K B GURUMURTHY REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute brought before this Court in this writ appeal relates to the acquisition of 3 acres 4 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No. 172/3 situate in Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (for short, 'the Schedule land') under the provisions of the Bangalore development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act' ). Earlier, the schedule land was acquired under the provisions of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'l. A. Act') by issuing Section 4 (1)Notification dated 3/12/1986 and Section 6 (1) declaration dated 8/1/1988. Ultimately, that acquisition was annulled by the Apex Court by virtue of its order dated 21-2-1995 made in S. L. P. (C) Nos. 13114 and 13339 of 1991 (Amarjyothi House Building Co-operative Society Limited v State of Karntaka) following its own decision in Civil Appeal Nos. 3011 to 3019 of 1995 arising out of S. L. P. (C) Nos. 11482 to 11490 of 1991 (HMT House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore v Syed khader and Others) filed by the HMT House Building Co-operative society, and in pursuance of the direction issued by the Apex Court in the above cases, the Schedule land was restored to the appellants herein on 6/8/1998. That event was not to be an end of the litigation but it turned out to be a beginning of an end, because, in the interregnum between 3/12/1986 and 6/8/1998, the proceedings were initiated to acquire the Schedule land under the provisions of the Act by issuing the preliminary notification under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act on 23/3/1988 which was followed by final notification under sub-section (1)of Section 19 of the Act. What is challenged by the appellants in the present writ proceedings is the validity of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) under the Act.

(2.) LET us first refer to the background facts leading to the filing of writ Petition No. 26693 of 1999 out of which the present writ appeal has arisen. The appellants are the sons of late Buddappa alias Budda Reddy and late Obakka of Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore south Taluk. They, along with their parents constituted an undivided hindu Mithakshara joint family. The said joint family consists of the appellants. Buddappa Reddy passed away on 21-8-1988. Obakka died somewhere in the year 1996. The joint family of the appellants owned several lands including the Schedule land. The Schedule land was acquired under the L. A. Act for the benefit of M/s. Amarjyothi Co-operative house Building Society Limited, Bangalore. The award was also passed and the compensation determined was also paid to buddappa Reddy during his lifetime. However, the validity of the very acquisition of the Schedule land under the L. A. Act was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 7060 to 7063 of 1988 and this court, by its order dated 8-6-1991 quashed the acquisition proceedings. S. L. P. (C) Nos. 13114 and 13339 of 1991 were preferred to the Supreme court against the above order of this Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the above S. L. Ps. vide its order dated 21-2-1995 following the decision in C. A. Nos. 3011 to 3019 of 1995 arising out of S. L. P. (C) Nos. 11482 to 11490 of 1991 filed by the HMT House Building Co-operative society, thereby upholding the judgment of this Court. The Supreme court, while dismissing the S. L. Ps. also directed that the possession of the Schedule land should be restored to the appellants subject to their refunding the compensation received by them. Accordingly, the appellants refunded the compensation money of Rs. 2,69,125/- and they were put in possession of the Schedule land on 6-8-1998 and since then the appellants have been in actual possession and enjoyment of the schedule land.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, Budda Reddy had filed declaration under a wrong advice and mistake of fact under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, the 'ulc Act') and in pursuance of that declaration, the Competent Authority passed the order on 30-4-1985 holding that the land comprised in Sy. Nos. 167/4 and 172/1 of Kothanur Village and the Schedule land held by Budda reddy is in excess of the ceiling limit. It is the case of the appellants that Budda Reddy was an illiterate and gullible man and, therefore, he had heavily depended upon the 5th appellant herein viz. , KB. Krishna reddy to prosecute the proceedings before the Competent Authority under the ULC Act and due to certain serious differences between budda Reddy and KB. Krishna Reddy, Krishna Reddy did not conduct the proceedings in the way expected of him and that lead to a wrong order being made by the Competent Authority on 30-4-1985. According to the Competent Authority under the ULC Act, in pursuance of the order made on 30-4-1985 possession of the Schedule land was taken over on 28-4-1989. When the matter stood thus, the Government of karnataka vide Order No. Kam. e. 57/97, dated 9-7-1999 granted 12,547. 29 sq. mts. of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 172/1 and 172/3 of kothanur Village to the 6th respondent, M/s. B. T. L. Education Trust for rural Development. At that stage, the appellants herein filed Writ petition No. 35965 of 1999 praying for quashing of the order dated 30-4-1985 passed by the Competent Authority who is the 4th respondent herein and order dated 9-7-1999 passed by the State Government, 1st respondent. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single judge of this Court vide Order dated 23-2-2001 quashing both the impugned orders and remanded the proceedings to the 4th respondent with a direction to give finding whether the appellants are in lawful possession of the excess land after hearing them. At the time of hearing, we were told that after the remand of the proceedings, by order dated 28-2-2002 the 4th respondent-Competent Authority passed an order holding that the proceedings initiated under the ULC Act stood abated in view of the repealing Act and against the said order of the Competent authority, the 6th respondent herein preferred Writ Petition No. 19739 of 2002 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this court on 26-7-2004. We were told that the BDA is not a party to Writ petition No. 19739 of 2002. It is the case of the appellants that after the land was restored to them in pursuance of the orders of the Supreme court, they have developed the Schedule land, put up constructions on major portions and those constructions have been assessed for municipal tax and they have been paying the tax regularly.