Sri Ramachandra vs State of Karnataka and The Addl. Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore Development Authority

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petition coming on for preliminary hearing -B group, is considered for final disposal. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the son of one Anjanappa who was the owner in possession of the land measuring 7 acres 4 guntas in land bearing Sy. No. 26/3 of Sonnenahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District. The petitioner''s father is no more and the petitioner has succeeded to his estate and therefore is preferring this writ petition.

It is his case that the second respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (Hereinafter referred to as ''BDA'' for brevity), has proposed a Scheme for the purpose of formation of a layout which was approved by the government and a large extent of land was sought to be acquired. The preliminary notification was dated 24/1/2002 and a final notification was issued on 31/10/2002. The land in question was shown in the notification and though the entire extent of 7 acres 4 guntas was notified for acquisition, an award was passed only to the extent of 3 acres 2 guntas of the said extent and this was intimated to the father of the petitioner as per endorsement dated 7/4/2003, which is at Annexure-B to the writ petition.

It is in that background that a large number of writ petitions were filed, challenging the validity of the acquisition. There were interim orders restraining dispossession.

In view of the fact that there were no steps taken in respect of 3 acres 2 guntas of the extent of land held by the petitioner''s father, he had approached the authorities, seeking conversion of the land for non-agricultural residential purpose and the competent authority, under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, had passed an order permitting such change of land use and the petitioner''s father had complied with all further requirements thereto, pursuant to the conversion order. It is stated that parallely there was a proposal sent for deletion of 3 acres 2 guntas from the notification, as no award was passed in respect to the same.

The State Government is said to have accepted the proposal and issued a notification on 29/10/2009. However, the land that was de-notified, was only an extent of 1 acre 22 guntas out of 3 acres 2 guntas. The petitioner''s father had therefore made a representation to re-consider the decision, as there was discrepancy insofar as the extent of land that was de notified, and that it was the entire extent of 3 acres 2 guntas which ought to have been de-notified. As no decision was taken by the government in that regard, the petitioner''s father is said to have filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 22061/10 which was disposed of by an order dated 20/1/2011. A review petition was filed on the ground that there was an error apparent. But even the review petition was dismissed. Thereafter a writ appeal in W.A. No. 1906/11 was filed, which was allowed and the Division Bench had directed the government to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Consequent upon which, though the petitioner had approached the BDA as well as the State Government, there was no further action taken. It is in that background that the present writ petition 13 filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the aforesaid circumstances, also places reliance on several authorities to submit that, if admittedly, as seen from the statement of objections filed by the BDA, there is no denial of the fact that an extent of 3 acres 2 guntas of land, though was not subject-matter of acquisition, was de-notified only to the extent of 1 acre 22 guntas, while there is no indication of the intention of the respondents insofar as the remaining extent in respect of which, there is no further action taken, there is no award passed and neither possession is taken, nor any development has occasioned on the said extent, and hence would submit that the respondents have abandoned the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the remaining land and that it be so declared and the acquisition proceedings insofar as the remaining extent of 3 acres 2 guntas, apart from 1 acre 22 guntas, which has been de-notified, be held as null and void and be quashed.

The learned counsel for the respondent-BDA would not dispute the sequence of events and would candidly submit that there are no further steps taken in respect of the remaining extent, out of 3 acres 2 guntas, after de-notification of an extent of 1 acre 22 guntas, and would rest his case to claim that he has no instructions insofar as the further steps that were taken. In the absence of any material furnished before this court insofar as the remaining extent of land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas is concerned, the proceedings being of the year 2002 and in view of no further steps having been taken in respect to the said extent of land, the proceedings are, for all purposes, abandoned and therefore the acquisition proceedings insofar as the said extent of land is concerned, stands quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed.