AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The 1st petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 65/1 measuring 16 guntas, said to have purchased under the registered sale deed dated 18/9/2006, and petitioners 2 and 3 claim to be the legal representatives of notified khatedars. The 1st petitioner along with some other land owners, had proceeded to form a residential layout called as "Lakeside Residency" and had formed 121 house sites of different dimensions and had provided amenities such as drainage, electricity, water and roads. The residential layout plan was said to have been approved by the then City Municipal Council, Krishnarajapura, Bangalore and the 1st petitioner had thereafter proceeded to sell sites to third parties. Since the area was under transition, in that, that it was to come within the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike, the sale transactions were not permitted, but several sites were said to have been "transferred" under agreements of sale. However the petitioners claim to have been paying taxes to the City Municipal Council, Krishnarajapura, in respect of the sites so formed and which have been assessed to tax as such.
In the meanwhile, the respondent No. 4 had issued notification u/s 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act, for brevity), proposing notifying the lands in Sy. Nos. 64/1, 64/2, 64/3, 64/4, 64/5, 64/6 and 64/7 of Medahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Krishnarajapuram East, Bangalore. The petitioner became aware of the acquisition proceedings only when notice u/s 28(6) of the KIAD Act was issued and the same was published in the Kannada daily newspaper "Prajavani" dated 7/7/2007. The petitioner further claims that he has been taken by surprise of the residential layout formed by him, also forming part of the acquired land, and it is thereafter that the petitioner has learnt that there was a notification issued dated 27/10/2007 proposing the acquisition of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 65/1, 65/2, 65/3, 66/1, 66/2, portion of 67/1, 70/1, 70/2, 70/3, 70/4 and 70/5 of Medahalli Village. This notification was u/s 28(1) of the KIAD Act, in which the name of the vendor of the petitioner has been indicated, calling upon him and such other owners to submit their explanation to show cause as to why the lands could not be acquired. It is on being informed by his vendor that the petitioner had submitted his objections to indicate that the petitioner had disposed off portion of the land in favour of the purchaser who had already constructed a huge building, wherein a college of law was housed and the same was being run. The petitioner claims that though the respondent No. 4 has proceeded to issue notifications from time to time, under the provisions of the KIAD Act, it is without reference to the actual situation, that the petitioner and other third parties have continued in possession of the land taken by the respondents claiming that several stages of the acquisition proceedings have been completed in accordance with law. The petitioner not having been issued with the notice of the proposed acquisition, is itself a case in point, and the petitioner even though had filed objections on learning of the proposal, the same has not been addressed by the respondent. It is in this vein that the present petitioner has elaborated in contending primarily that the petitioner had no notice of the acquisition proceedings and even though the petitioner had filed objections, after having learnt through a third party of the proposed acquisition proceedings, the said objections have also not been taken into consideration. Hence this petition.
The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have entered appearance and have filed statement of objections squarely denying the claim of the petitioners. It is pointed out that it was true that the respondents had notified a total extent of 5 acres 27 guntas of land bearing various survey numbers situated at Medahalli and the notification was duly gazetted and in furtherance of the notice, khathedars, as reflected in the revenue records, were duly notified and pursuant to the objections filed by such khathedars as well as the petitioner himself, the same have been considered.
It is contended that insofar as the petitioner''s objections are concerned, it is to the effect that the petitioner had developed the lands for the formation of residential layout, when in fact there was no change in land use as contemplated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961, nor for conversion of the land u/s 95 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964, and inspite of it, the petitioner having formed a layout, is without sanction of law and further the claim is also not borne out by the actual circumstances, in that, there are no developmentary activities undertaken and there are no such amenities provided at the alleged layout. It is thereafter, on verifying, that there are no such developments as claimed by the petitioner that further notification u/s 28(3) was issued and since the lands were being acquired for the above purposes of Bangalore Water and Sewerage and Supply Board (BWSSB, for brevity) for establishment of Sewage Treatment Plan on the said lands, there was no further impediment to take further steps in accordance with law and accordingly notice u/s 28(4) was issued as per Annexure-R5 annexed to the statement of objections, by virtue of which, the land has vested in the State and pursuant to the same, notices have been issued u/s 28(6), by which stage the present petition is sought to be filed.
Therefore, it is contended that there is no substance in the petition that the petitioner had not been issued a notice and further that possession of the land has not been taken, that the petitioner and others continue in possession of the said property.
It is further pointed out that insofar as other parcels of the land, which were also subject matter of challenge before this Court in writ proceeding in Writ Petition No. 11116/2008 [LA-KIADB], this Court, after hearing the petition on merits, has been pleased to dismiss the same.
