Muni Reddy and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Since common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision making, with the consent of learned counsel, petitions are clubbed together, heard finally and disposed of by this order.

Petitioner No. 1 in W.P.2370-72/2015 claim to be the son of one Thayappa, while petitioners 2 and 3 the legal heirs of deceased Venkataswamy Reddy, the kathedar of land measuring 13.08 guntas each (petitioners 2 and 3 together) totalling to 27 guntas in Sy. No. 9 of Hulimavu village, subject matter of acquisition for formation of BTM VI Stage layout by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority, (BDA) under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, for short ''BDA Act''. It is stated that Munireddy, S/o. Thayappa being the Khatedar, his name is found at Sl.NO.35 in the preliminary notification dated 8.9.1987 Annexure-E in respect of the entire extent of 27 guntas in Sy. No. 9 as the Khatedar and at Sl. No. 29 to the Final Notification dated 28.7.1990 Annexure-F. Petitioners 2 and 3 assert that Venkataswamy Reddy acquired is 13.08 guntas and the said acquisition of rights recorded in the RTC pahani as well as in the mutation register indicated in column Nos. 9 and 10 of the RTC Pahani extract for the year 2013-14 Annexure-B. So also the right of the 3rd petitioner in a partition is said to be recorded at MR No. 15/04-05 dated 8.2.2005. As regards the 1st petitioner-Munireddy it is submitted that 13.08 guntas of land fell to his share as recorded in the mutation register No. 9 of 1970-71 as indicated in columns 9 and 10 of the RTC Pahani, Annexure-B.

At the threshold it must be pointed out that at Sl. No. 35 of Preliminary notification records the name of Munireddy, S/o. Thayappa as owner/kathedar of 27 guntas of land in Sy. No. 9 of Hulimavu village, so also in the final notification. It is not known as to how Venkataswamy Reddy, S/o. Muniyappa acquired title to 13.08 guntas, while the claim of the 2nd petitioner-Anusuyamma said to be the widow of one Venkataswamy Reddy is not supported by any record. Yet again it is not known as to what is the relationship of Saraswathamma-3rd petitioner said to be the wife of one late Muniraju, either with Venkataswamy Reddy or Muniraju or Munireddy although in paragraph 1 of the memorandum of writ petition, it is stated the petitioners 2 and 3 are jointly in possession of 13.08 guntas since in the joint names as Venkataswamy Reddy is their husband. Therefore, there is a cloud over the right of 2nd and 3rd petitioner to 13.08 guntas of land in Sy. No. 9 said to belong to Venkataswamy Reddy. This dispute cannot be conveniently adjudicated in a writ proceeding. In that view of the matter, petitioners 2 and 3 having failed to establish their relationship with Venkataswamy Reddy cannot maintain these petitions.

Petitioner in W.P.2373/2015 claims to be the widow of late M. Ramakrishnappa, who is said to have been the owner of 24 guntas of land in Sy. No. 16/2 of Hulimavu village, while the preliminary notification dated 8.9.1987 Annexure-F at Sl. No. 49, records the name of M. Ramakrishnappa, S/o. Muthappa as the kathedar of land in sy. No. 16/2 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas of Hulimavu village, repeated at Sl. No. 43 of the Final Notification dated 28.7.1990 Annexure-G, while the RTC Pahani extract for the year 1982-83 Annexure-C1, is in respect of land in Sy. No. 16/2 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas of Hulimavu village, records at column No. 9, the name of K. Vasudev, S/o. Kullappa in brackets and the name of M. Ramakrishnappa, S/o. Muthappa, and in column No. 10 records that by way of a sale the said person having acquired title as also recorded in the mutation register 80/81-82. The extract of the mutation register Annexure-B indicates that the property was purchased by M. Ramakrishnappa from Vasudev, S/o. Kullappa. The name of M. Ramakrishnappa is found in the RTC Pahani at C1 series over as on 2013-14 although it is contended that Ramakrishnappa died on 25.10.1996. There is no evidence or proof of the fact that petitioner is the widow of said late M. Ramakrishnappa. It is in this context petitioner has no locu standi to maintain this petition. In any event, adjudication of the legal heirship of the petitioner it is not convenient in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1st and 3rd petitioners in W.P. No. 2374-76/2015 claim to be the sons of late Chikkamarappa, while 3rd petitioner the widow of one late Krishnamurthy another son of Chikkamarappa. It is asserted that Chikkamarappa was the owner of 24 guntas of land in sy. No. 80/2 of Arakere village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South taluk and had three sons viz., 1st and 3rd petitioners and one Krishnamurthy, who is reportedly dead and represented by the 2nd petitioner. According to the petitioners the land belonging to Chikkamarappa was proposed for acquisition under Final Notification dated 28.7.1990 at Sl. No. 228 Annexure-E. Except for the death certificate of Chikkamarappa S/o. late Venkatappa and H.C. Krishnamurthy, S/o. Chikkamarappa, Annexures-B and C, respectively, there is not a titre of evidence to establish that petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased, in fact the RTC Pahani extract, Annexure-A for the year 2013-14 records the name of Chikkamarappa and not that of petitioners as owners of Sy. No. 80/2 measuring 24 guntas of Arakere village. Petitioners have no locu standi to maintain these petitions, on mere assertions to be legal heirs of deceased Chikkamarappa.

