Karnataka High Court
Mr. Syed Ismail vs Bangalore Development Authority on 21 July, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 17.07.2025
Pronounced on : 21.07.2025 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.11630 OF 2021 (LA - BDA)
BETWEEN:
MR. SYED ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O LATE SYED IBRAHIM
RESIDING AT NO.437/B
5TH CROSS, NEAR BDA
COMPLEX, HBR LAYOUT
2ND BLOCK
BENGALURU - 560 043.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANAKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARAPARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2
2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
3. C.SHIVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKA MININAGAPPA
RESIDING AT:
NO.31, 2ND MAIN ROAD
MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 050.
4. HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O MR.MUNINAGAPPA
RESIDING AT: NO.17/8
1ST MAIN ROAD
MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 050.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2;
SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI K.S.RAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SMT.Y.P.VIJAYA VASANTHAKUMARI, ADVOCATE R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-1 AND R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD
05.07.2019, 26.12.2019 AND 18.03.2021 (ANNEXURES M TO O) OF
THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND DISBURSE THE
COMPENSATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SUBJECT MATTER
3
LANDS TO THE PETITIONER; OR ALTERNATIVELY, DIRECT THE R-1
AND 2 TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE JURISDICTIONAL COURT
UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 FOR
ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION OF THE
PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 17.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by
issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
consideration of the representations of the petitioner dated
05-07-2019, 26-12-2019 and 18-03-2021 and disbursement of
compensation for the acquisition of subject land to the petitioner.
Alternatively, he seeks direction to respondents 1 and 2 to make a
reference to the jurisdictional Court under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act for adjudication of the claim for compensation of the
petitioner.
4
2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.Vachan, learned counsel for
respondents 1 and 2, Sri Udaya Holla, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.3 and Smt. Y.P.Vijaya Vasanthakumari, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The 3rd respondent purchases the subject property in
Sy.No.42/3 of Meda Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru
North Taluk measuring 1 acre and 6 guntas on 17-02-2005. On
22-09-2005, the 3rd respondent further purchases another property
bearing Sy.No.42/2 of the same area measuring 20 guntas. After
such purchase, both the afore-mentioned lands stood in the name
of the 3rd respondent/C.Shivaraju and all revenue and statutory
entries were transferred to the name of the 3rd respondent.
3.1. When things stood thus, a preliminary notification is
issued by the Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA') on
30-12-2008 for acquiring vast areas of land for formation of Dr.
Shivaram Karanth Layout. The properties of the 3rd respondent
5
afore-mentioned also formed part of the preliminary notification.
Pursuant to issuance of preliminary notification, several writ
petitions were preferred before this Court and during the pendency
of the said writ petitions, the present petitioner and another enters
into an agreement of sale and transfers an amount of
₹1,40,40,000/- in favour of the 3rd respondent on 05-01-2012.
However, on 05-07-2012, the agreement holder gets a part of the
agreement cancelled on receiving back ₹12,50,000/- by executing
cancellation deed. Therefore, one part of the agreement stood
cancelled and the other part i.e., the major part was in subsistence.
The agreement depicted that in six months, the sale deed would be
executed. The sale deed does not get executed as the purchaser
failed to pay the balance consideration.
3.2. The petitioner institutes a suit in O.S.No.1552 of 2012
before the concerned Court initially seeking permanent injunction to
restrain the 3rd respondent from interfering with and alienating the
properties. Thereafter, seeking an amendment to the plaint he
sought specific performance of the agreement of sale dated
05-01-2012. By an order of the concerned Court on 14-07-2023,
6
the plaint was directed to be returned for its presentation before
the appropriate Court. The plaint/suit has not been re-presented
before the appropriate Court even as on date. In the interregnum,
between institution of the suit on 08-11-2012 and order directing
return of the plaint, a final notification comes to be issued on
30-10-2018. Pursuant to the final notification, which includes
subject lands, representations galore from the hands of the
petitioner seeking compensation for the lands so acquired. Three of
the representations are noted hereinabove. Non-consideration of
the representations has driven the petitioner to this Court in the
subject petition.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing
for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is
an agreement holder. Notwithstanding the fact that he has entered
into an agreement after issuance of the preliminary notification, all
those notifications stood quashed at the hands of this Court and a
Division Bench affirmed the said order. The Apex Court may have
upturned it in the year 2018, that would not mean that the
petitioner becomes agreement holder pursuant to issuance of the
7
preliminary notification. Therefore, he is entitled to receive entire
compensation from the hands of the BDA for acquiring the subject
lands which are the subject matter of agreement of sale. He would
submit that the petitioner has diligently instituted a suit in
O.S.No.1554 of 2012 against the 4th respondent wherein issues are
framed long ago on 17-01-2014 and the matter is dismissed for its
non-prosecution. That would not mean the rights of the petitioner
can be taken away. He would seek to place reliance upon the
judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of RAMESH CHAND v.
TANMAY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED reported in (2017)
13 SCC 715 and SUKHBIR v. AJIT SINGH reported in 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 357 to buttress his submissions.
5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla
appearing for respondent No.3 would vehemently refute the
submissions in contending that the person who approaches the
Court with soiled hands should not be shown any indulgence. The
petitioner does not have a valid agreement of sale. The same was
cancelled long back in the year 2012. The suit filed by him for
specific performance has been returned for presenting it before the
8
appropriate Court and it has not been re-presented for the last 2
years. The agreement of sale between the petitioner and the 3rd
respondent is on 05-01-2012, four years after issuance of
preliminary notification which included several properties.
Therefore, the agreement of sale itself is void even on the said
score. The learned senior counsel would submit that no right has
flown to the hands of the petitioner to seek any amount of
compensation from the hands of the BDA for acquisition of the
subject lands. The owner of the lands is still the 3rd respondent
having purchased through sale deeds in the year 2005 long before
acquisition was even thought of. He would, therefore, contend that
the petition be dismissed with exemplary costs, as the proceedings
before the civil Court are completely suppressed in the petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the BDA would also toe
the lines of the learned senior counsel for the 3rd respondent.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused
the material on record.
9
8. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of
events, though narrated supra, would require to be reiterated in
certain details. The 3rd respondent pursuant to two sale deeds
dated 17-02-2005 and 22-09-2005 purchases the subject
properties. Pursuant to the said purchase, the name of the 3rd
respondent is mutated as the owner of the properties in revenue
records. The RTC is vindicative of the said fact.
