought for implementation of the order to drop
the acquisition proceedings. Petitioners have also produced the
RTC extracts to substantiate their possession in respect of the
schedule lands as per Annexure-M series. It is pertinent to
mention here that, the neighbouring owner of the land bearing
Survey No.2/1 and 6/2 of Gankallu village has challenged the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.22025/2012 and this Court
by order dated 03.01.2014 quashed the acquisition proceedings
and this Court at paragraph 4 to 7 reads as under;
"4. However, it is pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the
documents sought to be produced by way of a
memo unsupported by any affidavit of any officer
of the respondent is not maintainable in law and
is liable to be rejected. Annexure-R1 is supposed
to be a mahazar taking possession of Sy.No.6/2
measuring 29 guntas of Ganakallu village. On the
face of it, Annexure-R1 cannot be acted upon
because it is in a printed form and does not
record whether the owner was present or not and
is drawn mechanically. Four witnesses alleged to
have signed cannot be identified, as no details are
forthcoming. The names are simply scribbled and
appear to be in the handwriting of one person.
Such a mahazar cannot be taken as a fact of
taking possession and the subsequent notification
based on such a mahazar dated 8.5.2003 under
Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act cannot also be
accepted. The documents now sought to be
produced cannot be believed because in paras 10
and 11 of the Statement of Objections, the
respondent asserts to have taken possession of
Survey Nos.2/1 and 6/2 together on the same
day and the notification under Section 16(2) also
is factually incorrect because admittedly, in
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
respect of Survey No.2/1, neither an award is
passed nor is possession taken. If possession
were to be taken as contended, the first
respondent could not have written to the second
respondent as per Annexure-S dated 8.9.2011, to
find out as to who is actually in physical
possession of the land. The petitioner believes
that the query is not answered by the
respondents.
5. Since the respondents did not actually
take physical possession of the lands in
question, they were not able to implement
the Scheme even to this day. The strong reason
as to why they did not take actual possession is
admittedly, Survey No.6/2, according to their own
document, did not form part of the layout.
Though the respondents claim that 8 guntas of
land was required for formation of the road, no
road as on today is formed. The latest
photographs of Survey No.6/2 taken on
22.11.2013 are produced herewith to
demonstrate the same. The copies of the latest
photographs are produced as Annexure-T.
It is important to note that under the same
notification, Survey No.88 of Hemmigepura
Village measuring 5 Acres, 24 Guntas which
belonged to the first petitioner was notified,
possession is taken, award is passed which is
received by the petitioner and it is part of the
layout. It cannot be believed that petitioner who
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
co-operated in respect of Sy.No.88 could not have
co-operated insofar as Sy.No.6/2 is concerned.
The petitioners were not notified before drawing
up of the so-called mahazar of possession
because, the respondents have never taken
possession.
6. In the light of the above contentions, it
is seen from the record that the respondents
claim that the layout in question has been formed
and the Scheme is substantially implemented. It
is not however, claimed by the respondents that
the land of the petitioners, in question, has been
utilized in the formation of the layout. Therefore,
it would be necessary to examine whether from
the material on record, it could be said that the
respondents have indeed taken possession of the
land in question.
On a plain examination of the Mahazar,
under which the respondents claim to have taken
possession of the lands, it is seen that as pointed
out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on
the face of it, the same cannot be acted upon,
because it is in a printed form and does not
record whether the owner was present or not and
is drawn mechanically. The four witnesses alleged
to have signed cannot be identified, as no details
are forthcoming. The names are simply scribbled
and appeared to be in the handwriting of one
person. Therefore, such a mahazar cannot be
taken as a fact of taking possession and the
subsequent notification based on such a mahazar
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
dated 8.5.2003 under Section 16(2) of the L.A.
Act cannot also be accepted.
The documents now sought to be produced
cannot be taken note of as the respondent, in its
Statement of Objections, asserts to have taken
possession of Survey Nos.2/1 and 6/2 together on
the same day and the notification under Section
16(2) also is factually incorrect because
admittedly, in respect of Survey No.2/1, neither
an award is passed nor is possession taken.
It is further evident that since the
respondents did not actually take physical
possession of the lands in question, they were not
able to implement the Scheme even to this day.
Though the respondents claim that 8 guntas of
land was required for formation of the road, no
road as on today is formed, which is evident from
the latest photographs produced by the
petitioners.
Coupled with this, it was reported more
than once by the respondent's personnel
themselves that the lands were not included in
the layout plan. Therefore, if it can be said
that the factum of taking of possession is in
conformity with the established conditions that
require to be met, which are succinctly set out by
the apex court in the case of Banda Development
Authority vs Moti Lal Agarwal & Others, (2011)5
SCC 394, as under :
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
"i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down
as to what act would constitute taking of
possession of the acquired land.
ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of
the State authority concerned to go to the spot
and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be
treated as sufficient to constitute taking of
possession.
iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land
or building/structure exists, mere going on the
spot by the authority concerned will, by itself,
be not sufficient for taking possession.
Ordinarily, in such cases, the authority
concerned will have to give notice to the
occupier of the building/structure or the
person who has cultivated the land and take
possession in the presence of independent
witnesses and get their signatures on the
panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of
the land or building/structure may not lead to
an inference that the possession of the
acquired land has not been taken.
iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land,
it may not be possible for the
acquiring/designated authority to take physical
possession of each and every parcel of the
land and it will be sufficient that symbolic
possession is taken by preparing appropriate
document in the presence of independent
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
witnesses and getting their signatures on such
document.
v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an
agency/instrumentality of the State and 80%
of the total compensation is deposited in terms
of Section 17(3A) and substantial portion of
the acquired land has been utilised in
furtherance of the particular public purpose,
then the Court may reasonably presume that
possession of the acquired land has been
taken."
7. The further circumstance that the land in
question is not utilized in any manner for the
formation of the layout would attract Section 27
of the BDA Act, in that, though the Scheme of
formation of the layout may have been
substantially implemented, the pocket of land of
the petitioners is left untouched and the Scheme
would to that extent lapse.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, it
is declared that the acquisition proceedings in so
far as the subject lands are concerned are null
and void for the reasons stated above."
11. Petitioners have also produced order dated
11.03.2016 in W.P.No.3509-3510 & 3669/2016 (Annexure-N1)
filed by one Smt.Sunita Gupta challenging the acquisition
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
notifications insofar as land bearing Survey No.20/10 and
Survey No.28/11B of Somapura village and this Court was
pleased to quash the acquisition proceedings and same has
reached finality. It is also not disputed by the respondent-
authorities that the lands bearing Survey No.2/1, 6/2, 16/1 to
16/5 and Survey No.19/1 and 19/2, 76/5 and 76/6 of Gankallu
village, which are the subject matter in the impugned
acquisition proceedings have been deleted from acquisition
proceedings, in view of the orders passed by this Court. Though
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
argued that the writ petition is deserves to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches, however, the said submission
cannot be accepted on the sole ground that the respondents
have not taken possession of the land in question, as major
portion of the land sought to be acquired under the impugned
notification has been deleted as per the order passed by this
Court, so also, the Government, the contention raised by the
respondent-authorities cannot be accepted. At this stage, it is
relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. At
paragraph 13, it is held as follows:
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
"13. As a general rule, suppression of a material
fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from
obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved
out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant
from abusing the process of Court by deceiving
it. But the suppressed fact must be a material
one in the sense that had it not been
suppressed it would have had an effect on the
merits of the case. It must be a matter which
was material for the consideration of the Court,
whatever view the Court may have taken . Thus
when the liability to Income Tax was questioned
by an applicant on the ground of her non-
residence, the fact that she had purchased and
was maintaining a house in the country was held
to be a material fact the suppression of which
disentitled her from the relief claimed. Again
when in earlier proceedings before this Court,
the appellant had undertaken that it would not
carry on the manufacture of liquor at its
distillery and the proceedings before this Court
were concluded on that basis, a subsequent writ
petition for renewal of the licence to
manufacture liquor at the same distillery before
the High Court was held to have been initiated
for oblique and ulterior purposes and the interim
order passed by the High Court in such
subsequent application was set aside by this
Court. Similarly, a challenge to an order fixing
the price was rejected because the petitioners
had suppressed the fact that an agreement had
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
been entered into between the petitioners and
the Government relating to the fixation of price
and that the impugned order had been replaced
by another order."
12. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal
Corporation and Another vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and
Others10. Paragraphs 28 to 31 reads as under:
"28. These seven rights are foundational
components of a law that is tune with Article
300A, and the absence of one of these or some
of them would render the law susceptible to
challenge. The judgment of this Court in K.T.
Plantations (supra)13 declares that the law
envisaged under Article 300A must be in line
with the overarching principles of rule of law,
and must be just, fair, and reasonable. It is, of
course, precedentially sound to describe some of
these sub-rights as 'procedural', a nomenclature
that often tends to undermine the inherent worth
of these safeguards. These seven sub-rights may
be procedures, but they do constitute the real
content of the right to property under Article
300A, non- compliance of these will amount to
10
2024 SCC Online 968
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
violation of the right, being without the authority
of law.
