MUNISHAMAPPA S/O SUBBAIAH AND SATHYANARAYANA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the Petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the preliminary notification dated 15.1.1978, final notification dated 8.3.1978, award dated 5.6.1979 and all subsequent proceedings and for other reliefs.

(2.) FIRST Petitioner is the father of second Petitioner. Petitioners contend that in a family partition in the year 1950, first Petitioner got 1 Acre 2 -1/2 guntas in Sy. No. 59/4 situated at Nagashettihally, Bangalore and morefully described in the petition schedule and hereinafter referred to as schedule property. Further in a family arrangement, Petitioners divided the schedule property among them. On 3.1.1977 the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'the Authority') issued a preliminary notification proposing to acquire certain lands including the schedule property for formation of a residential layout as "RMV II Stage Layout". Thereafter on 2.8.1978 a final notification was issued acquiring the schedule property and other lands. Though the final notification was issued on 2.8.1978, no award was passed, possession was not taken and on the other hand, Petitioners continued in possession of the schedule property. After lapse of more than 20 years, Respondents issued notification on 16.4.1996 under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the L.A. Act') withdrawing the acquisition of schedule property and other lands. After denotification of the schedule property, Petitioners have paid betterment charges to the Bangalore City Corporation, khathas were made in their name, property taxes were paid, secured a plan and commenced the construction of a building. The Special Deputy Commissioner under the Urban Land Ceiling Act passed an order declaring that the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act are not applicable to the schedule property. When the construction of building was in progress, the Respondents threatened the Petitioners not to proceed with the construction and made an attempt to demolish the constructed portion. At that time, Petitioners filed W.P. No. 32491/1997 for a declaration that the Respondents have no authority in law to demolish or interfere with the Petitioners' possession. This Court granted an interim order restraining the Respondents from demolishing existing structure and directed the Petitioners not to put up any further construction. In this W.P. No. 32491/1997 the Respondents entered appearance and filed statement of objections interalia contending that on 15.1.1978 a preliminary notification was issued proposing to acquire the schedule property and other lands for the benefit of fifth Respondent - Karnataka Diary Development Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'). Thereafter on 9.3.1978 a final notification was issued, on 5.6.1979 an award came to be passed and on 17.4.1978 the possession of the schedule property was delivered to the fifth Respondent. Thus, for the first time the Petitioners came to know about the acquisition proceedings for the benefit of fifth Respondent during the pendency of W.P. No. 32491/1997.

(3.) SRI S.M. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contend that after the final notification on 24.2.1977 issued by the Authority for formation of "RMV II Stage Layout" under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (for short 'the BDA Act') came to be vested with the Government. When the lands have vested with the Government, the impugned notifications acquiring the schedule properties for the benefit of fifth Respondent in the year 1978 are illegal and void -ab -initio. The impugned notifications are issued under Section 17 of the L.A. Act acquiring the schedule property and other lands. The adjacent land bearing Survey No. 60/4 and 60/1 of Nagashettihalli were also the subject matter of the impugned notifications. The land owners of sy. No. 60/4 and 60/1 questioned the impugned notification before this Court in W.P. Nos. 4695 -4697/1978 learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 11.10.1979 declared the impugned notification as illegal and quashed the same. Further a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 363/1980 vide order dated 29.10.1980 confirmed the quashing of the impugned notifications but restricted to the extent of lands involved in those petitions. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed. Though the impugned notifications came to be issued in the year 1978, the physical possession of the land in question continued to be with the Petitioners and they are not dispossessed by the Respondents. The material on record establishes that the Respondents have not taken the possession of the lands in question from the Petitioners in accordance with law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) Nawabkhan Abbaskhan Vs. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1471 (ii) G. Jayaram Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR (2005) KAR 1963 (iii) WA. No. 1207/2007 DD ON 25.11.2008