Karnataka High Court
Smt. Puttamma vs The State Of Karntaka on 27 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
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. 18269 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 18271 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)
WRIT PETITION NO. 18272 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)
WRIT PETITION NO. 18273 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)
IN WP NO. 18269/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MUNEERAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
W/O. LATE MUNINANJAPPA,
2. HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MUNINANJAPPA,
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF GUBBALALU VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN - 560 061
MANJANNA
E
BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SMT. T.A.GAYATHRI,
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
MANJANNA E
Date:
W/O. SRI. T. N. JAVARAYI GOWDA,
2025.01.30
14:31:15
R/AT NO. 121, MADILU,
+0530 1ST E MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE - 560 072.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 026
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 026.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. M.V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ORDER OF SIMILAR NATURE, QUASHING THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17[1] OF
THE BDA ACT BEARING NO.BDA/SLAO/A4/P.R./194/02-03 DATED
07.11.2022, ISSUE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-B AND
ALSO FINAL DECLARATION NO.UDD/750/BLA/2003 DATED
09.09.2003 AS PER ANNEXURE-C ISSUED UNDER SECTION19(1)
UNDER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1,: IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND IS
CONCERNED AS IS LAPSED.
IN WP NO. 18271/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
W/O. LATE KAVERAPPA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
2. SUKUNDAR RAJ
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA
3. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA
4. SURESH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O. LATE KAVERAPPA
5. RAMESH KUAMR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O. LATE KAVERAPPA,
ALL ARE R/O GUBBALALU VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN -560061
BOTH ARE REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SMT.T.A.GAYATHRI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O. SRI. T.N. JAVARAYI GOWDA
R/AT NO.121, MADILU,1ST E MAIN,
1ST BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE - 560072.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
BANGALORE-560026
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560026.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ORDER OF SIMILAR NATURE, QUASHING THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION, ISSUE UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE
BDA ACT BEARING NO.BDA/SLAO/A4/P.R./194/02-03 DATED
07.11.2002, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-B AND
ALSO FINAL DECLARATION NO.UDD/750/BLA/2003 DATED
09.09.2003 AS PER ANNEXURE-C ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1)
UNDER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1", IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND IS
CONCERNED AS IS LAPSED.
IN WP NO. 18272/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PUTTAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
W/O. LATE. PAPAIAH,
2. P. NARAYANAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. PAPAIAH,
3. P. GOVINDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. PAPAIAH,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
4. P. VAJARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. PAPAIAH,
5. P. DEVARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. PAPAIAH,
6. P. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. PAPAIAH,
7. P. MANJU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. PAPAIAH,
ALL ARE R/O. GUBBALALU VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PINCODE 560061.
BOTH ARE PRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SMT. T.A. GAYATHRI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O. SRI. T.N. JAVARAYI GOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO. 121, MADILU,
1ST -E-MAIN, 1ST -BLOCK,
2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE - 560072.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNTAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPEMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE 560026
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISSTION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE 560026.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. M.V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ORDER OF SIMILAR NATURE, QUASHING THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION, ISSUE UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF
THE BDA ACT BEARING NO.BDA/SLAO/A4/P.R./194/02-03
DATED 07.11.2002, ISSUE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT
ANNEXURE B AND ALSO FINAL DECLARATION
NO.UDD/750/BLA/2003 DATED 09.009.2003 AS PER ANNEXURE
- C ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1) UNDER BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1", IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND IS CONCERNED
AS IS LAPSED.
IN WP NO. 18273/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VAJARAPPA,
2. SRI. MUNIKRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. ANJANAPPA
3. SRI. GOPALKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O. ANJANAPPA,
4. SRI. HARISH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O. ANJANAPPA,
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
5. SRI. MOHAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O ANJANAPPA,
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF GUBBALALU VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN:560 061
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SMT.T.A.GAYATHRI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O. SRI.T.N.JAVARAYI GOWDA
RESIDING AT NO. 121, MADILU,
1ST E MAIN, 1ST BLOCK,
2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI
BANGALORE-560 072
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARAK PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560026
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARAK PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560026.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1;
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
SRI. G.M. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ORDER OF SIMILAR NATURE, QUASHING THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION, ISSUE UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE
BDA ACT BEARING NO.BDA/SLAN/A4/P.R./194/02-03 DATED
07.11.2002, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-B AND
ALSO FINAL DECLARATION NO.UDD/750/BLA/2003 DATED
09.09.2003 AS PER ANNEXURE-C ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1)
UNDER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1", IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND IS
CONCERNED AS IS LAPSED.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 13.01.2021 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. In these Writ Petitions, petitioners are assailing
the Preliminary Notification dated 07.11.2002 and
Final Notification dated 09.09.2003 issued under
Section 17(1) and 19(1) of the Bangalore
Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Act’) respectively, passed by the respondent-
authorities, inter-alia, the petitioners have also sought
for alterative prayer to issue writ of mandamus,
directing the respondents to compensate the
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
petitioners as per 40-60 Scheme, in the event,
acquisition of petitioners’ lands is completed in all
process.
2. In W.P.No.18269 of 2016, it is the case of the
petitioners that, the land bearing Sy.No.47/1
measuring 35 guntas, situate at Gubbalalu Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, belong to the
petitioners and the revenue records stand in the name
of the petitioners. It is stated in the Writ Petition that
the respondents have issued the impugned
Notifications and sought to acquire the subject land
and thereby, the petitioners have assailed the
acquisition Notifications in W.P.Nos.2308-27 of 2004
and this Court by order dated 06.06.2006, disposed of
the Writ Petitions, reserving liberty to the petitioners
to approach the respondent-authorities for dropping
the acquisition proceedings if the lands are situate in
built-up area and such other acceptable reasons. In
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
terms of the direction issued by this Court, petitioners
have made representation to the respondent –
authorities to delete the land in question from the
acquisition proceedings and pursuant to the same, the
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (for
short, ‘BDA’) has issued the Endorsements dated
12.10.2007 and 05.10.2007 and same were
questioned in W.P.No.19994 of 2007 and this Court,
by Order dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure-D), quashed
the impugned Endorsements therein and directed the
respondent-authorities to reconsider the issue afresh
in the light of judgment passed in W.P.No.16133 of
2004 and connected matter disposed of on
06.06.2006. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that,
respondents have passed Award on 12.12.2003
(Annexure-E) without issuing Award Notice. It is also
stated in the Writ Petition that the respondents claim
that they to have taken possession as per Annexure-F,
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
however, the petitioners are in possession of the
schedule land and no notification is issued under
Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also
stated that, the compensation amount has been
credited in Recurring Deposit account (for short, ‘R.D.
account’) of respondent-BDA as per Annexure-G and
as such, the petitioners have presented the Writ
Petition on the ground that the respondents have not
taken possession of the land in question and also not-
implemented the scheme.
3. In W.P.No.18271 of 2016, it is the case of the
petitioners that, land bearing Sy.No.47/3, measuring
35 1/2 guntas situate at Gubbalalu Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, belong to the
petitioners and the revenue records stand in the name
of the petitioners. It is stated in the Writ Petition that
the respondents have issued the acquisition
Notifications and sought to acquire the subject land
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
and thereby, the petitioners have assailed the said
Notifications in W.P.Nos.2308-27 of 2004 and this
Court, by order dated 06.06.2006, disposed of the
Writ Petition and reserved liberty to the petitioners to
approach the respondent-authorities for dropping the
acquisition proceedings if the lands are situate in built-
up area and such other acceptable reasons. In terms
of the direction issued by this Court, petitioners have
made representation to the respondent – authorities to
delete the lands in question from the acquisition
proceedings and pursuant to the same, the
respondent-BDA has issued the Endorsements dated
12.10.2007 and 05.10.2007 and same were
questioned in W.P.No.19994 of 2007 and this Court,
by Order dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure-D), quashed
the impugned Endorsements therein and directed the
respondent-authorities to reconsider the issue afresh
in the light of judgment passed in W.P.No.16133 of
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
2004 and connected matter disposed of on
06.06.2006. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that,
respondents have passed Award on 12.12.2003
(Annexure-E) without issuing Award Notice. It is also
stated in the Writ Petition that the respondents claim
that they to have taken possession as per Annexure-F,
however, the petitioners are in possession of the
schedule land and no notification is issued under
Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also
stated that, the Award amount has been credited in
R.D. Account of respondent -BDA as per Annexure-G
and as such, the petitioners have presented the Writ
Petition on the ground that the respondents have not
taken possession of the land in question and also not
implemented the scheme.