29. These sub-rights of procedure have been
synchronously incorporated in laws concerning
compulsory acquisition and are also recognised
by our constitutional courts while reviewing
administrative actions for compulsory acquisition
of private property. The following will
demonstrate how these seven principles have
seamlessly become an integral part of our Union
and State statutes concerning acquisition and
also the constitutional and administrative law
culture that our courts have evolved from time
to time.
30. Following are the seven principles:
30.1. The Right to notice: (i) A prior notice
informing the bearer of the right that the State
intends to deprive them of the right to property
is a right in itself; a linear extension of the right
to know embedded in Article 19(1)(a). The
Constitution does not contemplate acquisition by
ambush. The notice to acquire must be clear,
cogent and meaningful. Some of the statutes
reflect this right.
(ii) Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
1952, Section 11 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, and Section 3A of the National Highways
Act, 1956 are examples of such statutory
incorporation of the right to notice before
initiation of the land acquisition proceedings.
(iii) In a large number of decisions, our
constitutional courts have independently
recognised the right to notice before any process
of acquisition is commenced 14.
30.2. The Right to be heard: (i) Following the
right to a meaningful and effective prior notice of
acquisition, is the right of the property-bearer to
communicate his objections and concerns to the
authority acquiring the property. This right to be
heard against the proposed acquisition must be
meaningful and not a sham.
(ii) Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
1952, Section 15 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, and Section 3C of the National Highways
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
Act, 1956, are some statutory embodiments of
this right.
(iii) Judicial opinions recognizing the importance
of this right are far too many to reproduce.
Suffice to say that that the enquiry in which a
land holder would raise his objection is not a
mere formality.
30.3. The Right to a reasoned decision: i) That
the authorities have heard and considered the
objections is evidenced only through a reasoned
order. It is incumbent upon the authority to take
an informed decision and communicate the same
to the objector.
(ii) Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Section 3(2) of the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
1952, Section 19 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 and Section 3D of the National Highways
Act, 1956, are the statutory incorporations of
this principle.
(iii) Highlighting the importance of the
declaration of the decision to acquire, the Courts
have held that the declaration is mandatory,
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
failing which, the acquisition proceedings will
cease to have effect.
30.4. The Duty to acquire only for public
purpose: (i) That the acquisition must be for a
public purpose is inherent and an important
fetter on the discretion of the authorities to
acquire. This requirement, which conditions the
purpose of acquisition must stand to reason with
the larger constitutional goals of a welfare state
and distributive justice.
(ii) Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Sections 3(1) and 7(1) of the
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
Property Act, 1952, Sections 2(1), 11(1),
15(1)(b) and 19(1) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 and Section 3A(1) of the National
Highways Act, 1956 depict the statutory
incorporation of the public purpose requirement
of compulsory acquisition.
(iii) The decision of compulsory acquisition of
land is subject to judicial review and the Court
will examine and determine whether the
acquisition is related to public purpose. If the
court arrives at a conclusion that that there is no
public purpose involved in the acquisition, the
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
entire process can be set-aside. This Court has
time and again reiterated the importance of the
underlying objective of acquisition of land by the
State to be for a public purpose.
30.5. The Right of restitution or fair
compensation: (i) A person's right to hold and
enjoy property is an integral part to the
constitutional right under Article 300A.
Deprivation or extinguishment of that right is
permissible only upon restitution, be it in the
form of monetary compensation, rehabilitation or
other similar means. Compensation has always
been considered to be an integral part of the
process of acquisition.
(ii) Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Sections 8 and 9 of the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
1952, Section 23 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, and Sections 3G and 3H of the National
Highways Act, 1956 are the statutory
incorporations of the right to restitute a person
whose land has been compulsorily acquired.
(iii) Our courts have not only considered that
compensation is necessary, but have also held
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
that a fair and reasonable compensation is the
sine qua non for any acquisition process
30.6. The Right to an efficient and expeditious
process: (i) The acquisition process is traumatic
for more than one reason. The administrative
delays in identifying the land, conducting the
enquiry and evaluating the objections, leading to
a final declaration, consume time and energy.
Further, passing of the award, payment of
compensation and taking over the
possession are equally time consuming. It is
necessary for the administration to be efficient in
concluding the process and within a reasonable
time. This obligation must necessarily form part
of Article 300A.
(ii) Sections 5A(1), 6, 11A, and 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 6(1A) and 9 of
the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
Property Act,1952, Sections 4(2), 7(4), 7(5),
11(5), 14, 15(1), 16(1), 19(2), 25, 38(1),
60(4), 64 and 80 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 and Sections 3C(1), 3D(3) and 3E(1) of the
National Highways Act, 1956, prescribe for
statutory frameworks for the completion of
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
individual steps in the process of acquisition of
land within stipulated timelines.
(iii) On multiple occasions, upon failure to
adhere to the timelines specified in law, the
courts have set aside the acquisition
proceedings.
