Karnataka High Court
The Bangalore Development Authority vs The Secretary on 26 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1194 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)
C/W.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 978 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1194 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, K.R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI. C.V. RAMA RAO
S/O LATE VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
3. SMT. MADHU BAI
D/O LATE VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
SINCE DEAD, REP. BY LR'S
3(a). SRI. KRISHNA
S/o NANAJUNDA RAO
2
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT DOOR No.45
BESIDES GAVIPURAM RAM MANDIR
GAVIPURA, HANUMANTHA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 019
4. SMT. C.V. SUSHEELA
D/O LATE MANOJ RAO
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
5. SRI. C.V. VENKOBA RAO
S/O LATE VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
SINCE DEAD, REP BY LR'S
5(a). SMT. GEEHTA BAI
W/O LATE C.V. VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
5(b). NATARAJ V.
S/O LATE C.V. VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
5(c). PRADEEP SWAMI V.
S/O LATE C.V. VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
5(d). ANANDA RAO
S/O LATE C.V. VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
5(e). SHIVAJI RAO
S/O LATE C.V. VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
5(f). SMT. BHAGYASHREE
D/o LATE C.V. VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.2, R4, R5(a) TO 5(f) ARE
R/AT. DOOR No.45
BESIDES GAVIPURAM RAM MANDIR
3
GAVIPURA, HANUMANTHA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 019
6. SMT. YASHODA BAI
D/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
7. SMT. C.V. SHANTHA BAI
W/O SRI. KRISHNOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
8. SRI. C.V. NARAYANA RAO
S/O LATE VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
9. SRI. C.V. KRISHNOJI RAO
S/O LATE VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
10 . SMT. C.V. RATHNA BAI
W/O SRI. RAMADEV RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
11 . SMT. BHAVANI BAI @ LAKSHMI BAI
W/O SRI. NEELAKANTA RAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
12 . SRI. C.V. GOVINDA RAO
S/O LATE VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 12 ARE
RESIDING AT CHIKKABALU VILLAGE
CHILUR POST, HAROHALLI HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 11 ARE
REP. BY THEIR ATTORNEY HOLDER
I.E. RESPONDENT NO.2 AND
SRI. V. NATARAJ S/O VENKOBA RAO
NO.45, NEAR RAMA MANDIRA
GAVIPURA VILLAGE
4
BENGALURU-560 019
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.R. BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3(a), R4,
R5(a-f), R6 TO R12)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO (i) SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 06.02.2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.No.60065/2016, AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL
BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 978 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BHRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 002
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING, K.R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 019
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. SRI. C.V. RAMA RAO
S/O LATE VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
4. SMT. MADHU BAI
D/O LATE VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
SINCE DEAD, REP. BY THEIR LR'S
5
4(a). KRISHNA
S/O NANAJUNDA RAO
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT. DOOR NO.45,
BESIDE GAVIPURA RAM MANDIR
GAVIPURA, HANUMANTHA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 019
5. SMT. C.V. SUSHEELA
W/O LATE MANOJ RAO
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
6. SRI. C.V. VENKOBA RAO
S/O LATE VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
SINCE DEAD, REP. BY THEIR LR'S
6(a). SMT. GEETHA BAI
W/O LATE C.V. VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
6(b). NATARAJ V.
S/O LATE C.V. VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
6(c). PRADEEP SWAMY V.
S/O LATE C.V. VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
6(d). ANANDA RAO
S/O LATE C.V. VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
6(e). SHIVAJI RAO
S/O LATE C.V. VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
6(f). SMT. BHAGYASHREE
D/O LATE C.V. VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
6
RESPONDENTS NO. 3, 5, 6(a) TO 6(f) ARE
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.45
BESIDE GAVIPURA RAM MANDIR
GAVIPURA, HANUMANTHA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 019
7. SMT. YASHODA BAI
W/O LATE SRINVIAS RAO
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
8. SMT. C.V. SHANTHA BAI
W/O SRI. KRISHNOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
9. SRI. C.V. NARAYAN RAO
S/O LATE VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
10 . SRI. C.V. KRISHNOJI RAO
S/O LATE VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
11 . SMT. C.V. RATHNA BAI
W/O RAMADEV RAO
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
12 . SMT. BHAVANI BAI @ LAKSHMI BAI
W/O NEELAKANTA RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
13 . SRI. C.V. GOVINDA RAO
S/O LATE VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 7 TO 13 ARE
R/AT CHIKKABALU VILLAGE, CHILUR POST
HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 112
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 13 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY HOLDERS
I.E. THE RESPONDENT 3 AND
7
SRI. V. NATARAJ S/O VENKOBA RAO
NO.45, NEAR RAMA MANDIRA
GAVIPURA VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 019
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.R. BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4(a), R5,
R6(a TO f), R7 TO R13)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 06.02.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.No.60065/2016 (LA-BDA) AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE FINAL NOTIFICATION
DATED 22.04.1964 AS REGARDS SY.Nos.32/21 AND 32/2 STAND
ABANDONED AND LAPSED AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE BDA
INTERFERENCE QUESTION DOESN'T ARISE AT ALL AND BY
ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL AND ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.10.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
8
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
These writ appeals are filed by the appellants
challenging the impugned order dated 06.02.2020 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.60065/2016.
