Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 244 (KAR)

Ajay S/o Shri Sukumar v. State of Karnataka

2025-06-06

R.DEVDAS

body2025
ORDER : R. DEVDAS, J. 1. The petitioner, is seeking the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Internal Report (at Annexure ‘A’) dated 01/03/2024 bearing Subject No 66/2023- 2024 titled “Note to Authority Meeting” issued by Bangalore Development Authority. (ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Report (at Annexure ‘B’) dated 01/03/2024 Ref: BemAPra/ BhooSwaAa/325/2023-24 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka; (iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Revised Final Notification No.UDD 426 MNJ 2011 dated 18/06/2014 at (Annexure ‘C’) for Remodified Scheme of Arkavathy Layout issued by the Urban Development Secretariat, Government of Karnataka, insofar as lands of the Petitioner are concerned bearing Sy.No.21/2 measuring 1 Acre 18 Guntas, Sy.No.21/3 measuring 1 Acre 33 Guntas, Sy.No.20/1 measuring 36 Guntas and Sy.No.20/2 measuring 32 Guntas, all situated in Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, in the interest of justice and equity. (iv) Issue any such other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction as this Hon’ble Court deemed fit including the grant of exemplary costs under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. Additional Prayer: (v) To quash Order No.NAE 01 BemBhooswa 2024 (CCMS), dated 09-04-2025 being a letter from the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka to Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. It is not disputed that preliminary notification under Section 17 (1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act , 1976, was issued on 03.02.2003, for acquisition of 3339 Acres and 12 Guntas of land for the formation of Arkavathi Layout. A modified preliminary notification was issued proposing to acquire 3839 Acres and 12 Guntas spreading around 16 villages. However, the final notification under Section 19 (1) of the Act was issued on 23.02.2004 in respect of 2750 Acres of land, including the lands in question viz., 5 acres and 6 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.21/2, 21/3, 20/1 and 20/2 situated at Kempapura village. Several land owners filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings before this Court in W.P.Nos.26601-04/2004 and connected matters including W.P.No.20235/2004, filed by the petitioner herein. Several land owners filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings before this Court in W.P.Nos.26601-04/2004 and connected matters including W.P.No.20235/2004, filed by the petitioner herein. This Court struck down the entire acquisition proceedings and the decision is reported in the case of Sharadamma and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR 2005 Kar 3710 . The decision in the case of Sharadamma and Another were challenged before the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.2624/2005 and connected matters. The Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, however directions were also issued to the respondents to consider the representations given by the land owners, who were seeking deletion or dropping of the acquisition proceedings on various grounds. Some of the land owners including the petitioner herein questioned the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of the SLPs affirming the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench, with further directions and clarifications. The said decision is reported as Bondu Ramaswamy and Others Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 129. 3. The petitioner/party-in-person submits while drawing the attention of this Court to judgment in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy , where it was directed as regards Kempapura Village, to reconsider the objections to the acquisitions, having regard to the fact that large areas were not initially notified for acquisition, and more than 50% of whatever that was proposed for acquisition was also subsequently deleted from acquisition. Therefore, Bangalore Development Authority was required to consider whether in view of deletions to a large extent, development with respect to the balance of the acquired lands has become illogical and impractical, and if so, whether the balance area also should be deleted from acquisition. It was directed that if BDA proposes to continue the acquisition, it shall file a report within four months before the High Court so that consequential orders could be passed. It was also directed that, where several very small pockets of acquired lands surrounded by lands which were not acquired or which were deleted from the proposed acquisition, the BDA may consider whether such small pockets should also be deleted if they are not suitable for formation of self contained layouts. It was also directed that, where several very small pockets of acquired lands surrounded by lands which were not acquired or which were deleted from the proposed acquisition, the BDA may consider whether such small pockets should also be deleted if they are not suitable for formation of self contained layouts. It was held that the acquisition thereof cannot be justified on the ground that small islands of acquired land, could be used as a stand alone park or playground in regard to a layout formed in different unconnected lands in other villages. It was also directed that under similar circumstances, where similar isolated pockets of acquisition were made in other villages, they too should be dealt with in a similar manner. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation dated 12.06.2010 vide Annexure ‘L’ requesting the BDA to exclude the petitioner’s lands from acquisition. However, without considering the representation and pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondent-BDA and its Board resolved to delete 983.33 Guntas of land and issued a second modified final notification on 18.06.2014. As a consequence, the BDA left out a further 15 acres and 38 guntas from acquisition in Kempapura Village. Thereby, 80% of the lands proposed for acquisition in Kempapura Village were thereafter deleted while only 11 acres of land including 4 acres and 39 guntas belonging to the petitioner were continued in acquisition. It is submitted that even amongst the four pieces of land belonging to the petitioner, 1 acre and 33 guntas in Sy.No.21/3, is the biggest chunk, while the remaining are 1 acre 18 guntas in Sy.No.21/2, 36 guntas in Sy.No.20/1 and 32 guntas in Sy.No.20/2. All the pieces of property are disjoint and do not form a contiguous portion of land. 5. The petitioner filed W.P.Nos.35573/2015 and 36274-276/2015, challenging the notification dated 18.06.2014 and the report dated 15.09.2010 comprising resolution No.303/2010 of the BDA. This Court by order dated 19.04.2018 partly allowed the writ petitions while quashing the resolution No.303/2010 which contained report dated 15.09.2010 while directing the BDA to reconsider the case of the petitioner keeping in mind, the treatment given to similarly placed landlords and the directions issued in Bondu Ramaswamy . The petitioner once again gave a representation dated 07.05.2018 at Annexure ‘P’, requesting deletion of the lands in question from acquisition proceedings. The petitioner once again gave a representation dated 07.05.2018 at Annexure ‘P’, requesting deletion of the lands in question from acquisition proceedings. The petitioner also filed W.A.No.1529/2018 calling in question the other portion of the order passed by this Court. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA passed a final report dated 17.09.2018, rejecting the request made by the petitioner. The petitioner filed Contempt Petition in CCC No.2040/2018 and in the said proceedings the final report dated 17.09.2018 was produced by the respondent-BDA and consequently, the Contempt Petition was dropped. The petitioner filed W.P.No.25861/2019, questioning the final report dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. By order dated 04.04.2022, in W.P.No.25861/2019, this Court quashed the final report dated 17.09.2018 and in the connected writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.51929/2014 and connected matters including the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, this Court rejected the challenge raised to the second modified final notification dated 18.06.2014. However, learned Single Judge proceeded to appoint a three men committee headed by Hon’ble Shri. Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana to look into various aspects as indicated in the order to implement the order passed in W.A. No. 2624/2015 and connected matters dated 25.11.2005 in the case of The Commissioner, BDA and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others , and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy In addition, it was also directed that the committee shall examine all such representations received by the BDA pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench and the Hon’ble Apex Court and to submit a report to the BDA as to whether such claims would fall within the exception carved out under the judgments for deleting the lands or not. It was further directed that the BDA shall thereafter take steps to delete or to include such lands from acquisition. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Committee constituted by this Court and the Committee while considering the case of the petitioner in proceedings bearing KNKC No.42/2022, found that the property in question falls within the parameters issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench and accordingly, recommended for deletion of the property in question from the acquisition proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Committee constituted by this Court and the Committee while considering the case of the petitioner in proceedings bearing KNKC No.42/2022, found that the property in question falls within the parameters issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench and accordingly, recommended for deletion of the property in question from the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner/party-in-person submits that the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, BDA addressed a letter dated 25.05.2023 at Annexure ‘Z’ to the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, along with the recommendation of the Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee. However, since no action was taken by the State Government, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27329/2023 seeking a writ of mandamus to implement the recommendation of the Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee. During the course of the