AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These petitions are considered together, as common issues arise for consideration. In WP 10962/2012, the petitioner claims as the absolute owner of land in Survey No. 248 of Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South taluk. The said land, measuring 2 acres 35 guntas, is said to have been converted for non-agricultural purposes, by an order of conversion passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1964 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules'', for brevity). The said land, after such conversion, in three distinct parcels, measuring 18.40 guntas, 18.55 guntas and 18.50 guntas, was purchased by the BEML Employees Co-operative Society Limited, under three different sale deeds dated 19.5.2003. The petitioner is said to have purchased the lands from the Society under a sale deed dated 19.9.2008. It however, transpires that the sites purchased by the petitioner were subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''BDA Act'', for brevity) whereby a preliminary notification dated 29.12.1989, duly published in The Official gazette dated 6.4.1989, proposing to acquire the land for the formation of Banashankari V Stage layout, and a final notification dated 9.5.1994 and published in the Official gazette dated 18.5.1994, were issued. However, it is the petitioner''s case that after the issuance of the final notification, though an award has been passed, the award amount has not been paid and no notice of having taken possession of the land was issued to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the erstwhile owner and after the purchase by the petitioner, the petitioner had continued to be in possession of the property. The petitioner would also point out that except in respect of portions of land, which were the subject matter of acquisition proceedings, substantial portion of the lands proposed for acquisition, have not been taken possession of. The petitioner has made available a Chart, in this regard at Annexure-F to the writ petition.
It is also the case of the petitioner that several other portions of land have been dropped from acquisition proceedings and notifications u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''LA Act'', for brevity) have been issued. It is also sought to be demonstrated that out of a total extent of 109 acres of land of Halagevaderahalli, 46 acres of land was private land and 46 acres belonged to the Government. It is evident from Annexure-J to the writ petition that the Bangalore Development Authority (Hereinafter referred to as the ''BDA'' for brevity) has not formed the layout and no sites were distributed even as on 31.3.2005.
It is hence emphasized that the lands of Halagevaderahalli have however, been subject matter of acquisition and the Scheme, under which the land was acquired, has not been implemented and therefore, even though the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser, who seeks to lay claim to the land in question, the petitioner is not precluded in the above circumstance from approaching this court, as the petitioner, as the owner of the land, the acquisition, in respect of which, is deemed to be abandoned, is entitled to develop the same in accordance with law and therefore, the rejection of his applications for sanction of such development is contrary to law. In any event, the land in question is not capable of being integrated in the layout that is formed in view of the entire land of Halagevaderahalli, having been excluded from the acquisition proceedings. It is pointed out that the BDA has issued an endorsement dated 24.6.1997, to the effect that possession of the land had not been taken by virtue of an interim order of this court. The learned Counsel seeks to place reliance on the following authorities, in support of the petition :-
Smt. Nagu Bai and others Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 2001 KAR 1169,
Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, .
The learned counsel for the respondent-BDA has filed statement of objections, to contend that the transactions under which the petitioner claims to have purchased the land in question, were void transactions, as the petitioner claims to have purchased the lands after the issuance of a preliminary notification, followed by a final notification and any such sale deeds do not bind the BDA and therefore, the petition has to be rejected as not maintainable, as the petitioner would have no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. The erstwhile owner of the land was the Kailas Ashrama Mahasamsthana Trust, as on the date of the preliminary notification and was duly notified. Objections had been filed on behalf of the Trust, which had also made appeals to drop the acquisition proceedings. However, an award was passed on 24.7.1996, but possession had not been taken, since there was a decision of the State Government communicated to the BDA in this regard.
It is stated that in the meanwhile, the Trust had filed a writ petition in WP 16212/1997, challenging the award and there was an interim order staying dispossession. Thereafter, a Division Bench having taken up the petition, along with other writ petitions, dismissed the petitions. Those petitions pertained to the validity of Section 48 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The petitioner therein not having chosen to seek review, the said order has become final and binding on the petitioners. Though the State Government had thereafter called upon the BDA to furnish its opinion as to whether the land was suitable for inclusion in the layout to be formed and though the BDA had answered in the affirmative, the delay in taking possession was on account of the interim orders passed by the courts, as also the unrelenting pressure brought by the aforesaid Trust on the State Government to drop the lands from acquisition proceedings.
Though it is denied that all the lands of Halagevaderahalli have been dropped from acquisition proceedings, it is not specifically denied that possession has not been taken of the lands in question. The BDA however, emphasized that the delay in not taking possession of the land cannot be attributed to it and that it was in the aforesaid background of litigation and the interim orders that the same may have been delayed.
