H. Ravindra vs State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ''B'' group is considered for final disposal in the following circumstances:

It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing Survey No. 48/3 measuring 1 acre 24 guntas was the ancestral property of the petitioner and at family partition amongst petitioner''s father and petitioner''s uncles, the said land was said to have fallen to the share of the petitioner''s father and katha was made out in his name under mutation proceedings in M.R. No. 1/1986-87 and his name finds place in Column No. 12 of the RTC for the years 1983-84 to 1996-97.

It transpires that the State sought to acquire the land under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ''the BDA Act'' for short) vide Notification dated 8.9.1987 for the formation of Byrasandra Tavarekere Madivala, VI stage Layout, which was duly published in the Official Gazette on 11.2.1988 notifying the lands in Hulimavu village and Arekere, totally about 805 acres. It was followed by a Final Notification u/s 19 of the BDA Act dated 28.7.1990 and the land notified in Hulimavu village was about 383 acres 9 guntas and for Arakere village, about 174 acres 25 guntas substantially having given up much extent of the land from the acquisition proceedings.

The petitioner''s father is stated to have filed Writ Petition Nos. 20243 & 20244/1990 along with other connected petitions challenging the acquisition. The petitions were however disposed of with certain observations by an order dated 10.9.1996. The petitioner''s family after having obtained a share at a partition, have been in possession of the same and there exists a farm house, apart from labourers'' sheds on the property and the same is being remodeled. Pursuant to the acquisition proceedings, other lands in the vicinity were already taken possession of by the respondent and sites were formed over the same. As far as the petitioner''s lands were concerned, there were no further proceedings and no award was passed. The petitioner made an application by recourse to the Right to Information Act and had obtained information whereby his possession is affirmed with no further proceedings having been taken in so far as petitioner''s land bearing Survey No. 48/3 is concerned. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court on the short ground that in so far as land bearing Survey No. 48/3 measuring 1 acre 24 guntas is concerned, the further acquisition proceedings not having been taken by the respondents and Final Notification being issued in the year 1990, it could be said that the acquisition proceedings have been abandoned by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner should be free to utilize the land in accordance with land as a truthful owner notwithstanding the notification of the proceedings in the above circumstances.

The learned counsel appearing for BDA has filed statement of objections to resist the petition to contend that the petition is barred by delay and laches and notwithstanding allegations and the contentions raised, the petition had to be rejected solely on the ground of delay without entering into merits of the case.

It is pointed out that even otherwise, the petitioner is precluded from raising any claim in the petition as the father of the petitioner one Honnappa had filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 14,22,000/- in respect of the very land which is the subject matter of the present petition and in view of claim of compensation having been raised, the question of challenging the acquisition will not arise. It is also pointed out that an extent of 24 guntas, out of total extent of 1 acre 24 guntas, in the aforesaid survey number had been voluntarily surrendered by the father of the petitioner without any consideration and has been utilized for the formation of road, to that extent, the same stands vested in the State and that there can be no claim to the extent of 24 guntas of land. In this way, the learned counsel for the BDA would deny that the petitioner has any right at this remote point of time to challenge the acquisition proceedings.

Given the above facts and circumstances, it is not in dispute that the State Government has not taken any further steps pursuant to the draft award having been prepared on 10.8.2010. Further from the year 1990 to 2010, there is no indication of any steps having been taken in so far as the extent of land belonging to the petitioner is concerned. It is therefore evident that the even though the BDA had formed a layout in terms of the original scheme, but the portion of the land belonging to the petitioner, which is the subject matter of this petition, has been apparently abandoned. Except that, admittedly an extent of 24 guntas of land has been utilized for formation of road and it is also on record that the petitioner''s father had voluntarily surrendered the same. Though the learned counsel for the BDA would submit that there had been a voluntary surrender of land without there being any compensation and that the petitioner is not in a position to lay claim to the same as the same stands vested in the State Government, it is seen that the offer made by the father of the petitioner was that 1 acre of land shall be dropped from the acquisition proceedings and had voluntarily given up 24 guntas of land. This not being acted upon, but the BDA having chosen to utilize 24 guntas of land, it has to compensate the petitioner to the extent of 24 guntas of land as apparently 24 guntas had vested in the State Government, correspondingly there was no benefit extended to the petitioner''s family.

In so far as other 1 acre of land is concerned, even though a draft award is prepared, but no further proceedings took place nor any compensation is paid to the father of the petitioner or to the petitioner. Therefore, in all fairness when the land to the extent of 24 guntas has been utilized by the State for formation of road and if, in the circumstances, vested in State Government, it stands to reason that the petitioner should be adequately compensated on the very basis the other adjacent land owners were compensated. Hence, petitioner is held entitled to compensation at the same rate as been paid to erstwhile land owners in the vicinity with such statutory benefits and interest that would accrue on the said compensation to the extent of 24 guntas of land bearing Survey No. 48/3 is concerned. In so far as the remaining extent of 1 acre of land is concerned, it cannot be said that the State can indefinitely pursue the acquisition proceedings in the absence of any further proceedings having been taken pursuant to the final notification, except drawing up a draft award, as late as in the year 2010, which would have no effect at all so far as assuming possession and claiming the land to be a part of the acquired lands.

Hence, the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the land to an extent of 1 acre of aforestated Survey No. 48/3, situated at Hulimavu village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, stands quashed, subject to payment of compensation in so far as the aforesaid extent of 24 guntas is concerned. Incidentally, it is claimed by the BDA that 12 guntas, out of 24 guntas, was kharab land and therefore, the petitioner would not be in a position to claim any compensation in respect of kharab land. This is a question of fact which has not been raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings and it would necessarily be a point of issue in determining the compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of 24 guntas of land which shall be properly decided in accordance with law. Having regard to the sheer lapse of time, it is necessary that the petitioner''s case for compensation be addressed at the earliest and therefore, on the petitioner making representation, the same shall be addressed and an appropriate order be passed in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

Petition is allowed in terms of the above.