30.7. The Right of conclusion: (i) Upon
conclusion of process of acquisition and payment
of compensation, the State takes possession of
the property in normal circumstances. The
culmination of an acquisition process is not in
the payment of compensation, but also in taking
over the actual physical possession of the land.
If possession is not taken, acquisition is not
complete. With the taking over of actual
possession after the normal procedures of
acquisition, the private holding is divested and
the right, title and interest in the property,
along-with possession is vested in the State.
Without final vesting, the State's, or its
beneficiary's right, title and interest in the
property is inconclusive and causes lot of
difficulties. The obligation to conclude and
complete the process of acquisition is also part
of Article 300A.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
ii) Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Sections 4 and 5 of the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
1952, Sections 37 and 38 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, and Sections 3D and 3E of the National
Highways Act, 1956, statutorily recognise this
right of the acquirer.
iii) This step of taking over of possession has
been a matter of great judicial scrutiny and this
Court has endeavoured to construe the relevant
provisions in a way which ensures non-
arbitrariness in this action of the acquirer 20. For
that matter, after taking over possession, the
process of land acquisition concludes with the
vesting of the land with the concerned authority.
The culmination of an acquisition process by
vesting has been a matter of great importance.
On this aspect, the courts have given a large
number of decisions as to the time, method and
manner by which vesting takes place.
31. The seven principles which we have
discussed are integral to the authority of law
enabling compulsory acquisition of private
property. Union and State statutes have adopted
these principles and incorporated them in
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
different forms in the statutes provisioning
compulsory acquisition of immovable property.
The importance of these principles, independent
of the statutory prescription have been
recognised by our constitutional courts and they
have become part of our administrative law
jurisprudence.
13. It is also pertinent to mention here that, even
otherwise, it is well settled principle of law that if the
possession of the land is not taken by the acquiring authorities
where a reasonable period as in the present case for more than
two decades and in such an event, the acquisition proceedings
are liable to be quashed as bad in law. In this regard, this
Court, in the case of B.A.Srinivas Gupta v. State of
Karnataka in W.P.No.8873/2011 disposed of 09.08.2012 at
paragraph 7 held as follows:
"7. Be that as it may, in the instant case, as
noticed the respondents also admit to the fact
that the extent of 18 Guntas only was taken
possession on 06.11.1997 under the Mahazar at
Annexure-H to the petition. In such
circumstance, in respect of the remaining extent
of 17 Guntas, when the possession had not been
taken and nearly 15 years have lapsed by now
and further when no material is made available
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
on the records to indicate that the possession of
that extent was also taken and the said property
had vested in the Bangalore Development
Authority, the Bangalore Development Authority
cannot issue the notice as has been presently
done as per Annexure-R. In that regard, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited
decision has also indicated that respondents
would have to reacquire the property, if the
same is found necessary and shall not seek for
possession of the same after the scheme has
lapsed. Therefore, keeping this aspect in view, I
am of the opinion that the notice dated
24.02.2011, Annexure-R is not sustainable and
the same is accordingly quashed."
14. It is also pertinent to mention here that this Court
in the case of Mrs.Poornima Girish v. Revenue Department
Government of Karnataka and others11, at paragraph 4 to
10 has held as under:
4. If such is the factual position, the acquisition
proceedings insofar as the petitioner is
concerned has become stale and inconclusive,
having taken possession of the subject property,
though Notified for acquisition under the
provisions of the Bangalore Development
Authority Act, 1976 [for short 'the Act'].
11
ILR 2011 KAR 574
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
Automatically, notifications issued for the
purpose acquiring the lands will not enure to the
benefit of the Authority insofar as this particular
parcel of land is concerned as it is now conceded
that the Authority has not taken possession has
allowed petitioner to remain in possession so
far.
5. It is the duty of this Court to protect interest
of the citizens from being subjected to
harassment by the arbitrary and whimsical
exercise of power by public authorities. It was
definitely open to the Authority to have saved
the situation even in terms of the order that had
come to be passed by this Court earlier in writ
petition No.16133 of 2004 and connected
matters disposed of on 6.6.2006 by offering the
petitioner any alternative solution, but the
authority having kept quiet and non-responsive
to this writ petition as well as travails of the
petitioner even having disregarded the
orders/observations/directions contained in the
order of this Court dated 6.6.2006 passed in
writ petition No.16133 of 2004 and connected
matters, it only betrays not only gross
irresponsibility on part the respondent-
Authority, but also discriminatory manner of
functioning as it is obvious that some other
persons like the petitioner have been provided
relief by the authority itself whereas many
others including the present petitioner are
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
driven to approach Courts for relief, which again
only demonstrates the erratic manner of
functioning of this authority, purporting to be
created under the statute for the development
of Bangalore city and surrounding areas.
