RAJAMMA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Ring Road aimed at easing the ever increasing vehicular pressure on the existing Roads in the Bangalore Metropolitan area although conceived nearly 20 years ago continues to elude the citizens, assurances of the Government and directions of this Court for an early completion of the project notwithstanding. Cumbersome land acquisition proceedings and official apathy towards a time bound completion, have both contributed in equal measure to the delay in the construction of barely 40 Kms. of Road length 3. 6 kilometres out of which lies between the Air Port Road and Koramangala. If the version of the respondents were to be believed construction of the Road is now complete but for a short stretch of 340 metres in which the construction work is in progress at present. The completion of the Road in that stretch is however hampered because of the interim orders issued by this Court in these petitions which have been filed to challenge acquisition proceedings in respect of small bits of land measuring 8 guntas in Sy. No. 2/1; 5 guntas in Sy. No. 2/2, 20 guntas in Sy. No. 3/2 and 14 guntas in Sy. No. 4 of Village Shinivagalu, Bangalore South Taluk. These parcels of land constitute a part of a much larger area notified for acquisition in terms of a preliminary notification issued under Section 17 (1) of the B. D. A. Act, on 20th of May, 1984. The purpose of underlying the acquisition as originally notified was the formation of a residential layout. A final notification under Section 19 (1) of the Act was issued on 9th of January, 1989 and published on 23rd of February, 1989 after a sanction under Section 18 (3) was granted by the State Government on 3rd of June, 1988. Possession of 8 guntas of land in Sy. No. 2/1 and 35 guntas in 2/2 has according to the Respondents been taken over on 15th of September, 1997. In so far as the remaining extent in Sy. Nos. 3/1 and 4 are concerned, the land in question appears to have been utilised for raising unauthorised constructions which shall have to be vacated to facilitate the road laying work.

(2.) ). On behalf of petitioners Mr. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel argued that the B. D. A. had in a resolution passed on 10th of May, 1995, dropped the scheme originally conceived thereby rendering the purpose underlying the acquisition extinct. Construction of the Ring Road and acquisition of the extent indicated earlier was according to the learned Counsel impermissible, for the reason that the construction of such a road was not within the contemplation of the scheme framed under Section 15. It was contended that while construction of a Ring Road may constitute a "public Purpose" justifying the issue of a fresh notification, no acquisition could for the achievement of that purpose be made on the basis of the proceedings already taken. The award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, on 20th of August, 1993, in respect of the extends indicated above is also assailed on the ground that the same was beyond reasonable time, assuming Section 11a did not have any application to acquisitions under the B. D. A. Act. Reliance in support was placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ram Chand v. Union of India, 1994 (1) SCC 44 : 1993 AIR SCW 3479.

(3.) APPEARING for the Respondents Mr. Hegde, argued, that Section 11a of the Land Acquisition Act had no application to acquisitions made under the B. D. A. Act. That part of the controversy was according to the learned Counsel concluded by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the Bangalore Development Authority v. CBCI Society for Medical Education, ILR 1998 Kant 2021. It was urged that the purpose originally notified had within its comprehension construction of a Ring Road, as envisaged by the Comprehensive Development Plan. The Scheme formulated by the B. D. A. had not it was argued, interfered with the C. D. P. although on account of certain unavoidable circumstances, a deviation from the original alignment had become necessary. One of the reasons which necessitated the deviation was that the Ring Road if constructed would pass very close to the defence transmitting antenna which was not agreeable to the Defence Authorities for security and technical reasons. An alternative alignment was therefore suggested by the Defence Authorities, which was found feasible upon consideration and subject to which the Defence Authority had agreed and actually handed over a part of the defence land required for the construction of the proposed road. It was argued that the alignment shown in the C. D. P. could not be meticulously related to the ground conditions by reference to Survey numbers, for all that the C. D. P. shows is a general alignment details whereof have to be worked out by conducting an engineering survey based on the ground conditions, existing roads and the developments if any that have taken place. The alignment of the Ring Road has according to the Respondents been drawn after conducting such a survey by STUP Consulting Engineering. The deviation that became necessary did not according to Mr. Hegde bring about any fundamental change in the C. D. P. or taken the owners of the lands by surprise. It was urged that out of the total project cost of Rs. 14. 3 crores, the Respondents have already spent 8. 5 crores and that out of 3. 6 kilo-meters between Airport Road and Koramangala 3 kilometers had already been asphalted whereas work over the 600 metres was in progress including 400 metres in which the pace has been slowed down on account of the orders issued by the Court. The locus of the petitioners to question the validity of the acquisition proceedings was also disputed by Mr. Hegde, according to whom the petitioners had sold most of the lands owned by them to different persons and some of the purchasers had filed Writ Petitions No. 211129-30/1998 dismissed by this Court by order dated 10th of September, 1998. Even the bona fides of the deviation was also challenged by one of the petitioners namely Smt. Rajamma in W. P. No. 3221-23/1998 which were dismissed by a Division Bench on 17th of November, 1998, declining to go into the question of the validity of the deviation.