Petitioners in W.P.2377-79 claim to be the legal representatives of one Munigangappa, the owner of land measuring 37 guntas in Sy. No. 35/1 and 11 guntas, in Sy. No. 45/3 of Devarachikkanahalli to have fallen to the share of the husband of the 2nd petitioner and to the 3rd petitioner under a partition deed dated 24.4.1970, while originally an extent of 1 acre 11 guntas belonged to one Arakere Venkatappa. It is the claim of the 1st petitioner that her husband Munigangappa was granted land under grant order dated 20.12.1982 although the notified kathedar in the land acquisition proceeding is wrongly shown as Nagappa in respect of land in Sy. No. 35/1 of Devarachikkanahalli measuring 37 guntas. So also the 2nd petitioner claims to be the widow of Krishna Reddy in possession of 11 guntas of land, while the 3rd petitioner, in respect of 11 guntas in same Sy. No. 45/3 of Devarachikkanahalli. According to the said petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, the acquisition notifications did not disclose their names but the name of one Arakere Venkatappa as the notified kathedar in respect of land in Sy. No. 45/3. In the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of proof of relationship, petitioners 1 and 2 have no locu standi to maintain these petitions.

In all these petitions it is the common grievance of the petitioners that the lands mentioned supra, though subject matter of acquisition for a public purpose i.e., for formation of BTM VI Stage layout by the respondent-BDA under the ''BDA Act'', nevertheless, compensation was neither paid nor possession taken over and that all of them continue to be in possession of the lands in question and further that in several Judgments of this Court, the scheme formulated by the BDA for BTM VI Stage layout is declared lapsed under Section 27 of the ''BDA Act'' and therefore, are entitled to same reliefs. The common reliefs in these petitions to declare as lapsed the scheme of BTM VI Stage layout under the preliminary and final notifications insofar as petitioners'' lands are concerned, under Section 27 of the ''BDA Act'' read with 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Petitions are opposed orally by the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3-BDA, who on making reference to the Land Acquisition records submits that in W.P.2370-72/2015, the award was passed on 30.6.1974; amount deposited in the Civil Court on 28.7.1995 and possession taken on 29.10.2014 by issue of notification under Subsection (2) of Section 16 of the ''BDA Act''. As regards W.P.2373/2015 it is submitted that the award was passed on 1.10.1993 compensation deposited in the Civil Court on 28.2.1995 and possession taken on 16.6.1994 by issue of notification under Subsection (2) of Section 16 of the "BDA Act''. As regards in W.P.2374-76/2015 it is submitted that the award was passed on 23.10.1993, compensation was not deposited but possession taken on 16.6.1994. In respect of W.P.2377-79/2015, it is the submission of the learned counsel that award was passed on 3.9.1997, compensation deposited in the reference court on 2.4.2001 and possession taken on 8.2.2001 by issue of notification under Subsection (2) of Section 16 of the ''BDA Act''.

Sri. G.L. Vishwanath, learned counsel for petitioners submits that application under Subsection (2) of Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not apply since acquisition in question is under the ''BDA Act'' and not the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The second submission that petitioners are entitled to the very same relief of declaration that acquisition has lapsed under Section 27 of the ''BDA Act'' as has been done in other cases is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents-BDA on the premise that in one of Judgments this Court though recorded a finding that the scheme known as BTM VI Stage layout has lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, nevertheless observed that the layout is formed in an extent of 31 acres in Hulimavu village, 7 acres in Arakere village from out of total extent of 388 acres 09 guntas. Learned counsel hastens to add that there is no material forthcoming from the petitions as to whether the properties of petitioners are subject matter of layout since formed. Petitioners having not shown that their lands have been excluded in the formation of the layout hence are not entitled to any relief.

To a question of this Court as to whether orders of the learned Single Judge passed in other petitions declares the acquisition proceeding as illegal or arbitrary, Sri. G.L. Vishwanath, learned counsel is candid in his submission that there is no such declaration.

A reading of Section 27 of the BDA Act makes it abundantly clear that if the Scheme has lapsed then the resultant position is that the BDA is not at liberty to pursue further action for acquisition either by taking possession or even the passing of an award or such related action. The inevitable conclusion is that Section 27 of the BDA Act operates and therefore, further action for either taking possession of the land or for vacating such persons cannot be permitted and even the legal position as noticed by this Court in W.P.38101/2010 and connected matters disposed of on 27.7.2011 is that even the land notified for acquisition has already vested in the State, but thereafterwards the scheme lapses, it does not result in an automatic divesting of the land, is the position noticed by the Supreme Court in Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, (2011) 1 JT 384 : (2011) 1 SCALE 533 : (2011) 3 SCC 139 : (2011) 1 SCR 453 : (2011) 1 UJ 509 . The implementation of the scheme may not be possible any further because the scheme has lapsed assuming that in some cases that the land had vested in the State Government which depends upon the factual situation, it will be necessary for the State or BDA in such a way to take possession of the said land in a manner known to law but not resorting to any coercive or arbitrary method, but seek recovery of possession only before a Civil Court based on their title if they make good their case before Civil Court. If at all the scheme is said to have lapsed in a particular case based upon the facts of that case and the principles governed therein, it does not mean that that decision will apply to all cases based upon the existence of land covered by the notification since such a declaration cannot be extended in the absence of relevant material to establish that the properties in question are not utilized for the formation of the layout as in the present case to the extent of 31 acres in Hulimavu village and 7 acres in Arakere village.

A faint submission was made by Sri. L.G. Vishwanath that several orders passed by this Court in several writ petitions in relation to BTM VI Stage layout declaring the scheme lapsed, the same should be made applicable to the petitioners too, I am afraid, is unacceptable in the facts and circumstances supra.

In the result, these petitions without merit are rejected.