Sri. M. Muniramaiah vs State of Karnataka, Bangalore Development Authority and The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had issued a preliminary notification seeking to acquire the land in Survey No. 103, measuring 4 acres 30 guntas of Nagarabhavi Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, for the formation of ''Nagarabhavi Layout'' along with other lands. The notified khatedars were Muniveerappa and G. Chennarayappa. The State Government had issued a final notification dated 16.8.1985 in respect of their land. It is admitted that out of 4 acres 30 guntas, which is the subject matter of this petition, one of the notified khatedars, Muniveerappa had a share of 2 acres 20 guntas of the said land and the BDA is said to have utilised 20 guntas of land for the formation of a ring road. This was during the life time of Muniveerappa. He died in the year 1997 and the petitioner, along with his brother, Gangadhar have succeeded to the estate held by Muniveerappa, their late father to the extent of 2 acres. The mutation and RTC extracts are produced indicating the name of the petitioner and his brother even as on the date of the petition.

It is the case of the petitioner that the BDA has not taken possession of the said property even though acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1982 and that no layout has been formed in the said extent of land even as on the date of the petition. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in WP 19532/2005, which was dismissed on the ground that it was belated seeking to question the acquisition of the year 1982. It is thereafter, since there is non-implementation of the Scheme, even as on date, that the present petition is filed. It is contended that in similar circumstances, this court has allowed the petitions of the petitioners therein on the very ground that even after a long lapse of time, if the Scheme is not implemented and possession of the land has not been taken, the Scheme would lapse and seek to rely on the said decisions in support of his case.

The BDA has entered appearance through counsel and has filed statement of objections, which are now supplemented by additional documents, filed in court today. The learned Counsel would reiterate the objections filed and would contend that admittedly, the petitioner had approached this court in the year 2005 and having suffered a dismissal of his petition questioning the acquisition proceedings, is precluded from filing the present petition and it would be barred by constructive res judicata. It is also asserted that further-proceedings in respect of the acquisition had been taken contrary to the allegations and assertions of the petitioner. In that, award has been passed in the year 20.5.2002 and the amount has been deposited on 25.5.2007. And it is also stated that possession had been taken as early as on 30.4.2003. An award notice was issued on 3.6.2002 and therefore, even if the allegation that there is no development on the land in question is to be accepted if the possession of the land has been taken as early as in the year 2004, the land would vest in the State and non-implementation of the Scheme is irrelevant insofar as this pocket of land is concerned, as the layout in question has been fully developed and it is not open for the petitioner to question the same.

By way of reply, the learned Senior Advocate Shri S.M. Chandrashekar appearing for the Counsel for the petitioner would point our that the additional documents and the assertions made on behalf of the BDA and the additional documents now produced in court, would hardly substantiate the case of the respondent, as the claim that the possession was taken in the year 2004 is not consistent with the further statement that the amount of compensation was deposited in the year 2007. Therefore, even without the payment of compensation, the possession having been taken is misleading. And further, the so-called documents in support of physical possession having been taken, would on the face of it, indicate that there is no compliance with the requirement of law, as admittedly, the land in question had structures thereon, which were under occupation and in the absence of notice being issued to the occupants and this being evidenced by independent witnesses to the document, under which such physical possession is said to have been taken, the question of fact, as to whether possession has been taken or not, is not capable of being established by reference to the said documents. Hence, the Counsel would submit that having regard to the admitted sequence of events where the notifications are of the year 19.82 and 1985 and the compensation having been deposited in the year 2007, while inexplicably it is sated that possession has been taken in the year 2004, would indicate gross irregularities in the procedure having been followed in accordance with law and hence would submit that by no stretch of imagination, could it be said that the land has been acquired in accordance with law. Further, admittedly, it is even now not claimed by the BDA that the land in question has been utilised in the formation of the layout.

Therefore, on a plain examination of the material on record, the learned Senior Advocate would submit that the petition be allowed on the ground that the possession has not been taken nor has the Scheme been implemented in respect of the land in question and hence to that extent, the Scheme would lapse insofar as the petitioner''s land is concerned. Given the above circumstances, the very sequence of events would indicate that the land in question has not been developed consistently with the layout that may have been formed over the other extents of land that were the subject matter of acquisition initiated in the year 1982. The further documents that are produced and the averments on behalf of the BDA are possibly inconsistent. Therefore, it would have to be accepted that there was no valid possession taken of the land in question nor was there any development over the land in implementing the Scheme.

Hence, the petition stands allowed. It is declared that the Scheme insofar as the petitioner''s land is concerned has lapsed in view of Section 27 of the BDA Act.