4. In W.P.No.18272 of 2016, it is the case of the
petitioners that, land bearing Sy.No.47/4 measuring
35 1/2 guntas situate at Gubbalalu Village, Uttarahalli
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, belong to the
petitioners and the revenue records stand in the name
of the petitioners. It is stated in the Writ Petition that
the respondents have issued the acquisition
Notifications and sought to acquire the subject land
and thereby, the petitioners have assailed the
impugned Notifications in W.P.Nos.2308-27 of 2004
and this Court by order dated 06.06.2006, disposed of
the Writ Petition and reserved liberty to the petitioners
to approach the respondent-authorities for dropping
the acquisition proceedings if the lands are situate in
built-up area and such other acceptable reasons. In
terms of the direction issued by this Court, petitioners
have made representation to the respondent-
authorities to delete the lands in question from the
acquisition proceedings and pursuant to the same, the
respondent-BDA has issued the Endorsements dated
12.10.2007 and 05.10.2007 and same were
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
questioned in W.P.No.19994/2007 and this Court, by
Order dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure-D), quashed the
impugned Endorsements therein and directed the
respondent-authorities to reconsider the issue afresh.
It is also stated in the Writ Petition that, the
respondents have passed Award on 12.12.2003
(Annexure-E) without issuing Award Notice. It is also
stated in the Writ Petition that the respondents claim
that they have taken possession as per Annexure-F,
however, the petitioners are in possession of the
schedule land and no notification is issued under
Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also
stated that, the Award amount has been credited in
R.D. account of respondent-BDA as per Annexure-G
and as such, the petitioners have presented the Writ
Petition on the ground that the respondents have not
taken possession of the land in question and also not
implemented the scheme.
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
5. In W.P.No.18273/2016, it is the case of the
petitioners that, land bearing Sy.No.47/5 measuring
35 guntas situate at Gubbalalu Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, belong to the
petitioners and the revenue records stand in the name
of the petitioners. It is stated in the Writ Petition that
the respondents have issued the acquisition
Notifications and sought to acquire the subject land
and thereby, the petitioners have assailed the
impugned Notifications in W.P.Nos.2308-27 of 2004
and this Court by order dated 06.06.2006, disposed of
the Writ Petitions and reserved liberty to the
petitioners to approach the respondent-authorities for
dropping the acquisition proceedings if the lands are
situate in built-up area and such other acceptable
reasons. In terms of the direction issued by this
Court, petitioners have made representation to the
respondent-authorities to delete the lands in question
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
from the acquisition proceedings and pursuant to the
same, the respondent-BDA has issued the
Endorsements dated 12.10.2007 and 05.10.2007 and
same were questioned in W.P.No.19994 of 2007 and
this Court, by Order dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure-D),
quashed the impugned Endorsements therein and
directed the respondent-authorities to reconsider the
issue afresh in the light of judgment passed in
W.P.No.16133 of 2004 and connected matter disposed
of on 06.06.2006. It is also stated in the Writ Petition
that, the respondents have passed Award on
12.12.2003 (Annexure-E) without issuing Award
Notice. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that the
respondents claim that they have taken possession as
per Annexure-F, however, the petitioners are in
possession of the schedule land and no notification is
issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition
Act. It is also stated that, the Award amount has
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
been credited in R.D. account of respondent-BDA as
per Annexure-G and as such, the petitioners have
presented the Writ Petition on the ground that the
respondents have not taken possession of the land in
question and also not implemented the scheme.
Hence, these Writ Petitions are filed challenging the
acquisition proceedings.
6. I have heard Sri. Rajaram Sooryambail, learned
counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners; Sri.
Ravindranath B., learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Sri.
Murugesh V. Charati, Sri. B.S. Sachin and
Sri. G.M. Ananda, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-BDA.
