UMA SHANKAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARANATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WP. Nos. 21186/2010 & 23885-895/2010 are filed praying for quashing the notification bearing No. NA, AAE-141, BEMAASE 2006, dated 13.11.2009, passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-AA produced along with the said writ petitions.

(2.) The records reveal that about 180 acres of lands situated at Jakkasandra Village and adjoining Villages at Bangalore South Taluk were acquired by the then City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore by issuing preliminary notification dated 26.11.1959 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The same was published in the Official Gazette in the year 1960. The lands were acquired for formation of house sites and industrial sites. A further extent of 102 acres of land was acquired for the purpose of formation of St. John's Medical College. Final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act came to be issued on 28.9.1965 and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 7.10.1965. On 26.6.1969, the City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore passed a resolution resolving to reconvey 8 acres 21 guntas of the land comprised in Sy. Nos. 26/1, 36/6, 32/8, 32/9, 32/10 and 32/17 of Jakkasandra Village now known as Koramangala Extension, Bangalore South Taluk, as per Annexure-C. However, certain conditions were put on the petitioner, such as the cases pending in the Court should be withdrawn by the petitioner, etc. The petitioner replied by his letter dated 24.1.1972 that he was agreeable to the conditions imposed and that he would comply with the conditions. Ultimately, the letter dated 8/9.5.1972 vide Annexure-D came to be addressed by the City Improvement Trust Board to the petitioner intimating the City Improvement Trust Board's resolution dated 19.4.1972 resolving to convey the lands to an extent of 6 acres 20 guntas and 42 sq. yards. The survey numbers to be reconveyed to the petitioner were also mentioned in the said letter at Annexure-D. Under these circumstances, the petitioner preferred WP. No. 15487/1987 before this Court seeking direction to BDA to convey the land to an extent of 6 acres 21 guntas 42 sq. yards for use by the petitioner for industrial and residential purposes. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 3.4.1989 with a direction that the persons whose lands have been acquired could apply for a site and such applications would be considered. Being aggrieved by the said judgment passed in WP. No. 15487/1987, the petitioner filed WA. No. 727/1989, before the Division Bench of this Court. The said writ appeal also came to be dismissed. The petitioner herein took up the matter to the Apex Court in SLP. No. 9456/1989. Ultimately, the Apex Court remitted the matter to the Division Bench of this Court with a direction to hear WA. No. 727/1989 afresh on merits and in accordance with law by its order dated 31.1.2001. However, the interim order which was passed by this Court earlier restraining the respondents from making any construction on the land in question was allowed to remain in force till the disposal of WA. No. 727/1989 by this Court. The Division Bench of this Court after hearing WA. No. 727/1989 allowed the appeal on 10.7.2001 and directed the respondent-BDA to issue possession certificate to the petitioner within four months. The BDA filed SLP before the Apex Court in SLP. No. 164/2002 (CA. No. 971/2003). The Apex Court was pleased to allow the CA. No. 971/2003 and set aside the judgment passed in WA. No. 727/1989. The said judgment is Bangalore Development Authority -vs- R. Hanumaiah and Others, 2005 12 SCC 508. Copy of the judgment of the Apex Court is also produced at Annexure-H in WP. No. 21186 & 23885-23895/2010. Thus, the matter between the parties had reached finality by the order of the Apex Court.

(3.) Sri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner In W. P. No. 21186/2010 & W. P. 23885-895/2010 submits that withdrawing the order of de-notification is illegal inasmuch as the same is without notice to the petitioner; since the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, the same is to be quashed; the area of about 6 acres de-notified constitutes over 2% of the whole area of the land acquired and that therefore the order of de-notification dated 14.10.2009 passed earlier in favour of the petitioner was in consonance with the conclusion reached by the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy -vs- Bangalore Development Authority, 2010 7 SCC 129 in which the Apex Court has concluded that at least 15 to 20% of the land should be allowed to be retained by the landloser; the possession has remained with the petitioner and that therefore the scheme in respect of denotified 6 acres of land is not implemented; the order of de-notification was pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court in W. P. No. 26826/2005 dated 24.2.2009 and as the said order dated 24.3.2009 is not set aside subsequently, the order of de-notification was justified; since the order of de-notification was just and proper, it is not open for the State Government to withdraw the said de-notification order that too without hearing the petitioner. On these and other grounds, he prayed for quashing the impugned order.