CHANDRAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the order dated 2-7-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chandramma and Another v State of karnataka and Others. Some other appeals have also been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the said writ petition. These appeals involve common questions of law and fact. As agreed, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE controversy in the present appeals is that the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'the BDA') had prepared various schemes for the purpose of development and formation of several layouts, namely, Nagadevanahalli Layout, Valagerahally Layout, Gnana bharathi Layout and Sri Venkateshwara Layout and issued notifications to acquire the said lands. For the purpose of convenience, the necessary facts in W. A. Nos. 4681 and 4682 of 2002, filed against the main order passed in W. P. Nos. 1179 and 1180 of 2000 are narrated. It is alleged that the first appellant is the owner of 32 guntas of land and the second appellant is the owner of 1 acre 11 guntas of land in Sy. No. 31/1a of Valagerahally Village. As stated the BDA prepared the schemes "gnana Bharathi Layout and Sri Venkateshwara Layout" by passing a resolution on 23-9-1987 and the same was submitted to the Government for administrative approval and the Government by order dated 29-6-1988 granted administrative approval for the formation of the said gnana Bharathi Layout and Sri Venkateshwara Layout at the estimated cost of Rs. 8,251. 79 lakhs subject to the conditions mentioned in the order (Annexure-A) to the writ petition. Thereafter, a preliminary notification was issued under Section 17 (1) and (3) of the Bangalore development Authority Act (for short 'the Act') on 26-1-1989. The petitioners filed objections and thereafter final notification was issued under section 19 (1) of the Act on 19-1-1994. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners who are the owners of the land comprised in Sy. No. 31/1a measuring 1 acre 11 guntas and 32 guntas in the same survey number of Valagerahally Village and other owners filed W. P. Nos. 16827 to 16834 of 1994 before this Court. This Court, by common order dated 7-10-1996 held that objections have not been properly considered by the bda and that final notifications passed on different dates in respect of the petitioners under Section 19 (1) of the Act insofar as they relate to the petitioners' lands, were liable to be quashed and accordingly notifications insofar as they relate to the petitioners' lands were quashed, leaving liberty to the BDA to issue fresh notification if they are so advised only after considering the representations of the petitioners in accordance with Section 18 (1) of the Act. It was made clear that in view of the sanction having been granted by the Government in accordance with section 18 (3) of the Act on 3-10-1997, the order of sanction shall remain undisturbed. Fresh final notification was made by the Government on 6-10-1997. That was challenged in the case of D. Hemachandra Sagar and Another v State of Karnataka and Others. They were allowed.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single judge of this Court, some of the petitioners preferred W. A. No. 4764 of 2002 and connected appeals contending that the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the preliminary notification also and that the respondents ought to have been directed to take fresh sanction and the sanction already granted ought to have been quashed by the learned single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24-3-1999 held that there was no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and observed that after objections are considered, if there is any requirement for modification of the scheme, BDA can send the scheme to the Government and after Government approval it can issue final notification, there was already a direction to consider the objections and representations, it was just and proper that BDA after considering the objections and representations comes to the conclusion that it has to send any modified scheme to the Government other than the earlier scheme, then it is open to the BDA to forward the same and it will not bar the Government to consider the same merely because the Government has passed final notification under Section 19 of the act. Thereafter, a final notification was issued on 7-10-1999 and published in the Gazette on 11-10-1999. Being aggrieved by the said final notification issued under Section 19 (1) of the Act, W. P. Nos. 1179 to 1180 of 2000 and other connected writ petitions were filed. The learned single Judge by his order dated 2-7-2002 held that the provisions of the act are enacted in exercise of the legislative power under Entry 5, List II of the Seventh Schedule and therefore, it was not required to be reserved for assent of the President and the provisions of the Act did not fall within the ambit of Article 31 (3) of the Constitution of India and that fresh sanction of the Government under Section 18 (3) was unnecessary as this Court has observed in the earlier writ petitions, wherein the final notification had been challenged, that the sanction granted by the government under Section 18 (3) shall remain undisturbed and further held that the objections have been considered by the BDA and none of the petitioners contended that the acquisition was not for public purpose and accordingly held that there is no merit in the writ petitions. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, W. P. Nos. 1179 and 1180 of 2000 on 2-7-2002. Thereafter, following the said decision, the other writ petitions were also dismissed for the reasons mentioned in W. P. Nos. 1179 and 1180 of 2000. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the writ petitioners have preferred these appeals as stated.