9. When things stood thus, the BDA issues a preliminary
notification seeking to acquire certain lands including the land of
the 3rd respondent for the purpose of Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout
on 30-12-2008. The preliminary notification comes to be challenged
before a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.
55863-55865 of 2014. The petitions come to be allowed by the
following order:
".... .... ....
4. The respondents have filed the objection statement. In
the objection statement it is contended that since there were
large extents of lands which had been notified, the respondents
require sometime to go through the process and thereafter
complete the acquisition proceedings.
10
5. In that background, I do not propose to refer to the
contentions in detail for the reason that in respect of the very
same notification, this Court had made a detailed consideration
in W.P.No.9640 of 2014 and connected petitions on 26-11-2014.
During the said consideration, this Court had taken note of
contention put forth on behalf of the respondents with regard to
the delay that has occasioned in the process as there were
certain deletions at the initial stages and when subsequent
deletions were made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the
Government has initiated enquiries in that regard and therefore
there was delay. This Court having not accepted such
contention and further relying on a decision of this Court had
arrived at the conclusion that the delay as explained by the
respondents is not acceptable and therefore, the notification
insofar as the lands of the petitioners therein was held as
lapsed. Since in the instant case also the position is not
different from the said cases, a similar consideration requires to
be made.
6. Accordingly, the notification dated 30-12-2008 assailed
in these petitions is held as having lapsed as against the lands
of the petitioners referred to in these petitions which were
included in the said notification.
In terms of the above, these petitions are allowed to that
extent.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.2/
2014 for dispensation also stands disposed of."
A Writ Appeal comes to be preferred by the BDA assailing the order
passed by the learned single Judge supra. The Writ Appeal comes
to be dismissed by the following order:
"2. As prayed for by Mr. G.S. Kannur, learned Advocate
appearing for the appellants, the appeal is taken up for
preliminary hearing.
11
3. The writ petitioner assailed a notification dated
December 30, 2008, proposing to acquire the land for formation
of a layout. The preliminary notification was issue on December
30, 2008. Thereafter, neither the final notification was issued
nor possession was taken. Consequently, the Hon'ble single
Judge held that as within the reasonable time, no further action
was taken, the proposal for acquisition got lapsed.
4. We do not find any merit in the appeal
5. The application for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is, also
dismissed."
BDA challenges both the orders in several cases before the Apex
Court. The Apex Court in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 (Civil Appeal No.7661-
63 of 2018 and connected cases decided on 03-08-2018), sets
aside both the orders of this Court and issues several directions
holding:
".... .... ....
15. First, we take up the question as to whether the High
Court was legally justified on merits in quashing the preliminary
notification issued under Section 17. The Constitution Bench of
this Court in Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. [Offshore Holdings (P)
Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] has
decided the question affirmatively. The BDA has issued
preliminary notification for acquisition of the lands. Non-
finalisation of the acquisition proceedings resulted in the filing of
1
(2018) 9 SCC 122
12
the writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka by the
owners in the year 1987. Certain lands were de-notified and the
permission which was granted earlier was withdrawn. The
denotification of the land was also withdrawn. It was urged that
the time-frame which was prescribed under Sections 6 and 11-A
of the LA Act would form an integral part of the BDA Act. This
Court considered the scheme under the BDA Act and has
observed thus: (SCC pp. 158-59, 162, 164-66 & 192, paras 33,
35, 50, 55, 123, 124 & 125)
"33. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
which provide for time-frame for compliance and the
consequences of default thereof, are not applicable to
acquisition under the BDA Act. They are Sections 6 and 11-
A of the Land Acquisition Act. As per Section 11-A, if the
award is not made within a period of two years from the
date of declaration under Section 6, the acquisition
proceedings will lapse. Similarly, where declaration under
Section 6 of this Act is not issued within three years from
the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act [such notification being issued after the
commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and
Validation) Ordinance, 1967 but before the commencement
of Central Act 68 of 1984] or within one year where Section
4 notification was published subsequent to the passing of
Central Act 68 of 1984, no such declaration under Section 6
of the Land Acquisition Act can be issued in any of these
cases.
***
35. Be that as it may, it is clear that the BDA Act is a
self-contained code which provides for all the situations that
may arise in planned development of an area including
acquisition of land for that purpose. The scheme of the Act
does not admit any necessity for reading the provisions of
Sections 6 and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, as part and
parcel of the BDA Act for attainment of its object. The
primary object of the State Act is to carry out planned
development and acquisition is a mere incident of such
planned development. The provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, where the land is to be acquired for a
specific public purpose and acquisition is the sum and
substance of that Act, all matters in relation to the
acquisition of land will be regulated by the provisions of that
Act. The State Act has provided its own scheme and
provisions for acquisition of land.
13
***
50. Applying the above principle to the facts of the
case in hand, it will be clear that the provisions relating to
acquisition like passing of an award, payment of
compensation and the legal remedies available under the
Central Act would have to be applied to the acquisitions
under the State Act but the bar contained in Sections 6 and
11-A of the Central Act cannot be made an integral part of
the State Act as the State Act itself has provided specific
time-frames under its various provisions as well as
consequences of default thereto. The scheme, thus, does
not admit such incorporation.
***
55. The principle stated in Munithimmaiah
case [Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC
326] that the BDA Act is a self-contained code, was referred
with approval by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Bondu
Ramaswamy [Bondu Ramaswamy v. BDA, (2010) 7 SCC
129: (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 1]. The Court, inter alia,
specifically discussed and answered the questions whether
the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act will
apply to the acquisition under the BDA Act and if the final
declaration under Section 19(1) is not issued within one
year of the publication of the notification under Section
17(1) of the BDA Act, whether such final declaration will be
invalid and held as under: (Bondu Ramaswamy
case [BonduRamaswamy v. BDA, (2010) 7 SCC 129 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 1] , SCC p. 170, paras 79-81)
'79. This question arises from the contention raised
by one of the appellants that the provisions of Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the LA Act", for short) will
apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act and
consequently if the final declaration under Section 19(1) is
not issued within one year from the date of publication of
the notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) of the BDA
Act, such final declaration will be invalid. The appellants'
submissions are as under: the notification under Sections
17(1) and (3) of the Act was issued and gazetted on 3-2-
2003 and the declaration under Section 19(1) was issued
and published on 23-2-2004. Section 36 of the Act provides
that the acquisition of land under the BDA Act within or
outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, shall be regulated
by the provisions of the LA Act, so far as they are
applicable. Section 6 of the LA Act requires that no
declaration shall be made, in respect of any land covered by
a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, after the expiry
14
of one year from the date of the publication of such
notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. As the provisions
of the LA Act have been made applicable to acquisitions
under the BDA Act, it is necessary that the declaration
under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act (which is equivalent to
the final declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act) should
also be made before the expiry of one year from the date of
publication of notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) of
the BDA Act [which is equivalent to Section 4(1) of the LA
Act].
