Smt. Muniyamma and Others vs The Commissioner and Another

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J

Petitioners have sought for quashing the modified layout plan approved by 1st respondent on 17.05.2012 at Annexure-J. They have also sought for setting aside the sale deeds executed by 1st respondent in respect of sites bearing Nos. 4 to 6, 9 to 14 in favour of the 2nd respondent. Alternatively, they have also sought for declaration that scheme of 1st respondent in respect of Sy. No. 48/5 (new No. 129), situated at Nagarabhavi Village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring 4 acres 4 guntas. According to the petitioners, they are joint owners of land bearing Sy. No. 48/5 (new No. 129) situated at Nagarabhavi Village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring 4 acres 4 guntas.

The Bangalore Development Authority notified Sy. No. 48/5 (New No. 129) measuring 4 acres 4 guntas situated at Nagarabhavi Village along with various other properties for acquisition by issuing notification u/s 17(1) of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 dated 15.07.1982. The final notification u/s 19(1) of said Act was issued on 16.08.1985. According to the petitioners, though the land is acquired along with other lands, the scheme relating to Nagarabhavi Second Stage is not implemented in respect of the property in question and therefore, the scheme has lapsed and consequently, they are entitled to get back aforementioned lands in their favour.

The writ petition is opposed by the learned Counsel for respondent-Bangalore Development Authority as well as respondent No. 2, by contending that the land acquisition process has attained finality and therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to pray for reopening of the entire matter. It is submitted on behalf of respondent No. 2 that in the area in question, sites are formed and the land losers in the Ring road scheme have been already allotted sites under incentive scheme. Thus according to the respondent-BDA, the scheme is implemented--fully.

It is not in dispute that preliminary notification is issued u/s 17(1) dated 15.07.1982 and final notification u/s 19(1) is dated 16.08.1985. The possession of the land along with other lands have been taken over by publishing the notification u/s 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act and u/s 37 of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. The award of compensation was passed for payment to the rightful claimants.

It is relevant to note that the land bearing survey No. 129 measuring to an extent of 4 acres 7 guntas (including 7 guntas of karab) situated at Nagarabhavi village was standing in the name of Venkata bin Mudalagiri in the revenue records. However, no claim from any one is made in spite of service of notice under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 14 of Land Acquisition Act. In spite of service of notice under the aforementioned provisions and public notice, no one has submitted any claim petition. Award amount has been deposited under Sections 31 and 32 of Land Acquisition Act in the Civil Court. Mahazar was drawn on 26.10.1987, in L.A. Case No. 61/85-86 as per Section 16 of Land Acquisition Act and the possession is taken in respect of land in question. Thus it is clear that the entire process of acquisition is already over.

Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage layout is a very big project. According to the petitioners, the scheme is not yet implemented in respect of 4 acres 4 guntas and therefore, the entire scheme has lapsed. Such argument cannot be accepted. The law is well settled from catena of judgments, that if substantial progress is made in the implementation of the scheme and the scheme is implemented substantially, it would be sufficient. In the matter on hand, the entire scheme of Nagarabhavi 2nd stage Layout is implemented including even the land in question. The sites are formed and sites are allotted to the 3rd parties including respondent No. 2 and even sale deeds are executed. In view of the same, no interference is called for. Merely because, the BDA has modified its layout plan to certain extent, the petitioners would not get any benefit of the same. There is nothing on record to show that as to how they are concerned with the property in question.

Be that as it may, acquisition proceedings is already completed and scheme relating to Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage is implemented fully. Hence, no interference is called for.

Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.