6. What is happening in the name of
development is nothing short of destruction and
haphazard manner of functioning to the
detriment of persons/citizens like the petitioner.
7. In the wake of the inaction on the part of the
authority itself and which is now conceded in
terms of the report placed before this Court by
the authority, it is obvious that the situation is
more akin to the one covered by the provisions
of Section 20 of the Act under which provision
the authority if it is not acquiring any land within
the area earmarked for development, then if the
authority is of the opinion that as a result of the
development in the surrounding area, the land
owner whose land is left untouched stands to
gain, then the authority can claim and levy
betterment tax and it will be open to the
authority to take action to claim such
betterment tax in accordance with law, after
issue of necessary notice to the petitioner in this
regard.
8. Having heard Sri Krishnappa, Learned
Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abdul Khader,
Learned Counsel for the respondent-Authority
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
on merits, it is found that the situation is one
which is irredeemable and irretrievable for the
Authorities as the Authority by its own inaction
and letharginess has allowed the acquisition
proceedings insofar as the petitioner is
concerned to lapse. Therefore, the acquisition
proceedings in terms of the Preliminary
Notification under Section 17 of the Act and
Final Notification under Section 19 of the Act are
hereby quashed only insofar as it relates to the
land in possession of the petitioner in terms of
the report now placed before the Court
according to which the petitioner is in
possession of site measuring 40 feet by 60 feet
9. It is also open to the authority to ensure that
the structure, if any, on the site is brought in
conformity with the building bye-laws and
regulations which are in force in the concerned
area. It is rather surprising nay annoying that a
public authority like the Bangalore Development
Authority behaves in a most irresponsible
manner to remain inactive without responding
to either the land owners' travails and even has
the tenacity to ignore and bypass even Court
orders, as if this Court had in a situation similar
and in a cause brought before this court earlier
by a group of land owners, has already passed
orders [passed in writ petition No.16133 of 2004
and connected matters disposed of on
6.6.2006], it is the bounden duty of the public
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
Authority like the Bangalore Development
Authority to have implemented and obeyed that
order in letter and spirit and not to drive every
citizen to seek relief only before this Court.
10. Though Sri Abdul Khader, Learned Counsel
for the respondent - authority would bring to the
notice of the court that this writ petition had
been dismissed for default and had come to be
recalled on 12.7.2010, that in no way absolves
the authority from its insensible, irresponsible
conduct. The authority was put on notice about
this writ petition way back in the year 2004 and
if the public authority is insensitive and
irresponsible to the notice issued by this Court
to examine the grievance and for granting relief
as is sought for in the writ petition and as has
been extended by the very authority to other
similarly placed persons, then it is nothing short
of a most irresponsible conduct on the part of
the public of the authority which is always
expected to not only respond to the needs and
travails of the citizens of the country, but is also
duty bound to obey and respect Court orders.
The Bangalore Development Authority has
miserably failed in meeting either of these
requirements.
15. The aforementioned judgment in the case of
Mrs.Poornima Girish (supra) was confirmed in Writ Appeal
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
No.4824/2010 A/w Misc.W.No.12486/2010 disposed of on
01.03.2014. It is also pertinent to mention here that the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bangalore
Development Authority v. State of Karnataka12 held that if
the possession of the acquired land is not taken within a
reasonable period and as such, quashed the acquisition
proceedings. In this regard it is relevant to extract paragraph 5
to 10, which reads as under.
"5. It is no longer res-integra that power
conferred on any authority be exercised
reasonably and reasonable exercise of power
includes exercise of the same within a
reasonable period. An acquisition proceeding
once initiated has to be completed by passing an
award and paying compensation followed by
taking over possession within a reasonable
period. This has to be strictly followed even in
the absence of any statutory limit prescribed for
passing of award and completing the acquisition
proceedings. In this regard, reliance can be
placed on the judgment in the case of
RAMCHAND & OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA
& OTHERS13. The Apex Court has laid down in
para 14 as under:
12
ILR 2018 KAR 2144
13
1994 (1) SCC 44
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
"14. The Parliament has recognised and taken
note of the inaction and non-exercise of the
statutory power on the part of the authorities,
enjoined by the provisions of the Act to
complete the acquisition proceedings within a
reasonable time and because of that now a
time-limit has been fixed for making of the
award, failing which the entire proceeding for
acquisition shall lapse. But, can it be said that
before the introduction of the aforesaid
amendment in the Act, the authorities were at
liberty to proceed with the acquisition
proceedings, irrespective of any schedule or
time-frame and to complete the same as and
when they desired? It is settled that in a statute
where for exercise of power no time-limit is
fixed, it has to be exercised within a time which
can be held to be reasonable. ..."