7. Sri. Rajaram Sooryambail, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, contended that, the
petitioners are in possession of the land in question
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
and the petitioners have constructed residential
houses in the respective land in question and
therefore, disputes the contention of the respondent-
BDA with regard to taking possession of the land in
question. He also referred to revenue documents to
substantiate possession in respect of the schedule
property by the petitioners and further submitted that,
the respondent-authorities have not substantially
implemented the scheme as required under Section 27
of the Act and also in terms of the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of OFFSHORE
HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY reported in (2011) 3
SCC 139. It is also contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners by referring to Order
dated 04.12.2009 in W.P.No.19994 of 2007, that, the
respondent- authorities have not taken possession of
the land in question and accordingly, sought for
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
interference of this Court. By referring to Notification
issued under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act,
(Annexure-F), learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that, no notice has been issued
to the petitioners and the Notification under Section
16 of Land Acquisition Act at Annexure-F is in
cyclostyle form, no mahazar has been drawn, nor the
signature of the witnesses find place in Annexure-F
and that apart, disputes the signatures in the said
Notification, where no address of the witness is
mentioned and as such, refers to the Judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of DR. A.
PARTHASARATHY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2017 KAR 3489 and
contended that, the impugned Notifications in the
present case are liable to be quashed as the
respondent-authorities have abandoned the
acquisition proceedings. Learned counsel appearing for
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
the petitioners also places reliance on the Order
passed by this Court in the case of SRI.
MUNISWAMY REPRESENTED BY LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES Vs. THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in W.P.No.45498 of
2014 disposed of on 13.04.2016 and the recent
Order of this Court in the case of MOODALAPPA,
REPRESENTED BY Lrs. Vs. THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.33208 of
2016 and connected cases disposed of on
13.08.2024 and in the case of SRI. H. CHIKKA
PUTTAIAH Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND OTHERS in W.P.No.16216 of
2016 disposed of on 19.03.2024. He also contended
that, the petitioners have sold small portion of the
land for the purpose of putting up compound wall in
the land in question and therefore, contended that,
the petitioners are in possession of the schedule land.
– 22 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
8. Per contra, Sri. Murugesh V. Charati, Sri. B.S.
Sachin, and Sri. G.M. Ananda, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent-BDA, argued
that the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on
the ground of delay and laches and further, the
petitioners have not disclosed the alienation of the
land in question and accordingly, sought for dismissal
of the Writ Petitions. It is also argued by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA that the
respondent-BDA has taken possession of the land in
question and Layout Plan has been produced in
W.P.No.18273 of 2016 and as such, sought for
dismissal of the Writ Petitions as the respondents have
implemented the scheme substantially. It is also
submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-BDA, that as the possession of the land in
question has been taken under Section 16 of the Land
Acquisition Act and compensation is deposited in the
– 23 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
R.D. Account of BDA and therefore, contended that,
no interference is called for insofar as the impugned
Notifications are concerned and accordingly, sought
for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.
9. Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent-State argued in similar lines with learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA and sought
for dismissal of the writ petitions.
10. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that the respondent-authorities have issued
the Preliminary Notification on 07.11.2002 under
Section 17(1) of the Act followed by Final Notification
dated 09.09.2003 under Section 19(1) of the Act. It
is also not in dispute that the Award came to be
passed on 12.12.2003. It is argued by the learned
– 24 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA that, the
petitioners have alienated a portion of the land in
question and in this regard, perusal of the Sale Deed
dated 13.08.2001 (Annexure-R1 in W.P.No.18269 of
2016), wherein, an extent of 35 x 40 ft in Sy.No.47/1,
an extent of 40 x 30 ft in Sy.No.47/1 (Annexure-R2
W.P.No.18269 of 2016), an extent of 40 x 44 ft in
Sy.No.47/1 (Annexure-R3 W.P.No.18269 of 2016),
wherein, small bits of land has been sold by the
petitioners as per Annexures-R1 to R3 in
W.P.No.18269 of 2016, which is less than 5% of the
total extent of land sought to be acquired by the
respondent-BDA and therefore, the contentions raised
by the respondent-BDA that the entire extent / major
portion of the land is sold, cannot be accepted. It is
also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that, small bit of land was sold to put up compound
wall as well as making the landscape suitable for
– 25 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
residing in the house. That apart, except order passed
in W.P.No.18269 of 2016, nothing is produced insofar
as other Writ Petitions are concerned and therefore,
the contention raised by the respondents cannot be
accepted and on this score itself, the Writ Petitions
cannot be dismissed as larger extent of the land
(nearly 95%) is in possession of the petitioners.