One other contention that was raised in the course of those proceeding was that the land sought to be acquired by the BWSSB was no longer required for the purpose and to ascertain this circumstance, this Court was pleased to summon the Chairman of BWSSB who did appear before the Court and did declare that it is not true that the BWSSB has shelved its plan to establish Sewage Treatment Plan and that they have already made a deposit of a sum of Rs. 4,21,26,563/- in furtherance of the project and it is on recording such submission, the petition was dismissed.
It is also stated that the order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by way of an appeal in Writ Appeal Nos. 1596-1597/2013 [LA-KIADB] by the petitioner therein questioning on the very ground that the BWSSB had abandoned the project and therefore the very object of acquisition was lost and hence it was necessary to re-examine the case and the writ appeals also have been dismissed on merits by a judgment dated 5/6/2013. Consequently, the learned counsel would submit that by the same token of reasoning, the present petition would stand squarely covered and would have to be dismissed.
While the learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, would assail that the contention that there is no development whatsoever over the lands in question is belied by the fact that there is a three storeyed building constructed on the disputed land, in which a college is being run. This is borne out by photographs produced along with the petition. It is pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sixth respondent has already entered appearance and has produced material to disclose that there is a full-fledged college building constructed on the premises and that a college is being run therein and the further contention that no amenities are provided to the residential layout formed by the petitioner, is belied by the fact of such establishment of a college on the land and insofar as the contention that the petitioner has been afforded a hearing on the objections, is only in the circumstance that the petitioner had learnt of the acquisition proceedings indirectly and had filed his objections.
The learned counsel places reliance on another decided case by the learned Single Judge, who has, by his order dated 22/6/2012 in Writ Petition No. 11496/2008, has categorically held in respect of a portion of a land covered under the very notification that the proceedings were bad for want of notice and hence has quashed the proceedings insofar as that parcel of land is concerned and hence would yet plead that by the same token of reasoning, as the service of notice and the hearing of objections, is not on the basis of notice served on the petitioner and objections filed in response to the same. It would be just and necessary to atleast provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it is in this vein that the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 would plead that it would yet remain a contention of the petitioner and respondent No. 6 that BWSSB has in fact abandoned the project to establish Sewage Treatment Plan, in that the original proposal was to establish two units of the Sewage Treatment Plan and the BWSSB has now resolved to establish only one Sewage Treatment Plan, in which even the college building that has been established in the land in question would be saved, as the Sewage Treatment Plan that was to be established has been abandoned over the said land and it is this, which the learned counsel would seek to establish, after hearing, if further opportunity is granted and would therefore pray that the petition be allowed, atleast to the extent of providing an opportunity to the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 to establish their case that KIADB has not taken possession of land and consequently that BWSSB has abandoned this project in respect of the second unit of the Sewage Treatment Plan.
In the above facts and circumstances, having regard to the sequence of events, it is not in dispute that the State Government has issued notifications as required under the KIAD Act at several stages including a notification u/s 28(4) which would have resulted in vesting of land in the State and the present stage at which the writ petitions were filed, was when the notification u/s 28(6) was issued. Therefore, it is too late in the day for this Court to intervene, no matter the argument sought to be canvassed to the effect that the possession has not been taken or that there is development over the said land. As already pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the development that has taken place, is clearly illegal. There is no indication of change of land use or conversion of the land, preceding such development. The City Municipal Council, Krishnarajapura, would have no authority to sanction the formation of any layout. This is not known to law and therefore the pleading based on such a contention, cannot be sustained. In any event, the proceedings having reached a stage where the land has vested in the State Government and the mere claim that building has been established over the land in question, if unauthorised, cannot lend a lever to the petitions in challenging the acquisition proceedings and further, this Court in Writ Petition No. 11116/2008 already having dismissed a petition, which was filed on more or less similar grounds, the present petition would not material consideration. In any event, the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 11116/08 has attained finality by virtue of writ appeal, aforesaid, having also been dismissed.
Insofar as the order in W.P. No. 11496/08 is concerned, that order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that, notice, in fact, was not served on the land owner and on examination of her thumb prints, etc., which would be a special circumstance, in which learned Single Judge of this court has taken a particular view which was not on the merits or validity of the acquisition proceedings, consequently that would not support the case of the petitioners. The petition stands dismissed.
The learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 would submit that he has invested huge amounts of money in establishing the college of law and in view of the dismissal of the petition, it is inevitable that the building will have to be abandoned and that the respondent No. 6 would be left with no right to claim compensation in respect of the building, in the light of the observations made herein above and that the respondent No. 6 and its students will be put to irreparable hardship and therefore the representation of the respondent No. 6 having been filed before respondent Nos. 3 and 4, for allotment of alternative land in order to re-locate them, request is made that there be a direction to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider the same in accordance with law. Accordingly respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall consider the representation made by respondent No. 6 insofar as the allocation of alternative land to re-locate the college of law, which they shall do with expedition and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.