80. The BDA Act contains provisions relating to
acquisition of properties, up to the stage of publication of
final declaration. The BDA Act does not contain the
subsequent provisions relating to completion of the
acquisition, that is, issue of notices, enquiry and award,
vesting of land, payment of compensation, principles
relating to determination of compensation, etc. Section 36
of the BDA Act does not make the LA Act applicable in its
entirety, but states that the acquisition under the BDA Act,
shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are
applicable, of the LA Act. Therefore, it follows that where
there are already provisions in the BDA Act regulating
certain aspects or stages of acquisition or the proceedings
relating thereto, the corresponding provisions of the LA Act
will not apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act. Only
those provisions of the LA Act, relating to the stages of
acquisition, for which there is no provision in the BDA Act,
are applied to the acquisitions under the BDA Act.
81. The BDA Act contains specific provisions relating
to preliminary notification and final declaration. In fact the
procedure up to final declaration under the BDA Act is
different from the procedure under the LA Act relating to
acquisition proceedings up to the stage of final notification.
Therefore, having regard to the scheme for acquisition
under Sections 15 to 19 of the BDA Act and the limited
application of the LA Act in terms of Section 36 of the BDA
Act, the provisions of Sections 4 to 6 of the LA Act will not
apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act. If Section 6 of
the LA Act is not made applicable, the question of
amendment to Section 6 of the LA Act providing a time-limit
for issue of final declaration, will also not apply.'
We may notice that, in the above case, the Court declined
to examine whether the provisions of Section 11-A of the
Central Act would apply to the acquisition under the BDA
15
Act but categorically stated that Sections 4 and 6 of the
Central Act were inapplicable to the acquisition under the
BDA Act.
***
123. Accepting the argument of the appellant would
certainly frustrate the very object of the State law,
particularly when both the enactments can peacefully
operate together. To us, there appears to be no direct
conflict between the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
and the BDA Act. The BDA Act does not admit reading of
provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act into
its scheme as it is bound to debilitate the very object of the
State law. Parliament has not enacted any law with regard
to development the competence of which, in fact,
exclusively falls in the domain of the State Legislature with
reference to Schedule VII List II Entries 5 and 18.
124. Both these laws cover different fields of
legislation and do not relate to the same List, leave apart
the question of relating to the same entry. Acquisition being
merely an incident of planned development, the Court will
have to ignore it even if there was some encroachment or
overlapping. The BDA Act does not provide any provision in
regard to compensation and manner of acquisition for which
it refers to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. There
are no provisions in the BDA Act which lay down detailed
mechanism for the acquisition of property, i.e. they are not
covering the same field and, thus, there is no apparent
irreconcilable conflict. The BDA Act provides a specific
period during which the development under a scheme has
to be implemented and if it is not so done, the
consequences thereof would follow in terms of Section 27 of
the BDA Act. None of the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act deals with implementation of schemes. We have already
answered that the acquisition under the Land Acquisition
Act cannot, in law, lapse if vesting has taken place.
Therefore, the question of applying the provisions of Section
11-A of the Land Acquisition Act to the BDA Act does not
arise. Section 27 of the BDA Act takes care of even the
consequences of default, including the fate of acquisition,
where vesting has not taken place under Section 27(3).
Thus, there are no provisions under the two Acts which
operate in the same field and have a direct irreconcilable
conflict.
16
125. Having said so, now we proceed to record our
answer to the question referred to the larger Bench as
follows:
For the reasons stated in this judgment, we hold that
the BDA Act is a self-contained code. Further, we hold that
provisions introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by
Central Act 68 of 1984, limited to the extent of acquisition
of land, payment of compensation and recourse to legal
remedies provided under the said Act, can be read into an
acquisition controlled by the provisions of the BDA Act but
with a specific exception that the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act insofar as they provide different time-frames
and consequences of default thereof, including lapsing of
acquisition proceedings, cannot be read into the BDA Act.
Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act being one of such
provisions cannot be applied to the acquisitions under the
provisions of the BDA Act."
(emphasis supplied)
16. This Court has emphasised that the primary object of
the BDA Act is to carry out planned development. The State Act
has provided its own scheme. The time constraints of the land
acquisition are not applicable to the BDA Act. Making applicable
the time-frame of Section 11-A of the LA Act would debilitate
the very object of the BDA Act. It is apparent that the decision
of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench is directly
juxtaposed to the decision of the five-Judge Bench of this Court
in Offshore Holdings [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011)
3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] in which precisely the
question involved in the instant cases had been dealt with. By
indirect method by making applicable the time period of two
years of Section 11-A of the LA Act mandate of BDA Act has
been violated. However, it is shocking that various decisions
have been taken into consideration particularly by the Single
Judge, however, whereas the decision that has set the
controversy at rest, has not even been noticed even by the
Single Judge or by the Division Bench. If this is the fate of the
law of the land laid down by this Court that too the decision by
the Constitution Bench, so much can be said but to exercise
restraint is the best use of the power. Least said is better, the
way in which the justice has been dealt with and the planned
development of Bangalore City has been left at the mercy of
unscrupulous persons of the Government and the BDA.
17
17. It is apparent from the fact that the Single Judge has
relied upon the decision in H.N. Shivanna [H.N.
Shivanna v. State of Karnataka, 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 8956:
(2013) 4 KCCR 2793] in which it was observed by the Division
Bench that scheme was to be completed in 2 years otherwise it
would lapse. It was precisely the question of time period which
was dwelt upon and what was ultimately decided by this Court
in Offshore Holdings [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011)
3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] has been blatantly violated
by the Single Judge and that too in flagrant violation of the
provisions and intendment of the Act.
18. It is also apparent from the facts and circumstances
of the case that there were a large number of irregularities in
the course of an inquiry under Section 18(1) of the BDA Act.