6. In the case of TUKARAM KANA JOSHI &
OTHERS THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER vs. M.I. D.C. AND OTHERS14, the
Apex Court has, while dealing with the issue of
legal obligation on the part of the authorities to
complete such acquisition proceedings and to
make payment of requisite compensation has
observed in paras 17 & 18 as follows:
"17. The appellants have been seriously
discriminated against qua other persons, whose
14
AIR 2013 SC 565
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
land was also acquired. Some of them were
given the benefits of acquisition, including
compensation in the year 1966. This kind of
discrimination not only breeds corruption, but
also dis- respect for governance, as it leads to
frustration and to a certain extent, forces
persons to take the law into their own hands.
The findings of the High Court, that requisite
records were not available, or that the
appellants approached the authorities at a
belated stage are contrary to the evidence
available on record and thus, cannot be
accepted and excused as it remains a slur on
the system of governance and justice alike, and
an anathema to the doctrine of equality, which
is the soul of our Constitution. Even under valid
acquisition proceedings, there is a legal
obligation on the part of the authorities to
complete such acquisition proceedings at the
earliest, and to make payment of requisite
compensation. The appeals etc. are required to
be decided expeditiously, for the sole reason
that, if a person is not paid compensation in
time, he will be unable to purchase any land or
other immovable property, for the amount of
compensation that is likely to be paid to him at
a belated stage
18. While dealing with the similar issue, this
Court in K. Krishna Reddy & Ors. v. The Special
Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, LMD
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC
2123, held as under:
"....After all money is what money buys. What
the claimants could have bought with the
compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988.
Perhaps, not even one half of it. It is a common
experience that the purchasing power of rupee
is dwindling. With rising inflation, the delayed
payment may lose all charm and utility of the
compensation. In some cases, the delay may be
detrimental to the interests of claimants. The
Indian agriculturists generally have no
avocation. They totally depend upon land. If
uprooted, they will find themselves nowhere.
They are left high and dry. They have no
savings to draw. They have nothing to fall back
upon. They know no other work. They may even
face starvation unless rehabilitated. In all such
cases, it is of utmost importance that the award
should be made without delay. The enhanced
compensation must be determined without loss
of time....".
7. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of SRI.H.N SHIVANNA AND OTHERS vs.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
ANOTHER15, has held as follows:
"39 .............As held by the Apex Court in Ram
15
2013 (4) KCCR 2793 (DB)
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
Chand's case, two years is held to be a
reasonable time within which a final declaration
has to be issued, if there are no hurdles placed
in the acquisition by the land owners or if there
are no hurdles in law. ........................ Even in
the absence of any such prescriptions expressly
under the statute, having regard to the fact that
the right to property is a constitutional right and
the person whose land is sought to be acquired
is entitled to compensation at the market rate,
such a compensation has to be paid to him at
the earliest and therefore, the power of
acquisition should be exercised within a
reasonable time so that the person who lost the
land is duly compensated at the earliest point of
time."
8. In the present cases, though final notification
was issued in the year 1971 so far, neither
award has been passed nor possession has been
taken over by paying compensation. Therefore,
the acquiring body has neither exercised its
powers in a reasonable manner nor has it
completed the acquisition proceeding within a
reasonable period. Hence, acquisition having
been abandoned stands lapsed on account of
omission and commission on the part of the
CITB/BDA in respect of writ
petitioners/respondents' herein in so far as the
land is concerned.
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
9. At this stage, as rightly contended by
Sri.Kannur G S, Learned Counsel appearing for
BDA, the observations made and finding
recorded by the Learned Single Judge stating
that acquisition proceedings stood lapsed on
account of the provisions contained in Section
24(2) of Central Act 30/2013 or for that matter,
the Scheme had lapsed in light of the provisions
contained under the BDA Act are larger issues
which may have to be decided in appropriate
case and hence, they have to be kept open. We
agree with the contention of Sri.Kannur G S, in
this regard. These legal questions are kept open
to be decided in appropriate proceedings.
Hence, the question of law regarding
applicability of Section 24 of Central Act 30 of
2013 to the acquisition made under the BDA Act
is kept open to be decided in an appropriate
case.
10. It is also brought to our notice that in
respect of the abutting land which is part of the
same survey number acquired for the same
purpose under the same notification by the BDA,
the owner of the said land had filed
W.P.Nos.3596-97/2014. The said writ petitions
were allowed on 26-02-2014 declaring that the
land having not been utilized for the purpose for
which it was acquired and since no award had
been passed, the acquisition proceedings could
not be permitted to be pursued. Admittedly, no
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
appeal is filed against the said order passed in
respect of the land which is situated
immediately abutting the land in question.