The State Government has filed statement of objections to state that though the award has been passed and possession is not taken, this would not in any way render the acquisition proceedings as being invalid or ineffective.
In WP 10964/2012, the petitioner is a Co-operative Society claiming as the absolute owner of land bearing survey no. 202, measuring 2 acres of Halagevaderahalli and claims to have purchased the property on 29.3.2004. It is said that the petitioner is a registered society, formed with an objective of developing a residential layout for distribution of house sites to its members. It is claimed that the land was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural and residential purposes, by an order dated 23.5.2003 passed by the competent authority, under the KLR Rules and it is thereafter that the land was purchased by the petitioner for the purpose as aforesaid. It is also admitted that the land was the subject mater of acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and the very notifications which are subject matter of first of these petitions and the very identical circumstances are pleaded in contending that possession had not been taken of the land in question and therefore, the Scheme would lapse and the land would revert to the owners. Hence, the petitioner seeks a declaration to that effect and also seeks a direction to the BDA, to consider their applications for grant of No Objection Certificate, to convey the lands, which have been formed into sites, to its members.
The BDA, in its statement of objections, would reiterate that the purchase by the petitioner being subsequent to the acquisition proceedings, is not binding on the BDA. It is denied that all the lands of Halagevaderahalli have been denotified from acquisition proceedings and would submit that in view of a series of proceedings before this court as well as the City Civil Court, Bangalore, the details of which are furnished at Annexures-R.5 to R.7, there was delay in taking possession of the lands in question. That however, would not render the acquisition proceedings as being invalid, as the Scheme has been substantially implemented and would deny that the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have any bearing on the case on hand.
In WP 10965/2012, the petitioner is a co-operative society and claims as the owner of the land in survey No. 243 of Halagevaderahalli, measuring 2 acres 24.5 guntas and claims that the land has been granted in favour of the society by the Government for the purpose of formation of drainage and sewerage connections to the houses constructed by the society and that the society also intends to construct a water treatment plant for the proposed layout to be formed in other lands, that are acquired for the purpose. Attention is also drawn to an order dated 24.8.2004, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, has collected the market price and the conversion fee in respect of the land in question and a permanent grant certificate dated 30.12.2004 having been issued in favour of the petitioner and the RTC entries having been made out in favour of the petitioner-society, it is the very same land which is the subject matter of acquisition under the provisions of the BDA Act for the purposes of formation of Banashankari 5th Stage.
It is the claim of the petitioner that it has continued in occupation of the property and that possession of the land has not been taken pursuant to the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner also raised the contentions as raised in other petitions of the Scheme, under which the lands were acquired, not having been implemented in respect of Halagevaderahalli etc.
The State Government as well as the BDA have filed similar objections, conceding that the possession of the land has never been taken. In the above facts and circumstances, the common feature in all these petitions is that, though the lands in question in each of the petitions are subject matter of acquisition proceedings, it is not in dispute that the possession of the lands has not been taken by the State even as on date. The acquisition being under the provisions of the BDA Act, the law as laid down by the apex court as to the effect of Sections 27 and 36 of the BDA Act is clear. It is laid down that where upon completion of the acquisition proceedings, the land has vested in the State Government in terms of Section 16 of the LA Act, the acquisition would not lapse or terminate as a result of lapsing of the Scheme u/s 27 of the BDA Act. There is no provision, under which, the property once vested in the State could be reverted to the owner on any condition. But this may not apply in cases where the land has not vested in the Government in terms of Section 16 of the LA Act. Though there is reference to litigation, by virtue of which, there was delay in taking possession of the land, attention of this court is not drawn to any order that continued to be in force, which prevented the State from taking possession of the land and handing over the same to the BDA. In the absence of any such reason shown, especially, in the light of the laconic pleadings on behalf of the State Government, would leave no doubt that the acquisition proceedings insofar as the lands of the respective petitioners are concerned, are abandoned for all purposes. If the further contention on behalf of the BDA is that the scheme has been substantially implemented, it would then follow that the need of the lands of the petitioners is not felt insofar as Banashankari V Stage Layout is concerned. Therefore, it would have to be declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners'' lands are abandoned and accordingly, have lapsed. The petitioners, though are all subsequent purchases, who were certainly not in a position to challenge the acquisition proceedings, but are entitled to seek a declaration as aforesaid, as was the view taken of a division bench of this court in Smt. Nagu Bai, supra. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to deal with the property in accordance with law. The applications filed by the petitioners for such sanction, permissions and No Objection Certificates, in order to deal with the properties, would have to be considered by the competent authorities, including the BDA.
With that observation, the petitions are allowed.