The Government had nothing to do with respect to the release
of the land at this stage, as the stage of final notification had
not reached but still the landowners in connivance with the
influential persons, political or otherwise, managed the
directions in respect of 251 acres of the land and the Special
Land Acquisition Collector also considered exclusion of 498 acres
of the land against which the question was raised in the
Assembly and eyebrows were raised in public domain. Two
inquiries were ordered on 24-11-2012 and 19-1-2013 by the
State Government and based upon that inquiry, it was ordered
and a public notice was issued on 3-5-2014 that the BDA will
consider the entire matter afresh.
19. In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts, the writ
petitions came to be filed, it would not be termed to be the bona
fide litigation, but was initiated having failed in attempt to get
the land illegally excluded at the hands of the Special Land
Acquisition Collector and the State Government and after the
inquiries held in the matter and the notice was issued to start
the proceedings afresh. At this stage, the writ petitions were
filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was not at all open to
the High Court to quash the preliminary notification issued
under Section 17, as the landowners, the State Government and
BDA were responsible to create a mess in the way of planned
development of Bangalore City.
18
20. The scheme which was framed was so much
benevolent scheme that 40% of the 55% of the land reserved
for the residential purpose was to be given to the landowners at
their choice and they were also given the choice to obtain the
compensation, if they so desired, under the provisions of the LA
Act. Thus, it was such a scheme that there was no scope for any
exclusion of the land in the ultimate final notification.
21. It is apparent from the circumstances that the matter
cannot be left at the mercy of unscrupulous authority of the
BDA, the State Government or in the political hands.
Considering the proper development and planned development
of Bangalore City, let the Government issue a final notification
with respect to the land which has been notified in the initial
notification and there is no question of leaving out of the land in
the instant case as option has been given to landowners to
claim the land or to claim the compensation under the relevant
LA Act which may be applicable in the case.
22. It was contended on behalf of the landowners that
certain developments have taken place after the orders were
passed regarding exclusion of the land and when Section 27
provides a limitation of five years after final notification, in case
development was not undertaken within five years, even the
final scheme would lapse. Thus, the principle enunciated in
Section 27 should be followed by this Court with respect to the
lapse of preliminary notification as well. We find that there is a
vast difference in the provisions and action to be taken pursuant
to the preliminary notification and the final notification under
Section 19. In the instant case, the facts indicated that it was in
the interest of the public, landowners, BDA and the State
Government. The scheme had prior approval of the State
Government however at the cost of public interest yet another
scheme was sought to be frustrated by powerful unforeseen
hands and the issuance of final notification had been delayed.
Three inquiries were ordered, two by the State Government and
one by the BDA as the release of the land was being proposed in
an illegal manner. Hue and cry has been raised about their
illegalities in the Assembly as well as in the public. Thus, for the
delay, owners cannot escape the liability, they cannot take the
advantage of their own wrong having acted in collusion with the
authorities. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that in the
19
facts of the case the time consumed would not adversely affect
the ultimate development of Bangalore City.
23. The authorities are supposed to carry out the
statutory mandate and cannot be permitted to act against the
public interest and planned development of Bangalore City
which was envisaged as a statutory mandate under the BDA
Act. The State Government, as well as the authorities under the
BDA Act, are supposed to cater to the need of the planned
development which is a mandate enjoined upon them and also
binding on them. They have to necessarily carry it forward and
no dereliction of duty can be an escape route so as to avoid
fulfilment of the obligation enjoined upon them. The courts are
not powerless to frown upon such an action and proper
development cannot be deterred by continuing inaction. As the
proper development of such metropolitan is of immense
importance, the public purpose for which the primary
notification was issued was in order to provide civic amenities
like laying down roads, etc. which cannot be left at the whim or
mercy of the authorities concerned. They were bound to act in
furtherance thereof. There was a clear embargo placed while
issuing the notification not to create any charge, mortgage,
assign, issue or revise any improvement and after inquiry, it
was clear that the notice had been issued in May 2014, thus, no
development could have been made legally. Notification dated
3-5-2014 was issued that re-inquiry was necessary in the
matter. The development made, if any, would be at the peril of
the owners and it has to give way to larger welfare schemes and
the individual interest and cannot come in the way of the larger
public interest. The acquisition was for the proper and planned
development that was an absolute necessity for the city of
Bangalore.
24. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in
condoning the delay. Though, it is apparent that the authorities
had come with certain delay, in certain matters and the writ
appeals were also filed belatedly with the delay in the High
Court, however, considering the provisions of the scheme and
the method and manner, wrong has been committed, it has
compelled us not only to condone the delay but also to act in
the matter so as to preserve the sanctity of the legal process
and decision of this Court in Offshore Holdings [Offshore
20
Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ)
662].
25. We, therefore, direct the State Government as well as
the BDA to proceed further to issue final notification without any
further delay in the light of the observations made in the order.
The impugned orders passed by the Single Judge and the
Division Bench are hereby quashed and set aside. The scheme
and notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act are hereby
upheld with the aforesaid directions.
26. As noticed above, the Land Acquisition Officer
proposed exclusion of 251 acres of land from acquisition on
being asked by the Government after the preliminary
notification was issued. The Land Acquisition Officer, has
considered another 498 acres of land to be excluded from being
acquired. In connection to this, several questions were raised in
the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, as a result of which two
inquiries were ordered by the State Government i.e. on 24-11-
2012 and 19-1-2013. However, result of the inquiry is not
forthcoming. Further, it appears that the exclusion of the lands
from acquisition was proposed in connivance with influential
persons; political or otherwise. We are of the view that the BDA
and the State Government have to proceed with the acquisition
of these lands. We are also of the view that it is just and proper
to hold an inquiry for fixing the responsibility on the officials of
the BDA and the State Government for trying to exclude these
lands from acquisition.
27. Therefore, we appoint Hon'ble Mr Justice K.N.
Keshavanarayana, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court as
the inquiry officer for fixing the responsibility on the officials of
the BDA and the State Government who were responsible for
the aforesaid. The Commissioner, BDA is hereby directed to
consult the inquiry officer and pay his remuneration. Further, we
direct BDA to provide appropriate secretarial assistance and
logistical support to the inquiry officer for holding the inquiry. In
addition, we authorise the inquiry officer to appoint requisite
staff on temporary basis to assist him in the inquiry and to fix
their salaries. Further, the BDA is directed to pay their salaries.