Indeed the proceedings maintained by BDA
produced at Annexure-T discloses that a
conscious decision was taken by the BDA not to
prefer any appeal keeping in mind various facts
such as non passing of award, not taking over
possession of land and existence of structure
thereon."
16. In the backdrop of these factual aspects and the
law declared by this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, though
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA
invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-R1 to R36 that
the possession of the land in question has been taken and
notification under Section 16 of LA Act is issued, however
same cannot be accepted on the sole ground as the
respondent-BDA addressed letter dated 23.01.2002 to the
respondent Government stating that the possession of the land
in question has not been taken and further, the RTC extracts
stand in the name of the petitioners, and as such, it is relevant
to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat (supra) wherein paragraph 39 to
43 reads as under:
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
"39. In this context, it is necessary to remember
that the rules of natural justice have been
ingrained in the scheme of Section 5-A with a
view to ensure that before any person is
deprived of his land by way of compulsory
acquisition, he must get an opportunity to
oppose the decision of the State Government
and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to acquire
the particular parcel of land. At the hearing, the
objector can make an effort to convince the
Land Acquisition Collector to make
recommendation against the acquisition of his
land. He can also point out that the land
proposed to be acquired is not suitable for the
purpose specified in the notification issued
under Section 4(1). Not only this, he can
produce evidence to show that another piece of
land is available and the same can be utilised for
execution of the particular project or scheme.
40. Though it is neither possible nor desirable to
make a list of the grounds on which the
landowner can persuade the Collector to make
recommendations against the proposed
acquisition of land, but what is important is that
the Collector should give a fair opportunity of
hearing to the objector and objectively consider
his plea against the acquisition of land. Only
thereafter, he should make recommendations
supported by brief reasons as to why the
particular piece of land should or should not be
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
acquired and whether or not the plea put
forward by the objector merits acceptance. In
other words, the recommendations made by the
Collector must reflect objective application of
mind to the objections filed by the landowners
and other interested persons.
41. Before concluding, we deem it necessary to
observe that in recent past, various State
Governments and their functionaries have
adopted very casual approach in dealing with
matters relating to the acquisition of land in
general and the rural areas in particular and in a
large number of cases, the notifications issued
under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) with or without
the aid of Section 17 and the consequential
actions have been nullified by the courts on the
ground of violation of the mandatory procedure
and the rules of natural justice. The disposal of
cases filed by the landowners and others take
some time and the resultant delay has great
adverse impact on implementation of the
projects of public importance. Of course, the
delay in deciding such cases may not be of
much significance when the State and its
agencies want to confer benefit upon private
parties by acquiring land in the name of public
purpose.
42. It is difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate
as to why the State and its instrumentalities
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
resort to massive acquisition of land and that
too without complying with the mandate of the
statute. As noted by the National Commission
on Farmers, the acquisition of agricultural land
in the name of planned development or
industrial growth would seriously affect the
availability of food in future. After
independence, the administrative apparatus of
the State has not spent enough investment in
the rural areas and those who have been doing
agriculture have not been educated and
empowered to adopt alternative sources of
livelihood. If land of such persons is acquired,
not only the current but the future generations
are ruined and this is one of the reasons why
the farmers who are deprived of their holdings
commit suicide.
43. It also appears that the authorities
concerned are totally unmindful of the plight of
those sections of the society, who are deprived
of their only asset like small house, small
industrial unit, etc. They do not realise that
having one's own house is a lifetime dream of a
majority of the population of this country.
Economically affluent class of society can easily
afford to have one or more houses at any place
or locality in the country but other sections of
the society find it extremely difficult to purchase
land and construct house. Majority of the people
spend their lifetime savings for building a small
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
house so that their families may be able to live
with a semblance of dignity. Therefore, it is
wholly unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable to
deprive such persons of their houses by way of
the acquisition of land in the name of
development of infrastructure or
industrialisation. Similarly, some people set up
small industrial units after seeking permission
from the competent authority. They do so with
the hope of generating additional income for
their family. If the land on which small units are
established is acquired, their hopes are
shattered. Therefore, before acquiring private
land the State and/or its agencies/
instrumentalities should, as far as possible, use
land belonging to the State for the specified
public purposes. If the acquisition of private
land becomes absolutely necessary, then too,
the authorities concerned must strictly comply
with the relevant statutory provisions and the
rules of natural justice."
17. It is also relevant to observe that, the notification
issued under Section 16 of the L.A. Act and the mahazar for
having taken possession produced by the respondents at
Annexure-R1 to R34, makes it clear that the mahazar has been
in the form of printed-cyclostyle form, which does not indicate
the name and address of witnesses and therefore, submission
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent-BDA cannot be accepted. At this stage, it is
relevant to draw the attention of this Court to the judgment of
this Court in the case of Dr.A. Parthasarathy and others v.