11. Insofar as the contention raised by the
respondents with regard to the delay in passing of the
Award is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of M/s. ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD. Vs. MAST
RAM & ORS., reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC
2598 has held that the right to property is a human
right and failure to pay the compensation is a violation
of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is to
be noted that, Award came to be passed on
12.12.2003 and perusal of the Order Sheet of the
respondent-BDA at Annexure-G insofar as payment of
– 26 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
compensation is concerned, the compensation is said
to have been deposited in the R.D. Account of the
respondent-BDA itself on 27.07.2005 and same has
not been deposited before the Civil Court till date as
required under Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act.
This would makes it clear that the petitioners were
unaware about the deposit of the compensation by the
respondent-BDA and therefore, the delay and laches
in filing the petitions does not arise in these petitions
and further, the petitioners were approaching this
Court challenging the Endorsements and acquisition
proceedings earlier also.
12. Nextly, in view of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners about
the Notification issued under Section 16 of the Land
Acquisition Act is concerned, on careful examination of
the Notification issued under Section 16 of the Land
Acquisition Act, patently reveals that, there is no
– 27 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
mahazar witness to the Notification nor the addresses
of the persons who had taken the possession of the
schedule land at their instance is reflected in the
notification under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition
Act, and that apart, the Notification issued under
Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act is in a cyclostyle
form to be filled up by the respondent-authorities and
at this stage, it is relevant to cite the Judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in DR. A.
PARTHASARATHY (supra), wherein, paragraph
Nos.8 to 12 read as under:
“8. From the facts of this case we can conclude that
more than 131 acres 33 guntas of land was initially
notified for acquisition, whereas in the final notification
only 108 acres 17 guntas of land was notified. The
land used for implementing the scheme was to the
extent of 13 acres 34 guntas, which comprised barely
12% of the land finally notified for acquisition. The
BDA has not been able to place on record any valid
reason for not proceeding to implement the scheme
with regard to the land beyond 13 acres 34 guntas.
– 28 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016Land was initially notified for acquisition in the year
1978 which is more than three and a half decades
back. The award, though passed in 1986, was not
complied with by the BDA, as admittedly the
compensation so awarded (particularly in the case of
the appellants) was deposited after twenty-three
years, in the year 2009. All this clearly shows the non-
seriousness of the BDA in implementing the scheme
for which acquisition of a vast tract of land was made
by it.
9. From the above, it is clear that the Authority did not
have intention of implementing the scheme over the
entire portion of land which was acquired, but it had
done so only to create a land bank, which is not the
purpose for which Development Authorities have been
created. If this is permitted, then any Development
Authority can misuse the land acquisition proceedings
by notifying and acquiring large tracts of land which
may be in hundreds, or even thousands of acres, for
future development, which may be proposed to be
carried out even after three, four or five decades, and
deposit the compensation at the rate as on the date of
notification which may be awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, and deposit the same after
several years, as in the present case, it is after thirty
one years of the initial notification for acquisition, and
twenty three years even after the award had been
– 29 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016passed. The Development Authorities are not in the
business of land dealing, as the purpose is different,
which is proper development of cities, which may
include providing of residential accommodation to
citizens, but not create a land bank by way of
compulsory acquisition of land, thereby depriving the
legitimate owners of land for profiteering purpose by
BDA. In the present case, nearly 90% of the land so
notified to be acquired, has remained unutilized for
more than three and a half decades. The possession of
the land belonging to the appellants is said to have
been taken in the year 1986 under a ‘mahazar’ which
cannot be relied upon, and we have no reason to
disturb the finding of fact recorded by the Writ Court in
this regard, in para 27 of its judgment, which was on
perusal of the original record and is reproduced below:
The first question that falls for my consideration
is, whether the possession of the land is taken by
the Government from the petitioners ? My
answer to this question is emphatically ‘no’, for
the following reasons:
(a) The perusal of the records reveals that the
things are not done in a manner known to law.