The State Government and the BDA are directed to produce the
files/documents in relation to the aforesaid lands before the
inquiry officer within a period of four weeks from today. We
21
request the inquiry officer to submit his report to this Court as
expeditiously as possible.
28. The State Government and the BDA are further
directed to proceed with the acquisition of the aforementioned
lands without excluding land from acquisition and submit a
report to this Court the steps taken by them in this regard
within a period of three months from today."
The Apex Court, on the reasons so rendered, directs the State
Government and the BDA to proceed with the acquisition for
formation of layout without excluding any land from acquisition and
submit a report to the Apex Court the steps taken towards the said
acquisition. It directed completion within 3 months.
10. The entire fulcrum of the present lis revolves round on
the aforesaid two dates - one the date of issuance of the
preliminary notification on 30-12-2008 and the date of issuance of
final notification on 30-10-2018. Instances that had happened
during the 10 years period is what is required to be noticed and
considered.
11. As earlier delineated, the preliminary notification comes
to be issued on 30-12-2008. The subject land did form part of the
22
lands notified for acquisition, is an admitted fact. Notwithstanding
the same, the petitioner fully cognizant of acquisition process,
nevertheless, enters into two agreements of sale with the 3rd and
4th respondents, the owner of the respective properties. The
agreements of sale encompassed two parcels of land, for a total
consideration of ₹1,18,80,000/- and towards which an advance of
₹40,00,000/- was paid. The agreement of sale reads as follows:
"AGREEMENT TO SELL
This agreement to sell is made and executed on this the
FIFTH day of JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
(05.01.2012) at BANGALORE, By:
Sri C.Shivaraju,
Aged 41 years,
S/o late Sri ChikkaMininagappa,
residing at No.31, 2nd Main Road,
Marenahalli, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-560050.
(Hereinafter referred to as the SELLER which expression
shall unless repugnant to the context or is specifically excluded
by, mean & include his legal heirs, successors in interest,
nominees, executors and assigns) ON THE ONE PART TO AND IN
FAVOUR OF:
1. Sri Syed Ismail,
Aged 29 years,
S/o Sri Syed Ibrahim.
2. Sri Syed Sajid Ahmed,
Aged 37 years,
S/o Sri Syed Abdul Sattar.
Both carrying on business at Door No.437/B, Flat-E,
23
opp: HBR Lay-out BDA Complex,
5th Cross, 2nd Block,
HBR Lay-out, Bangalore - 560 043.
(Hereinafter referred to collectively as the PURCHASERS
which expression shall unless repugnant to the context or is
specifically excluded by, mean & include their legal Heirs,
successors in interest, nominees, executors and assigns) ON
THE OTHER PART, WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS:
The Seller is the sole and absolute owner of agricultural dry
lands measuring in all 1(one) acre and 6 (six) guntas of
agricultural dry land bearing Sy.No.42/3, situated in Meda
Agrahara, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (Hereinafter
referred to as the SCHEDULE A PROPERTY and described in
greater detail in the schedule appended hereunder). The seller
had purchased the schedule property from its previous owner
under a Deed of sale dated 17-02-2005, registered as
Document No.YAN-1-23751/2004-05 in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Yelahanka, Bangalore.
AND, the seller is also the sole and absolute owner of
agricultural dry lands measuring in all 20 (twenty) guntas of
agricultural dry lands bearing Sy.No.42/2, situated in Meda
Agrahara, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (Hereinafter
referred to as the SCHEDULE B PROPERTY and described in
greater detail in the schedule appended hereunder). The seller
had purchased the schedule property from its previous owner
under a Deed of sale dated 22-09-2005 registered as Document
No.YAN-1-06564/05-06, in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Yelahanka, Bangalore.
AND WHEREAS, the seller now with an intent to acquire
other agricultural lands has offered the schedule A & B property
for sale and the purchasers after negotiations has accepted the
offer of the seller and has agreed to purchase the schedule A &
B property on the following terms and conditions:
NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:
24
1. The sale consideration fixed for the schedule A & B
property is at the rate of ₹1.80,000/- (Rs. One lakh
eighty thousands only) per gunta. The schedule A & B
property measure in all 1 (one) acre and twenty-six
(twenty-six) guntas i.e., 66 (sixty-six) guntas in all. Thus,
the total agreed sale consideration is ₹1,18,80,000/-
(₹one crore eighteen lakhs eighty thousand only).
2. Upon execution of this agreement, the purchaser has paid
the seller an advance amount of ₹40,00,000/- (₹Forty
lakhs only) in the following manner:
(i) ₹10,00,000/- (Rs.ten lakhs only) by way of cheque
No.024978 dated 15-01-2012, ₹7,50,000/- (₹ seven
lakhs fifty thousand only) by cheque No.024941 dated
31-01-2012, ₹7,50,000/- (₹seven lakhs fifty thousand
only) by cheque No.024942 dated 31-01-2012, all
cheques drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Bangalore.
(ii) ₹15,00,000/- (₹ Fifteen lakhs only) in cash.
RECEIPT of which sums, the seller acknowledges.
3. The Purchaser covenants to pay the seller the balance
of the agreed sale consideration of ₹ 78,80,000/- (₹ Seventy-
eight lakhs eighty thousand only) on or before 180 (one
hundred and eighty) days from the date of this agreement.
And upon receipt of the aforesaid sum, the seller covenant to
come forward in person and without protest, demur or demand,
cause execution of an absolute Deed of Sale of the Schedule A &
B property, in favour of the purchaser and/or in favour of the
nominee/s of the purchaser.
4. The seller assures the purchaser that the schedule A &
B property is free of all charges, liens or mortgages. The
Schedule A & B property is not the subject matter of any
agreement to sell. The schedule A and B property is self-
acquired and the seller alone has the absolute right, to sell the
schedule A and B property to any person of his choice.
5. The seller covenants to pay all charges, demands,
taxes, levies, penalties and fines concerning the Schedule A & B
25
property, until registration of the A & B schedule property in
favour of the purchaser.
6. Both parties herein shall be entitled to seek specific
performance of this agreement.
SCHEDULE A PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the agricultural dry lands
bearing Sy. No.42/3, measuring 1 (one) acre and 6(six)
guntas and situated in Meda Agrahara, Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. The property is bounded as follows:
East by: Lands belonging to Sri Siddappa
West by: Lands bearing Sy.No.42/2
North by: Lands belonging to Sri Venkatesh
South by: Guni Agrahara Gadi.
SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the agricultural dry lands
bearing Sy. No.42/2, measuring 20 (twenty) guntas and
situated in Meda Agrahara, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk. The property is bounded as follows:
East by: Lands belonging to seller herein
West by: Lands belonging to Sri Hanumanthappa
North by: Lands belonging to Sriyuths Venkatesh &
Narayanaswamy
South by: Guni Agrahara Gadi.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties herein have set
their hands to this agreement, on this the day, month and year
hereinabove written, in the presence of the following
witnesses:"
In terms of the clauses in the agreement, the petitioner who is the
agreement holder had to pay balance sale consideration of
26
₹78,80,000/- within six months. Since the agreement holder failed
to pay the balance amount within the stipulated period, the 3rd
respondent is said to have caused legal notices seeking cancellation
of the agreement dated 05-01-2012 and forfeiture of the advance
amount. Two legal notices were caused identically worded. A few
paragraphs of the legal notice caused on the petitioner become
necessary to be noticed. It reads as follows:
".... .... ....
3. But, inspite of repeated requests and demands
made by my client both of you have not come forward to
finalize the sale transaction within the stipulated time
and even thereafter and thus both of you have totally
failed and neglected to perform your part of contract
under the sale agreement and rendered yourself liable for
cancellation of the sale agreement and forfeiting the
advance amount. My client could not purchase the
properties he desired and thus he suffered heavy
financial loss and because of your non-performance of
contract within time and the prices of the properties are
increasing day by day in the vicinity. Hence, this notice.
Both of you are jointly and severally called upon to
take notice that the sale agreement dated 5-01-2012 in
respect of the schedule properties entered into between
both of you and my client is stands cancelled due to your
non-performance of the contract within the stipulated
time as also thereafter in spite of several opportunities
provided to you both and thus the advance amount has
been forfeited. Both of you shall cease to have no
manner of right, interest or claim whatsoever as against
my client as also the schedule properties from hereafter.
My client will be at full liberty to transact with the
schedule properties in any manner he likes.
27
Charges of this notice ₹5,000/- payable to my client.
SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the agricultural dry land
bearing Sy. No.42/3, measuring 1 acre and 6 guntas situated in
Meda Agrahara, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk,
bounded on:
East by: Lands belonging to Sri Siddappa
West by: Lands bearing Sy.No.42/2
North by: Lands belonging to Sri Venkatesh
South by: Guni Agrahara Gadi.
SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the agricultural dry land
bearing Sy. No.42/2, measuring 20 guntas, situated in
Meda Agrahara, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk,
bounded on:
East by: Lands belonging to my client
West by: Lands belonging to Sri Hanumanthappa
North by: Lands belonging to Sri Venkatesh &
Narayanaswamy
South by: Guni Agrahara Gadi."
(Emphasis added)
The legal notice mentions both 3rd and 4th respondents, this is said
to have received by the petitioner as evidenced by the
acknowledgment of registered post, which is appended to the
objections. The agreement is said to have been cancelled later and
the petitioner takes back the advance amount so paid. The
28
cancellation agreement insofar as the 4th respondent is concerned,
is drawn on 05-07-2012. It reads as follows:
"CANCELLATION AGREEMENT
THIS CANCELLATION AGREEMENT is made and executed
on this the Fifth day of July, Two Thousand Twelve (5-07-2012)
at Bengaluru by and between:
Sri Syed Sajid Ahmed,
S/o Mr.Syed Abdul Sattar,
Aged about 37 years,
No.437/B, Flat 'E'
Opp: BDA Complex, 5th Cross,
2nd Block, HBR Lay-out,
Bengaluru-560 043.
Hereinafter referred to as the PURCHASER on the one
part AND:
Sri Hanumanthappa
S/o late Muni Nagappa,
aged about 57 years,
No.17/8, 1st Main
Marenahalli, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 040.
Hereinafter referred to as the VENDOR on the other Part
WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, by virtue of an agreement dated 2-01-2012
and 5-01-2012 the Purchaser along with one Mr. Syed Ismail
had entered into a contract of sale with the Vendor agreeing to
purchase the land measuring 1 acre 7 guntas in Sy.No.42/4 and
land measuring 31 guntas in Sy.No.42/2 of Meda Agrahara
Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, which is more
fully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter
referred to as the Schedule property in this cancellation
agreement, whereupon the purchaser had agreed to purchase
29
the schedule property for the total sale consideration and price
of ₹1,43,75,000/- in furtherance of which the sum of
₹25,00,000/- had been paid by the purchaser to the vendor.
WHEREAS, due to certain unavoidable circumstances,
differences crept between the purchaser and Mr. Syed Ismail
whereupon they could not arrange the balance sale
consideration amount and agreed to cancel the sale agreement
for the latches on their part and whereas, the Purchaser has put
forth his proposal with the vendor regarding his intention of
cancellation of the agreement for which the vendor had also
agreed in furtherance of which this agreement of cancellation is
executed on the following TREMS AND CONDITIONS:
1. The agreement dated 2-01-2012 and 5-01-2012
entered into between the vendor and the purchaser in respect of
the schedule property stand cancelled, revoked and rescinded
with immediate effect.
2. The contract to purchase the schedule property jointly
by the purchaser and Mr. Syed Ismail shall get terminated and
rescinded automatically in view of their failure to pay the
balance sale consideration amount to the vendor who was ready
and willing to execute the sale deed against the receipt of the
balance sale consideration amount from them.
3. The purchaser has received 50% of the consideration
amount paid to the vendor under the contract of sale dated
5-1-2012 and the purchaser hereby acknowledges the receipt of
₹12,50,000/- from the vendor by cash on this day.
4. The purchaser shall not have any claim
whatsoever against the vendor or against the schedule
property henceforth under any circumstances.
5. It is specifically agreed between the parties that
the balance sum of ₹12,50,000/- shall be refunded by the
purchaser to Mr. Syed Ismail against handing over of the
original agreement of sale dated 5-1-2012 and 5-01-
2012.
30
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of the land measuring 1 acre 07
guntas in Sy.No.42/4 and land measuring 31 guntas in
Sy.No.42/2 of Meda Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk, Bengaluru.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, both the parties have signed this
cancellation agreement on the day month and year first above
mentioned in the presence of the undersigned attesting
witnesses.