State of Karnataka, by its Principal Secretary16, wherein
paragraph 10 and 11 reads as follows:
10. The facts in the case before the Apex Court
in the case of TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD v.
A. VISWAM17 were different from the facts of the
present case and as such, the ratio laid down in
the said judgment would not be applicable to
these cases. Possession of land so notified for
acquisition has to be taken in a proper and valid
manner. The findings recorded by the Learned
Single Judge, that there was no independent
witness which had signed the mahazar, nor the
names and addresses to show the identity of the
alleged witnesses was given, would be sufficient
to show that the 'mahazar' was not prepared in
a valid and legal manner. The same was done in
a mechanical manner on a cyclostyle form, and
the Learned Single Judge has rightly held that 'it
is hard to give any credence to such mahazar'.
Learned Counsel for respondents has also not
denied the fact that no notice was ever given to
16
ILR 2017 KAR 3489
17
AIR 1986 SC 3377
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
the appellants for handing over possession and
straight away the 'mahazar' had been prepared,
the authenticity of which is extremely doubtful.
11. Besides this, the other facts as noticed by
the Writ Court, are also very relevant and have
not been disputed by the parties. The appellants
had been depositing betterment charges and
property tax relating to the land in question till
the year 2007. The building plan on the
schedule property had also been sanctioned by
the concerned authority. The BDA itself had
passed a resolution on 24.9.1992 to denotify the
lands of Sy.No.4 belonging to the appellants,
from acquisition. The Joint Director of Town
Planning of the BDA had also, on 13.1.1993,
certified that there existed residential building,
with wells and pump house as well as trees
standing on the said land. The said Authority
also stated that the BDA would have no
objection in the land being developed by the
appellants for residential purpose. The
BDA had gone to the extent of passing a
resolution requesting the State Government to
denotify the acquisition of Sy.No.4 belonging to
the appellants. All this would clearly go to show
that possession of the land remained with the
appellants and that BDA was not inclined to
utilize the land of the appellants to the purpose
of its scheme.
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
18. On similar lines, the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Bengaluru Development Authority and others
v. Hanumanthappa and others18 has held that, when
mahazar is in cyclostyle pro-forma and same does not indicate
name and addresses of witnesses, same cannot be a basis to
arrive at a conclusion that the possession of the land is taken
and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the
relief sought for in the writ petition is to be accepted.
19. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondent-BDA submitted that the scheme of acquisition
has been substantially implemented, however looking into the
material on record would indicate that the total extent of land
sought to be acquired by the BDA is 2138.04 Acres and the
respondents have not produced the records pertaining to the
substantial implementation of the scheme and also it is to be
noted that this Court has quashed impugned notification in
respect of portion of the land in question under the very same
impugned notification. It is also to be noted that though the
lands of other owners have been deleted from acquisition
18
2023:KHC:8944:DB
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
proceedings and relevant notifications have been issued,
however, no such notification for detention has been issued in
respect of the subject land and it is a clear case of
discrimination by the respondent-BDA, which is in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also to be noted that
since the possession of the land in question has not been taken
for more than 24 years and therefore, I find force in the
submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners.
20. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondent-BDA refers to the order dated 06.02.2024 in
W.P.No.52299/2019 (Annexure-R39) wherein the petitioner has
challenged the preliminary notification dated 15.11.2000 and
has not challenged the final notification and further proceedings
insofar as the acquisition proceedings are concerned, and
further even if such a contention of the learned Senior Counsel
for the respondent is accepted, however, in view of not taking
possession of the land in question, the contention raised by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent cannot be
accepted and therefore, the averments made in the additional
statement of objections to the same cannot be accepted.
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3641
WP No. 16865 of 2022
21. Taking into consideration the observation made
above and in view of not taking possession of the land in
question and majority of the lands in the impugned acquisition
proceedings has been deleted pursuant to the order passed by
this Court and the Government, the contention raised by the
respondents herein cannot be accepted that scheme has been
substantially implemented. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) It is hereby declared that the acquisition
proceedings initiated by the respondents
insofar as the land bearing Sy.Nos.78/11,
78/12, 78/15, 78/16, 78/21, 94/9, 94/7,
94/14, 94/17, 94/18, 94/24, 97/1, 84, 85 of
Hemmigepura village, Kengeri Bengaluru
South taluk and land bearing Sy. No.16/1 of
Gankallu village, Kengeri is held to be bad
in law as the respondent authorities
abandoned the scheme of acquisition in
respect of the subject land in question.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SMM/YAN
Ct:ANB, List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4
[ad_1]
Source link