AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner''s claim that one Annamma grand mother of the 1st petitioner and mother of petitioners 2 to 5, purchased 2 Acre and 15 guntas of land in Sy. No. 13/2 of Dasarahalli, Bangalore East Taluk, under a conveyance deed dated 13.7.1964 Annexure-A, whereafterwards, the said Annamma sold 32 guntas from out of 2 acres 15 guntas in favour of Nagaraju, s/o late Venkatappa and therefore, Annamma was the full and absolute owner of 1 acre 23 guntas and on her death is said to have left behind her husband Sri Chinnappa who too died intestate leaving behind petitioners, who put up construction of building prior to 1990 and are residing therein. Petitioners names were recorded in the revenue records in the RTC Pahani for the year 2002-2003, pursuant to M.R. 31/2000-2001, Annexure-B, in an extent of 9 guntas each totaling to 45 guntas. According to the petitioners, the RTC Pahani for 2002-03 discloses the extent of land in Sy. No. 13/2 as 1 gunta and 9 Acres 33 guntas phut kharab ''B'', totalling to 9 Acres 34 guntas. The RTC Pahani records the names of the holders and extents.
Land measuring 9 acres 20 guntas from out of 9 acres 33 guntas in Sy. No. 13/2 when proposed for acquisition, the khathedars amongst others was shown as Lakshmakka, the vendor of Smt. Annamma in the preliminary notification dated 3.02.2003, Annexure-C and the final notification Annexure-D. It is the assertion of the petitioners that Bangalore Development Authority, (for short ''BDA'') by the impugned notification for acquisition of land bearing Sy. No. 13/2, found several building constructed on the land prior to 2002-2003 whence a sketch Annexure-E was prepared by the office of the Commissioner.
It is the further assertion of the petitioners that in the preliminary notification Sy. No. 13/2 measuring 9 Acres 20 guntas is described as bounded on:
"East by: Sy. No. 12,
West by: Sy. No. 13/1 and 14,
North by: Sy. No. 11 and
South by: Sy. No. 18"
In the final notification dated 23.2.2004, the extent of 4 Acres 24 guntas in Sy. No. 13/2 from out of 9 Acres 33 guntas is bounded by the very same boundaries as mentioned in the preliminary notification. It is said, that land is Sy. No. 13/1 was not proposed for acquisition while from out of 6 acres 15 guntas in Sy. No. 14 an extent of 1 acre was notified. Like wise, it is stated that Sy. No. 18, when bifurcated as Sy. No. 18/1A, and 18/1B, it was Sy. No. 18/1A measuring 3 acres 4 guntas was notified for acquisition, while Sy. No. 18/1B, Sy. No. 18/2A were left out of acquisition, as indicated in the Final notification Annexure-''D''.
It is the allegation of the petitioners that they have been discriminated as the total extent of land proposed for acquisition though was 225.18 acres in Dasarahalli village for Arakavathi layout, nevertheless, excluded substantial extents of land. After such exclusion, it is contended BDA re-modified the scheme for Arakavathi Layout, on the premise that the Commissioner, BDA ascertained the lands proposed for acquisition under the re-modified scheme fell within the guidelines of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench. It is asserted that a second final notification dated 18.6.2014 Annexure ''H'' reduced the extent of land acquired in Dasarahalli from 225.18 acres to 159.15 acres, whereunder, from out of 9 acres 34 guntas in Sy. No. 13/2, an extent of 1 acre 26 guntas was proposed for acquisition with the following boundaries:--
"East by : land measuring 3 Acre 03 guntas
West by : Sy No: 13/1; 14
North by : Sy No: 11
South by : Sy. No: 18"
While land in Sy. No. 18/1A measuring 3 acres 04 guntas was sought to be acquired.
These petitions are filed to quash the revised final notification and in the alternative, to issue direction to respondents-2 and 3 to ascertain whether the lands of the petitioners falls within the guidelines of the Division Bench judgment and a further direction not to dispossess the petitioners from the land until the aforesaid exercise is concluded.
Learned counsel for petitioners reiterates the averments set out in the memorandum of writ petition to submit that the acquisition proceeding is null and void, while there are no records to substantiate the fact of 9 guntas claimed by each of the petitioners is divided by metes and bounds having separate boundaries.