WITNESSES: Sd/- PURCHASER
1. Sd/- Sd/- VENDOR
2. Sd/-"
The receipt evidencing taking back of the advance amount reads as
follows:
"RECEIPT
Received the sum of ₹20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty
lakhs only) from C.Shivaraju, S/o late Chikka
Muninagappa, No.31, 2nd main, Marenahalli, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-40 on this the Fifth Day of July Two Thousand
Twelve (5-07-2012) at Bangalore through cash of ₹3.5
lakhs and the remaining sum of ₹16.5 lakhs through
cheques in lieu of the cancellation of the agreement of
sale dated 5-01-2012 entered into between us along with
Mr. Syed Ismail as the first purchaser in respect of lands
measuring 1 acre 26 guntas in Survey No.42/3 and 42/2
of Meda Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore
North Taluk as refund of the full consideration amount
paid by me to him under the same
Witnesses: Sd/- Syed Sajid Ahmed,
Executant
1.Sd/- S/o Syed Abdul Sattar,
2.Sd/- Aged 37 years, #408, 14th
Cross, Fathima Lay-out,
31
Gavindapura, Bangalore-45"
(Emphasis added)
This is sometime after causing of the legal notice.
12. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner institutes a suit in
O.S.No.1552 of 2012 before the concerned Court initially seeking
the relief of injunction, and subsequently amending the plaint
prayer by seeking the relief of specific performance. Some clauses
in the amended plaint read as follows:
".... .... ....
9. That the cause of action for the suit arose on when the
plaintiff and defendant have entered into agreement of sale
dated 5-01-2012 and on 30-10-2012 when the defendant along
with third parties had come near the suit schedule properties
and was negotiating to alienate the suit schedule properties and
when the plaintiff requested the defendant not to do so as he
has already entered agreement with him and go on with
transaction with plaintiff and when the defendant refused to do
so and subsequently, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court.
10. That the Plaintiffs have not filed any other suit against
the Defendants on the same cause of action nor has any such
suit been turned down by any Court, and the said suit is filed
within time.
11. That the fixed court fee as contemplated under the
Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act is paid hereon.
Separate Valuation slip is annexed.
32
12. No legal proceedings/court litigation past/present is
pending with regard to any part of the subject matter of this
suit.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully prays that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree against
the defendant:
(a)(i) That the defendant transfer the suit schedule
properties to the plaintiff by duly executing and registering a
sale deed in terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2015
by receiving the balance sale consideration or in the alternative
direct the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of
₹45,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per cent
per annum calculated from 06-01-2015.
... ... ..."
Issues were framed in the said suit on 17-01-2014. The petitioner
is said to have filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in
O.S.No.1552 of 2012 which comes to be dismissed on 28-06-2017.
After all this, comes the final notification in terms of the directions
of the Apex Court on 30-10-2018. The petitioner wakes up and
takes two steps - one submitting plethora of representations to the
BDA seeking compensation and the other challenging the order
dated 28-06-2017 passed by the civil Court rejecting the application
for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. On the
strength of the agreement the petitioner is now wanting to take the
33
compensation that the land owner is at all times entitled. Whether
this would be permissible in law is what is required to be noticed.
13. The agreement of sale that underpins the petitioner
claim is, notably unregistered. The unregistered agreement
is said to have been cancelled by another unregistered
document. Therefore, cancellation, too, is cloaked in the
same infirmity. Therefore, if the agreement gives the
petitioner some right, its cancellation has taken away the
said right. Both are unregistered documents. What is the
purport of unregistered agreement of sale need not detain this
Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the
case of MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN v. VISWESWARA
INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED2, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
15. The respondents herein who were the writ
petitioners have emphasised their claims on the basis of
the decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State
of Haryana. The said decision has been cited to argue that
the title deeds; registered instruments of conveyance, are
to be deemed valid unless set aside or declared void by a
Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. There is no such
dictum in the said decision wherein a Division Bench of
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1062
34
this Court was concerned with conveyances made on the
strength of agreements of sale, General Power of
Attorney and Wills. The issue addressed was avoidance of
execution and registration of deed of conveyances as a
mode of transfer of a free hold immovable property,
especially in the teeth of Section 17 and Section 49 of the
Registration Act. The tendency to adopt Power of
Attorney sales along with execution of sale agreements
and a bequeath by way of will, instead of execution and
registration of proper deeds of conveyance on receipt of
full consideration was deprecated. We extract paragraphs
15 to 17 of an earlier order dated 15.05.2009 in the said case,
extracted as such in para 15 of the aforesaid decision:
"15. The Registration Act, 1908 was enacted with the
intention of providing orderliness, discipline and public
notice in regard to transactions relating to immovable
property and protection from fraud and forgery of
documents of transfer. This is achieved by requiring
compulsory registration of certain types of documents and
providing for consequences of non-registration.
16. Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly
provides that any document (other than testamentary
instruments) which purports or operates to create, declare,
assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future
'any right, title or interest' whether vested or contingent of
the value of Rs. 100 and upward to or in immovable
property.
17. Section 49 of the said Act provides that no
document required by Section 17 to be registered shall,
affect any immovable property comprised therein or
received as evidence of any transaction affecting such
property, unless it has been registered. Registration of a
document gives notice to the world that such a document
has been executed."
16. The observation that registration of a document gives
notice to the world that such a document has been executed is
not to confer an unimpeachable validity on all such registered
documents. Even the respondents/writ petitioners accept that
the presumption coming forth from a registered deed of
conveyance is rebuttable. While reserving the right of persons
who had obtained sale agreement/general power of attorney/will
35
executed, to complete confirmation of title on them by getting
registered deeds of conveyance, the conclusion of the cited
decision, which acts as a binding precedent, is available in para
24, which we extract hereunder:--
"24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property
can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a
registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature
of "GPA sales" or "SA/GPA/will transfers" do not convey title
and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognised
or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts
will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded
transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor
create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot
be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent
of Section 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be
relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or
revenue records. What is stated above will apply not only to
deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also
to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly
transferred only under a registered assignment of lease. It
is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of
SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA sales."
17. It is in this context that we must examine the
document of 19.03.1982, an agreement which is said to have
been validated in the year 2006. We immediately notice that the
very contention of the writ petitioners is only that they have
obtained proper conveyances by registered sale deeds from
Bhavana society, whose claim is under the agreement of 1982,
which has not till date been registered and hence cannot be
recognized as a valid mode or instrument of transfer of
immovable property, going by the above decision.
... ... ...