proceedings, the State Government submitted a memo before this Court on 30.01.2024, stating that it has sought for further clarification at the hands of the BDA. By order dated 07.02.2024 this Court directed the BDA to send its report to the Government within ten days and thereafter the Government was directed to take a decision within a period of two months. It is submitted that the BDA passed a pre-dated order dated 01.03.2024 recommending the continuation of the acquisition proceedings. However, since the petitioner was not made aware of such an order or decision, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition in CCC No.405/2024. The petitioner had to file an application under the Right to Information Act and the Information Officer of BDA furnished a copy of the internal report dated 01.03.2024 to the petitioner on 16.05.2024. 7. Consequently, the petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.1/2025 seeking to amend the writ petition while adding additional reliefs to quash order bearing No.NAE 01 Bem Bhoo Swa 2024 (CCMS) dated 09.04.2025. This Court had directed that the application will be heard along with the main matter. 8. It would be beneficial to notice that this Court was hearing a similar matter in W.P.No.14587/2024 and connected matters and during the course of those proceedings, when the State Government accepted the resolution passed by the Bangalore Development Authority to continue the acquisition proceedings, despite the recommendation of Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee to drop the acquisition proceedings, this Court had called upon the State Government to place on record any material which was taken into consideration by the State Government to accept the resolution passed by the BDA. By way of a memo dated 17.03.2025, the learned AGA furnished copy of a communication dated 15.03.2025 made by the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department to the learned Government Advocate. This Court finds that in the communication dated 15.03.2025 the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, has only culled out the recommendation or the resolution passed by the Board of the Bangalore Development Authority and for the same reasons, the State Government has accepted the resolution passed by the Board of the Bangalore Development Authority. 9. Learned Counsel Sri B.Vachan, appearing for the respondent-BDA vehemently contended that the Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee was required to examine as to whether the deletion of lands by the State Government subsequent to the notification dated 23.02.2004 and before issuance of notification dated 18.06.2014 was in accordance with the dicta laid down by the Division Bench and whether it was in compliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the Bondu Ramaswamy’s case. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that the Committee was required to examine the entire aspect of the matter holistically and not on case to case basis. Learned Counsel contended, while pointing out to the map, that the four pieces of lands are adjacent to each other and they do form a compact unit and sites have been formed on the lands in question and have been allotted to various persons. 10. Learned Counsel contended that if the Committee were to examine the case of every individual land owner, it could find that the neighbouring lands were dropped from acquisition proceedings for a particular reason and therefore, the particular land also should be deleted from acquisition proceedings because it had a common factor. On the other hand, the directions issued by the Division Bench and the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy’s case was to ensure that if the State Government had wrongly dropped the acquisition proceedings, the said benefit cannot be given to the neighbouring land in question, on the other hand, the dropping of the acquisition proceedings earlier should be held as illegal and therefore, the direction was to restore such lands for acquisition in order to maintain a contiguity of the layout at the hands of the BDA. 11. Heard the petitioner/party-in-person, learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA and the learned AGA. 12. 11. Heard the petitioner/party-in-person, learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA and the learned AGA. 12. Recently, this Court has passed an order in W.P.No.14587/2024 and connected matters where similar contentions were raised, although the only difference between the two matters is that the lands in question are situated at Kempapura Village and the lands in those matters were situated at Thanisandra Village. This Court has held in those matters that, it is very clear that the Committee has taken into consideration all relevant aspects before recommending the deletion of the lands in question from acquisition proceedings, since all the neighbouring lands surrounding the land in question were either not notified or were deleted from acquisition proceedings subsequently. 