Learned counsel for the BDA submits that in the absence of records relating to the exact location of 9 guntas each claimed by the petitioners in Sy. No. 13/2 since the total extent is 9 Acres 34 guntas, petitioners cannot challenge the final notification.
In the sale deed, dated 16.07.1964, copy of which is at Annexure-A, 2 acres 15 guntas of land in Sy. No. 13/2 of Dasarahalli is described as bounded on the:
"East : Narayanaswamy''s land and Munivenkatappa Hola,
West: Chikkanjaniappa Hola,
North : Munishamppan Hola and,
South : Kaverappa Hola,"
was conveyed in favour of one Annamma by one Lakshmidevamma. Those boundaries are not the very same boundaries recorded in either the preliminary or final notifications much less the second final notification since the boundaries mentioned in the second final notification are on the East 3 Acres 03 guntas of land in Sy. No. 13/2; West by: Sy. No. 13/1 and Sy. No. 14; North by Sy. No. 11 and South by: Sy. No. 18 insofar as 1 acre 26 guntas is concerned. The boundaries set out in the petition schedule is as if 1 acre 26 guntas is the very same land purchased by Annamma in the sale deed Annexure-A. Therefore, there is lack of locational identity of the petition schedule lands.
In the memorandum of writ petition, it is stated that M.R. 31/2000-01 recorded the names of the petitioners as disclosed in the RTC pahanis for the year 2002-03 Annexure-B.
"(i) In column No. 9, in Annexure-B, the following names are recorded:
(ii) Column No. 12, it is mentioned as 2002-2003 and in the cultivators column, the following names are set out:
(iii) In the page next after Annexure-B, RTC, is another RTC form, it does not certify, the relevant year in which it is issued but records the name in Column No. 9 thus:
(iv) In the cultivators column, the names of aforesaid persons are also shown without showing the extent of land.
(v) So also in RTC pahani at page No. 3, the names of Alphonse and Anthony Swamy are shown in the cultivators column without showing the extents. The RTC extract, Annexure-D does not indicate the boundaries of lands, portions of which are said to be in the names of several parties noticed supra."
In the second final notification, Annexure-H, at Sl. No. 3, names of notified khathedars, other than petitioners, are recorded as against Sy. No. 13/2, measuring 9 acre 34 guntas from out of which, the extent proposed for acquisition is 1 acre 26 guntas, with the boundaries noticed supra at paragraph 8.
Although, it is asserted that 1 acre 26 guntas proposed to be acquired is the very same property held by the petitioners, nevertheless is unacceptable in the absence of relevant records constituting substantial legal evidence of said fact. It must be noticed that 1 acre 26 guntas, even assuming, is the very same land purchased under the sale deed Annexure-A, was classified garden-flower and not buildings, in the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of fact of construction of buildings, it is not possible to accept the submission of the petitioners that buildings are erected in accordance with law on agricultural lands. The lands belonging to the petitioners is not converted to non-agricultural residential use by an order of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 nor a conversion certificate issued by the Tahsildar or receipt evidencing factum of payment of conversion fee, much less, payment of taxes for such converted land. So also, there are no building plans duly sanctioned by the authorities concerned, pursuant to which construction of building is carried out on the lands.
Apparently, there is no material to establish bifurcation of 9 guntas of land in Sy. No. 13/2 in favour of each of the petitioners; survey sketches in the matter of such bifurcation are also not made available. Tippani recording the exact boundaries of the property claimed by the petitioners are also not forthcoming. If 9 Acres 33 guntas in Sy. No. 13/2 is phut kharab ''B'', it is not known how petitioners can claim title, since the lands belong to the State in view of Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules 1966.
Petitioners seek to obtain an order based on insufficient material, hence in the circumstances, it is not possible to conclude that 1 acre 26 guntas from out of 9 acre 34 guntas in Sy. No. 13/2 proposed for acquisition in the second final notification Annexure-H is the very same property that belongs to the petitioners.
Reserving liberty to the petitioners to secure records from the revenue department or Orders/Judgments and decree from appropriate courts of law, over the exact location and boundaries of extent of 9 guntas of land each, and if it proved to fall within 1 acre 26 guntas proposed for acquisition, may question the acquisition in an appropriate proceeding.
Petitions rejected.