22. Further, an instrument of conveyance is
compulsorily registrable as required under the
Registration Act. Section 23 prescribes four-months' time
for presenting a document for registration from the date
of its execution. Section 24 provides that if there are
several persons executing a document at different times,
such document may be presented for registration or re-
registration within four months from the date of such
36
execution. In the instant case, all the executants, parties
to the agreement, have signed on the day shown in the
agreement. The proviso to Section 34 also enables the
Registrar to condone the delay, if the document is
presented within a further period of four months, on
payment of a fine. The validation of the sale agreement,
which clearly is shown to be not one executed by the
declarants, by reason of it materially differing from that
produced as Annexure P-33, on the strength of which a
suit for specific performance was filed by the vendor, the
Bhavana Society, which is also the intended purchaser in
the sale agreement of 1982, it smacks of fraud. The
agreement of 1982, the original one and the revalidated
one, cannot result in a valid title, merely for reason that
the subsequent instrument had been registered. As we
noticed at the outset, the learned Single Judge did not
decide the title but only raised valid suspicion insofar as
the title of the vendor in the deed of conveyance. Even
according to the writ petitioners, their claim stems from a
sale agreement, which is not a proper deed of
conveyance, especially since it is not a registered
document.
23. The Division Bench has found possession on the
appellants and the writ petitioners by virtue of two interim
orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of the High Court. The
first one is in W.P. No. 29547 of 2011, wherein the Lok Ayukta
was directed not to pass any further orders but the State
Government and the APIIC Ltd. were not restrained from taking
any action in accordance with law. The interim order in W.P. No.
4466 of 2012 also does not establish possession on the writ
petitioners. Undoubtedly, the 53 acres would be comprised in
the 99.07 acres alleged to have been resumed to the possession
of the original declarants through their GPA, but there is nothing
on record indicating the possession, either of the
respondents/writ petitioners or the appellants/respondents in
the writ petition."
(Emphasis supplied)
37
Therefore, nothing flows to the hands of the petitioner unless there
is a determination by any Court of law, with regard to his rights
qua the agreement of sale.
14. What happens in the civil suits so instituted later, also
requires to be noticed. As observed hereinabove, the petitioner had
preferred Writ Petitions challenging the order rejecting the
application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
Those were allowed and the amendment was permitted. Pursuant
thereto, the amendment was carried out on 12-04-2023. In the
light of the amendment, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the concerned
Court was lost. Therefore, the concerned Court directed return of
the plaint for representing it before the Court having jurisdiction.
The said order reads as follows:
"This order is arises out of the memo for transfer filed by
the counsel for the plaintiff on 01.07.2023 as this court having
no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit.
2.Heard.
3. Originally the Plaintiff has filed the present suit for
permanent injunction with respect of suit schedule property. In
view of the amendment order 12.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.50995/2019, the nature of
the suit was changed and prayer of specific performance of
38
contract was inserted. After filing of amended plaint the plaintiff
has filed the fresh valuation slip of the suit schedule property on
01.07.2023 and stated that for the purpose of pecuniary
jurisdiction suit schedule property is valued at Rs.1,18,80,000/.
4. The Plaintiff has valued the suit schedule property for
the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction at Rs.1,18,80,000/ As per
Section 17 of the Karnataka Civil Code Act, the jurisdiction of a
court of a Civil Judge, shall extend to all original suits and
proceedings of a Civil nature not otherwise excluded from the
Civil Judge, Jurisdiction of which the amount or value of the
subject matter does not exceed five lakhs rupees. The suit of
the plaintiff is valued more than pecuniary jurisdiction of this
court. The Plaintiff has filed this suit before this court, but the
jurisdiction of this court is taken away for trying the present suit
by the said provisions. The only recourse is to return the plaint
under order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directing
the plaintiff to present the plaint before the Senior Civil Judge,
Court, Bengaluru Rural District.
5. Hence, the plaint shall be returned to the plaintiff by
directing him to present before the Senior Civil Judge Court,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. Hence, the following;
ORDER
Acting under order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil
Procedure plaint presented by the plaintiff is hereby
returned for presentation before the Hon’ble Senior Civil
Judge Court, Bengaluru Rural Distinct, Bengaluru.
The plaintiff shall present the plaint before the
Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Bengaluru Rural
Distinct, Bengaluru on or before 14.08.2023.
Office is directed to close the case in the concerned
register.
Office is directed to return the plaint by taking
acknowledgement receipt of return of plaint in the
concerned register immediately.
Sd/-I Addl. Civil Judge,
39
Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru.”
(Emphasis added)
The order is dated 14-07-2023. The concerned Court directed that
the plaintiff should present the plaint before the appropriate Court
on or before 14-08-2023. We are now close to 14-08-2025. Even
as on date, the plaint is not represented. Therefore, as on date,
there is no imaginary right even to the petitioner to claim
compensation, or part of compensation or even reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of
compensation, as the right of the petitioner is inchoate and
presently is still born.
15. Reliance placed by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner on the afore-quoted judgments is of no avail, as they are
distinguishable with the facts obtained in the case at hand without
much ado. The facts obtaining in the cases before the Apex Court
were that a suit for specific performance was pending on an
agreement of sale that was subsisting. In the case at hand, the
agreement of sale is long cancelled and the petitioner has taken
40
back the amount as well. As observed, the agreement of sale is an
unregistered document; so is the cancellation agreement. All these
factors which are noticed hereinabove are not divulged in the
petition. They are borne out in the statement of objections. The
petition stops at the institution of the suit and nothing beyond it.
Therefore, the petitioner is also guilty of suppression of material
facts and seeking a writ from the hands of this Court in a petition
presented by him with soiled hands.
16. In the crucible of the aforesaid facts and settled
principles, the petitioner does not become entitled to any relief at
the hands of this Court. No right is accrued in favour of the
petitioner to now contend that he is entitled to the compensation
for acquisition of the land belonging to the private respondents. His
reliance placed on precedents where subsisting agreements were
backed by pending civil proceedings, is wholly misplaced, for in the
present case, the agreement stands annulled qua 4th respondent,
consideration refunded qua 3rd respondent and civil litigation
abandoned mid-course.
41
17. Therefore, finding no merit in the petition, the petition
stands rejected. Interim order if any, subsisting, shall stand
dissolved.
It is made clear that the observations made in the course of
the order is only to consider the case of the petitioner qua the
prayer projected before this Court. It cannot influence or bind any
pending civil litigation between the parties.
Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2025 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