AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—The facts of the case are stated to be as follows: The land bearing Survey No. 109 of Mathikere village, Bangalore North Taluk was said to measure a total extent of 2 acres 36 guntas. The same was said to have been the subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''BDA Act'', for brevity). The owners of the land are said to have sold about 1 acre and 16 guntas to one Gujjappa under a registered sale deed, dated 2.3.1972. Gujjappa, in turn, is said to have sold 19 guntas out of 1 acre and 16 guntas to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), for the purposes of formation of a road by the said Authority, under a sale deed dated 4.2.1977. He had retained an extent of 37 guntas of the remaining land. Gujjappa is said to have died on 3.12.1978.
The preliminary notification, in the above said acquisition proceedings, was said to have been issued on 3.1.1977. The final notification was said to have been issued on 31.8.1978. It is however, the claim of the petitioners that possession was never taken of the extent of 37 guntas that was held by Gujjappa and after him his legal heirs. The petitioners are said to have purchased the said extent of land from the legal heirs of Gujjappa under a registered sale deed dated 25.11.2004. It is claimed that the vendor of the petitioners had approached the State Government - seeking that the government withdraw from the acquisition proceedings in so far as the above extent of land is concerned. It is further claimed that the State government, after taking into consideration all relevant factors, had issued a notification u/s 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (Hereinafter referred to as the ''L.A. Act'', for brevity) dated 30.12.2009, withdrawing from the acquisition proceedings, in so far as the above extent of land is concerned.
However, without assigning any reason, the State Government had unilaterally cancelled the above notification issued u/s 48(1) of the L.A. Act, by a further notification dated 20.10.2010. It is this action of the State that is sought to be questioned by the petitioner.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that once a notification is issued u/s 48(1) of the L.A. Act, the State could not cancel the same after a lapse of ten months, without assigning any valid reason.
The fourth petitioner suspects that as he was a member of the Legislative Assembly and also a Cabinet Minister, who had been part of a rebel group expressing loss of confidence with the then Chief Minister, around the very date on which the cancellation of the notification u/s 48(1) of the L.A. Act was issued, it is claimed that the action was clearly mala fide and was apparently issued only in order to wreak vengeance against the said petitioner.
The impugned notification is issued without notice to the petitioners and without an opportunity of hearing, in clear violation of principles of natural justice.
The State government has, in its pleadings, contended that the notification u/s 48(1) of the L.A. Act had been issued on the wrong notion that possession of the land had not been taken. But as per the report submitted by the BDA, it transpires that a notification u/s 16(2) of the L.A. Act had been issued on 8.9.1983 itself and that the land was in fact, reserved for a park, a road and a civic amenity. And further that there was also a notification dated 26.2.2005 reserving the land, for the benefit of a Prathamesha Apartments Housing Co-operative Society Limited. It is hence contended that as possession had been taken, the land vested in the State and hence the issuance of the notification u/s 48(1) of the L.A. Act was without jurisdiction and a nullity and hence has been cancelled by the impugned notification.
The BDA, in turn, has endorsed the stand of the State government that it did inform the State government of possession of the land having been taken much prior to the issuance of the notification u/s 48(1) of the L.A. Act and hence, the impugned notification being in accordance with law.
The petitioners have by way of rejoinder pointed out that the BDA had, by a letter to the Secretary to the Chief Minister, prior to the issuance of the notification u/s 48(1), intimated that the said extent of 37 guntas of land continued to remain in the possession of the owners and that the land had not been developed. The said letter dated 19.6.2007 had not been disputed by the BDA in a civil suit that was also filed by the petitioners in connection with the very land.
In the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the action of the State government in performing a "flip-flop" is being attributed to the divergent reports submitted by the BDA once at the instance of the Chief Minister, when the BDA was apparently called upon to make a status report of the land in question to consider the representation made by the vendor of the petitioners seeking that the State withdraw from the acquisition proceedings, in having reported that possession of the land had remained with the land owners and later, having reported (it is not clear for what reason and at whose instance) that the BDA had taken possession of the land as early as in the year 1983.
It is in this background that at the hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General, Shri Kantharaj did submit that the State government has proceeded on the basis of information provided by the BDA, in cancelling the notification issued u/s 48(1) - if the information provided was true and correct, the provocation for the action was irrelevant and not material. Hence, the question for consideration before this court is as to whether the BDA was acting on the basis of material evidence in taking contradictory positions at different points of time. The BDA has made available the relevant record. A close perusal of the same does not disclose any material in support of the assertion that possession of the land had been taken in the year 1983. Though a feeble attempt is made by the learned counsel for the BDA that this bench should take note of certain observations made in an appeal, against an interlocutory order passed in a civil suit by the petitioners, by this court in its appellate jurisdiction-that would hardly be relevant nor warranted - when on the basis of the record, the BDA is unable to sustain its primary contention that physical possession had been taken of the land and hence the State could not withdraw from the acquisition proceedings.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned notification is quashed.