ARUNACHALAM PROPERTIES CONSULTANTS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 201, ROYAL CORNER, NO. 1 AND 2, 2ND FLOOR, LALBAGH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN- DR. R. ARUNACHALAM Vs. THE STATE OF KAMATAKA, REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are considered together, as common issues arise for consideration. In WP 10962/2012, the petitioner claims as the absolute owner of land in Survey No. 248 of Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South taluk. The said land, measuring 2 acres 35 guntas, is said to have been converted for non -agricultural purposes, by an order of conversion passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1964 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', for brevity). The said land, after such conversion, in three distinct parcels, measuring 18.40 guntas, 18.55 guntas and 18.50 guntas, was purchased by the BEML Employees Co -operative Society Limited, under three different sale deeds dated 19.5.2003. The petitioner is said to have purchased the lands from the Society under a sale deed dated 19.9.2008. It however, transpires that the sites purchased by the petitioner were subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act', for brevity) whereby a preliminary notification dated 29.12.1989, duly published in The Official gazette dated 6.4.1989, proposing to acquire the land for the formation of Banashankari V Stage layout, and a final notification dated 9.5.1994 and published in the Official gazette dated 18.5.1994, were issued. However, it is the petitioner's case that after the issuance of the final notification, though an award has been passed, the award amount has not been paid and no notice of having taken possession of the land was issued to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the erstwhile owner and after the purchase by the petitioner, the petitioner had continued to be in possession of the property. The petitioner would also point out that except in respect of portions of land, which were the subject matter of acquisition proceedings, substantial portion of the lands proposed for acquisition, have not been taken possession of. The petitioner has made available a Chart, in this regard at Annexure -F to the writ petition. It is also the case of the petitioner that several other portions of land have been dropped from acquisition proceedings and notifications under Section );">48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act', for brevity) have been issued. It is also sought to be demonstrated that out of a total extent of 109 acres of land of Halagevaderahalli, 46 acres of land was private land and 46 acres belonged to the Government. It is evident from Annexure -J to the writ petition that the Bangalore Development Authority (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA' for brevity) has not formed the layout and no sites were distributed even as on 31.3.2005. It is hence emphasized that the lands of Halagevaderahalli have however, been subject matter of acquisition and the Scheme, under which the land was acquired, has not been implemented and therefore, even though the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser, who seeks to lay claim to the land in question, the petitioner is not precluded in the above circumstance from approaching this court, as the petitioner, as the owner of the land, the acquisition, in respect of which, is deemed to be abandoned, is entitled to develop the same in accordance with law and therefore, the rejection of his applications for sanction of such development is contrary to law. In any event, the land in question is not capable of being integrated in the layout that is formed in view of the entire land of Halagevaderahalli, having been excluded from the acquisition proceedings. It is pointed out that the BDA has issued an endorsement dated 24.6.1997, to the effect that possession of the land had not been taken by virtue of an interim order of this court. The learned Counsel seeks to place reliance on the following authorities, in support of the petition : - 1. Smt. Nagu Bai and others Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 2001 KAR 1169,

(2.) OFFSHORE Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, (2011) 4 BomCR 212 . 2. The learned counsel for the respondent -BDA has filed statement of objections, to contend that the transactions under which the petitioner claims to have purchased the land in question, were void transactions, as the petitioner claims to have purchased the lands after the issuance of a preliminary notification, followed by a final notification and any such sale deeds do not bind the BDA and therefore, the petition has to be rejected as not maintainable, as the petitioner would have no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. The erstwhile owner of the land was the Kailas Ashrama Mahasamsthana Trust, as on the date of the preliminary notification and was duly notified. Objections had been filed on behalf of the Trust, which had also made appeals to drop the acquisition proceedings. However, an award was passed on 24.7.1996, but possession had not been taken, since there was a decision of the State Government communicated to the BDA in this regard. It is stated that in the meanwhile, the Trust had filed a writ petition in WP 16212/1997, challenging the award and there was an interim order staying dispossession. Thereafter, a Division Bench having taken up the petition, along with other writ petitions, dismissed the petitions. Those petitions pertained to the validity of Section 48 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The petitioner therein not having chosen to seek review, the said order has become final and binding on the petitioners. Though the State Government had thereafter called upon the BDA to furnish its opinion as to whether the land was suitable for inclusion in the layout to be formed and though the BDA had answered in the affirmative, the delay in taking possession was on account of the interim orders passed by the courts, as also the unrelenting pressure brought by the aforesaid Trust on the State Government to drop the lands from acquisition proceedings. Though it is denied that all the lands of Halagevaderahalli have been dropped from acquisition proceedings, it is not specifically denied that possession has not been taken of the lands in question. The BDA however, emphasized that the delay in not taking possession of the land cannot be attributed to it and that it was in the aforesaid background of litigation and the interim orders that the same may have been delayed.

(3.) THE BDA, in its statement of objections, would reiterate that the purchase by the petitioner being subsequent to the acquisition proceedings, is not binding on the BDA. It is denied that all the lands of Halagevaderahalli have been denotified from acquisition proceedings and would submit that in view of a series of proceedings before this court as well as the City Civil Court, Bangalore, the details of which are furnished at Annexures -R.5 to R.7, there was delay in taking possession of the lands in question. That however, would not render the acquisition proceedings as being invalid, as the Scheme has been substantially implemented and would deny that the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have any bearing on the case on hand.