The mahazar on which all reliance is placed is
deficient in more than one respect. It contains
the signatures of five persons, but their names,
much less their addresses, are available.
– 30 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
(b) The alternative portions like (i) the
petitioners were present/not present (ii) BDA
has taken over the possession/the owners have
handed over the possession (iii) malkies are
existing/not existing are retained as they are.
The non-applicable portion is not even struck off.
The mahazar prepared is in the cyclostyled form.
It is hard to give any credence to such a
mahazar.
(c) No acknowledgments for having served the
copy of the mahazar on the petitioners is
produced. It is also not the case of the
respondent BDA that the notice calling upon the
petitioners to handover the possession was sent
under RPAD.
10. The facts in the case before the Apex Court in the
case of TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD (AIR 1986
SC 3377) 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
– 31 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
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 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
– 32 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
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.
12. From the facts, it is also clear that since the BDA
had failed to execute the scheme substantially, as it
could utilize only about 12% of the land notified for
acquisition within five years from the publication of the
declaration under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act. In our
view, in the facts of the present case, the provisions of
Section 27 of the BDA Act would be applicable and
thus, provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act providing
for applicability of certain provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act would become inoperative.”
13. It is the case of the petitioners that, the
possession of the land in question is with the
petitioners and further neither possession nor
mahazar has been drawn to take possession of the
land in question. In this backdrop of the facts on
record and looking into the Notification issued under
Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act referred to
above, as well as the revenue records produced in the
– 33 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
Writ Petitions, I am of the view that, the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners has to be accepted. In the case of MRS.
POORNIMA GIRISH Vs. REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
reported in ILR 2011 KAR 574, this Court, at
paragraph Nos.8 and 9, held as follows:
” 8. Having heard Sri. Krishnappa, Learned Counsel
for the petitioner and Sri. Abdul Khader, Learned
Counsel for the respondent – Authority 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.
– 34 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
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
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.”
14. It is also pertinent to mention here that the
aforementioned Judgment of the learned Single Judge
was confirmed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF
BDA Vs. MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH in Writ Appeal
No.4824/2010 disposed of on 01.03.2014, by the
Division Bench of this Court.
– 35 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
15. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners that
compensation is not deposited before the Civil Court
as required under Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act
and the said submission was not countered by the
learned counsel for the respondent-BDA who
submitted that, compensation is deposited in R.D.
account of respondent-BDA itself and in this regard, it
is apt to cite the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of DELHI DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS
reported in (2016) 16 SCC 258. Paragraph Nos.9 to
9.3 therein, read as under:
“9. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, in so far as
the making of award and the payment of compensation
to persons interested, is as follows.
On the day fixed, the Collector after the inquiry that is
contemplated under Section 11, has to make an award
which must contain the necessary ingredients
mentioned in Section 11. As soon as the award is
– 36 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016made, under Section 12(2) of the Act, the Collector is
to give immediate notice of the award to such of the
persons interested as are not present personally. This
provision, when read with Section 31 of the Act, makes
it clear that the statutory scheme is that the Collector
is to tender payment of compensation awarded by him
to the persons who are interested and entitled thereto,
according to the award, on the date of making the
award itself. It is therefore, clear that under the
statutory scheme, the Collector must be armed with
the amount of compensation payable to persons
interested as soon as the award is made. Such persons
have to be paid the sum mentioned in the award, it
being well settled that the award is only an offer which
may be accepted or rejected by the claimants. If
accepted, whether under protest or otherwise, it is the
duty of the Collector to make payment as soon as
possible after making the award. It is only in a
situation where the persons interested refuse consent
to receive monies payable, or there be no person
competent to alienate the land, or if there be any
dispute as to title to receive compensation or its
apportionment, is the Collector to deposit the amount
of compensation in the reference court. It is only after
these steps have been taken that the Collector may
take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest
absolutely in the Government free from all
encumbrances. The Act further makes it clear, on a
– 37 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016reading of Section 34, that where such compensation is
neither paid or deposited on or before taking
possession of the land, interest is payable at the rate of
9 per cent per annum for one year and 15 per cent per
annum thereafter. This is because a person becomes
divested of both possession and title to his property
without compensation having been paid or deposited,
as the case may be. This statutory scheme has been
adverted to in some of the decisions of this Court.