13. Most importantly, it is noticeable that a huge tract of land in the same survey number, which was dropped from the acquisition proceedings has been developed by the land owner and a huge residential apartment structure is standing on the said land. In fact, the petitioner contended that he has bought an apartment therein and is residing in the said apartment. The Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee has found on physical verification that the four pieces of land are disjoint and BDA could not form a well defined contiguous self- contained layout on the lands in question. It was found that large extents of lands surrounding these small pieces of land notified for acquisition, having not been notified for acquisition, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that a well defined layout can be formed out of the acquired pieces of land scattered all around and located at the disjointed places. The Committee has noticed the working plan produced by the BDA and found that out of 11 acres of land which are notified for acquisition under the modified final notification dated 18.06.2014, the area available for formation of plots is about 9753 sq. mtrs. and the total number of sites of different dimensions, including corner sites proposed to be formed in these lands are about 95. The Committee found that in the event of continuing with the acquisition and the respective land owners accepting the developed land in lieu of compensation, the number of sites that may be left for BDA would be about 55. This is what is found in respect of all the lands acquired and continued in the final notification dated 18.06.2014, in Kempapura Village. This is what is found in respect of all the lands acquired and continued in the final notification dated 18.06.2014, in Kempapura Village. The Committee therefore recommended deletion of the lands in question, since the acquisition of the lands in Kempapura Village has become illogical and impractical. The Committee also found that no third party interest has been created in respect of the lands in question. 14. Having regard to the specific observations of the Committee and the fact that neither the Board of the BDA nor the State Government has considered the relevant aspects of the matter viz., whether the petitioner is entitled for an order of deletion, since the petitioner has raised grounds which form common factor vis-à-vis the neighbouring lands which were dropped from acquisition proceedings, the decision of the State Government in this regard to continue with the acquisition proceedings, would be contrary to the directions issued in Bondu Ramaswamy . In the considered opinion of this Court, the directions issued in Bondu Ramaswamy to consider whether the continuation of the acquisition proceedings would be illogical and impractical, would arise if the land owners fail to satisfy the first test viz., common factor for dropping of the acquisition proceedings. If it is a case where the land owner is not entitled for such a benefit, where no common factor for dropping the acquisition proceedings are found, then the question of considering whether the lands form an island of a layout and whether it would be logical and practical to continue the acquisition, are required to be considered. In the present case, since the petitioner was entitled for dropping of the acquisition proceedings on the ground of common factor, the petitioner is bound to succeed. 15. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER : (1) Writ Petition is allowed. (2) The impugned Internal Report dated 01.03.2024 bearing Subject No.66/2023- 24 at Annexure ‘A’ issued by Bangalore Development Authority insofar as the lands in question i.e., Sy.No.21/2 measuring 1 Acre 18 Guntas, Sy.No.21/3 measuring 1 Acre 33 Guntas, Sy.No.20/1 measuring 36 Guntas and Sy.No.20/2 measuring 32 Guntas, all situated in Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, is hereby quashed and set aside. (3) The impugned report dated 01.03.2024 at Annexure ‘B’ bearing Ref:BemAPra/BhooSwaAa/ 325/2023-24 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, insofar as the lands in question i.e., Sy.No.21/2 measuring 1 Acre 18 Guntas, Sy.No.21/3 measuring 1 Acre 33 Guntas, Sy.No.20/1 measuring 36 Guntas and Sy.No.20/2 measuring 32 Guntas, all situated in Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, is hereby quashed and set aside. (4) The Revised Final Notification No.UDD 426 MNJ 2011 dated 18.06.2014 at Annexure ‘C’ for Remodified Scheme of Arkavathy Layout issued by the Urban Development Secretariat, Government of Karnataka, insofar as the lands in question i.e., Sy.No.21/2 measuring 1 Acre 18 Guntas, Sy.No.21/3 measuring 1 Acre 33 Guntas, Sy.No.20/1 measuring 36 Guntas and Sy.No.20/2 measuring 32 Guntas, all situated in Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, is hereby quashed and set aside. (5) The interlocutory application in I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed, permitting amendment to the writ petition. The petitioner/party-in-person shall carry out the amendment, forthwith. (6) The impugned Order No:NAE 01 BemBhooswa 2024 (CCMS), dated 09.04.2025 at Annexure ‘AE’ issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka to Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, insofar as the petitioner’s lands are concerned, is also quashed and set aside. (7) The recommendation of Hon’ble Sri.Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee at Annexure ‘E’ dated 12.09.2022 insofar as the lands in question are concerned are accepted. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question are accordingly dropped from acquisition proceedings. Ordered accordingly. Pending I.As. if any, stand disposed of.