9.1. In New Reviera Coop. Housing Society v. Special
Land Acquisition Officer, [(1996) 1 SCC 731] at para 3,
this Court held:
“3….Once the award has been made and compensation
has been deposited or paid under Section 31 of the Act,
the Land Acquisition Officer is entitled to take
possession and the possession thereby taken stands
vested in the State under Section 16 of the Act free
from all encumbrances…”
9.2. In Sunder v. Union of India, [(2001) 7 SCC 211]
at para 24, this Court held:
“24…. What the legislature intended was to make the
aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach
the hands of the person as and when the award is
passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the
possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of
the said sum should enable the party to have interest
– 38 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016on the said sum until he receives the payment.
Splitting up the compensation into different
components for the purpose of payment of interest
under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the
legislature when that section was framed or enacted.”
9.3. In Bangalore Development Authority v. R.
Hanumaiah, [(2005) 12 SCC 508] at para 47, this
Court held:
” 47….Section 31 contemplates that on making of an
award under Section 11 the Collector shall tender
amount of compensation awarded by him to the person
interested and entitled thereto according to the award
and shall pay to them unless prevented by any one or
more of the contingencies mentioned in the subsequent
clauses. None of those contingencies arose in the
present case. Thus, once the amount was tendered and
paid the acquisition process was complete. After
making the award under Section 11 the Collector can
take possession of the land under Section 16 which
shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free
from all encumbrances. In the instant case, after
making the payment in terms of the award, possession
was taken. The acquisition process stood
completed. …”
(underlining emphasised)
– 39 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
16. Indisputably, Award amount is not deposited
before the Civil Court as required under law and
therefore, I find force in the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the
procedure adopted by the respondent-BDA to deposit
the compensation in their R.D. Account is contrary to
the Judgment in SUKHBIR SINGH (supra). Though
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA
refers to the Layout Map enclosed in W.P.No.18273 of
2016 and on careful examination of the same would
indicate that no steps have been taken by the
respondent-BDA after issuance of the acquisition
Notifications except drawing up of the Layout Map and
no allotment of sites has been made insofar as the
land in question is concerned nor development of the
land for Layout is given effect to. That apart, as
observed above, Award amount is not deposited in a
manner known to law and therefore, following the
– 40 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs.
SMT. VIDHYA DEVI AND OTHERS in
C.A.No.14473 of 2024 disposed of on 13.12.2024,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned the
delay of 21 years in approaching the Court for
redressal of grievance of the respondents therein. It is
also relevant to cite the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of KOLKATA MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS. BIMAL KUMAR
SHAH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2024 SC 2819.
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
– 41 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
‘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 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.
– 42 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
(ii) Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section
3(1) of the Requisitioning and 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 Act, 1956, are
some statutory embodiments of this right.
– 43 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
(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, 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
– 44 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
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 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
– 45 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
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 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.
– 46 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
(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 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
– 47 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
inconclusive and causes lot of difficulties. The obligation
to conclude and complete the process of acquisition is
also part of Article 300A.
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
– 48 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
statutes have adopted these principles and
incorporated them in 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.
17. Following the declaration of law made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, I do not
find any substance in the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA,
that the writ petitions have to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches.
18. In the result, as the respondents have not taken
possession of the land in question in a manner known
to law nor deposited the compensation before the Civil
Court and that apart, the perusal of the Order dated
04.12.2009 in W.P.No.19994 of 2007, wherein, this
Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners
herein and thereafter, the petitioners are agitating
– 49 –
NC: 2025:KHC:3935
WP No. 18269 of 2016
C/W WP No. 18271 of 2016
WP No. 18272 of 2016
AND WP No. 18273 of 2016
their rights continuously, which could be inferred from
the Note Sheets/Order Sheets produced at Annexure-
G to the Writ Petitions that the petitioners are in
possession of the land in question and therefore, the
petitioners have made out a case for interference in
these Writ Petitions.
19. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) Preliminary Notification dated 07.11.2002
and the Final Notification 09.09.2003 issued by
the respondent-BDA are hereby quashed in
respect of the subject land in these Writ
Petitions. All further consequent actions of the
respondent – BDA, are hereby set aside.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB: List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2