2. We have heard Shri. B. Vachan, learned counsel
for the appellant in W.A.No.1194/2022 and for respondent
No.2 in W.A.No.978/2022, Shri Bathe Gowda K.V., learned
counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.978/2022 and Shri I.
Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior counsel as instructed by
Shri M.R. Balakrishna, learned counsel for all the private
respondents and Shri Vikas Rajipura, learned Additional
Government Advocate for official respondent No.1 in both
the appeals.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant – Bangalore Development Authority (BDA)
in W.A.No.1194/2022 that the respondents are the legal
heirs of Venkata Rao, claiming ownership of land bearing
Sy.No.32/1 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas and Sy.No.32/2
9
measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Gavipura Village, totaling 4
acres and 30 guntas, which were allegedly acquired by the
erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (CITB), vide
preliminary Notification No.RDH 40/LTB/59 dated
10.12.1959 and final Notification No.RDU 3/LTE/64 dated
22.04.1964. Despite the acquisition, the respondents assert
that a portion of the land measuring 115 ft. x 140 ft.
remained in their family’s possession, leading them to claim
that the acquisition had lapsed under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
4. It is submitted that the schedule property was
part of a partition decree in O.S.No.3829/1987 filed by the
respondents and they further continued to possess the land
while paying taxes and maintaining revenue records. The
respondents filed W.P.No.45314/2011 and W.Ps.No.46661
to 46670/2011 (BDA), seeking a mandamus to compel the
appellant to consider their representations for conveyance of
the property. Despite the directions of the Court, appellant
allegedly failed to comply, prompting the respondents to
10
seek relief in W.P.No.60065/2016, claiming continuous
possession for over 40 years.
5. It is further submitted that the appellant had filed
objections, denying the respondents’ possession of the land
and asserting that the acquisition proceedings had not
lapsed as the land had vested in the appellant – BDA. It was
contended that awards were passed, possession taken and
compensation had been deposited in favour of the original
Khatedar and that the respondents’ claim were highly
belated and baseless. The learned Single Judge allowed the
writ petition and held that the Final Notification dated
22.04.1964 had lapsed with respect to the disputed land and
directed the BDA not to interfere with the respondents’
possession. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant – BDA
has approached this Court.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant – Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
(BBMP) in W.A.No.978/2022 that in response to
W.P.No.60065/2016, the Commissioner of BDA, submitted
an affidavit dated 02.11.2019, addressing the possession of
11
land in Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 by BDA’s predecessor, the
CITB. The said affidavit detailed a resolution from
18.07.1962, highlighting CITB’s plan for the layout and the
conditions for re-conveyance of certain plots. On
08.05.1967, re-conveyance requests by landowners were
considered and a mahazar was drawn on 14.06.1967,
confirming that the lands were in CITB’s possession. The
learned Single Judge held that the acquisition of
Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 vide final Notification dated
22.04.1964 was abandoned and the BDA was directed not to
interfere with the land in question. The respondent No.2 –
BDA’s Civic Amenity (CA) Site Allotment Committee then
leased C.A. Site No.10 to BBMP on 13.12.2011 for 30 years
to establish a hospital. This allotment was formalized on
07.04.2012 with a lease payment of a sum of
Rs.38,52,486/- made by BBMP to BDA on 19.11.2012.
7. It is further submitted that on 31.05.2016 and
07.06.2016, BDA requested BBMP to execute a lease deed
and on 14.06.2016, BBMP’s Executive Engineer confirmed
possession of the site. Subsequently, Shree
12
Adichunchanagiri Mahasamsthana Math expressed its
interest in using the site for a hospital. In a meeting on
28.08.2018, BBMP resolved to lease the property to the
Math for 30 years for the said purpose. The Assistant
Executive Engineer prepared a site sketch on 01.06.2020 to
facilitate the construction. However, BBMP was not a party
in W.P.No.60065/2016 and this fact was not disclosed during
the proceedings, leading to the order being set aside.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant – BBMP filed this writ
appeal.
8. It is further contended that the schedule property
is registered in the name of appellant – BBMP and
respondents No.3 to 13 have no legal right, title or interest
in it, unless the khata is cancelled. It is also asserted that
the respondents failed to disclose the lease executed in
favour of BBMP during the Court proceedings. As a result,
BBMP’s interests have been adversely affected. The
appellant seeks to set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 06.02.2020.
13
9. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant/BDA in W.A.No.1194/2022 that the learned
Single Judge failed to consider the significant delay and
laches in filing the writ petition, as respondents approached
the Court after a delay of more than 46 years. Under Section
27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, the
scheme should have been implemented within 5 years and
on this ground alone, the writ petition should have been
dismissed. The learned Single Judge also erred in
adjudicating over the entire 4 acres and 30 guntas, while
the disputed property measured only 115 ft. x 140 ft.
10. It is further contended that the learned Single
Judge incorrectly concluded that possession had not been
taken by the appellant as per law, citing the absence of the
original owner’s signature and lack of Section 16(2) notice
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The signature of the
original owner is not necessary to take possession by relying
on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bondu
Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority
reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129, which was wrongly applied
14
in this case, as the facts of both matters are distinct. The
reliance of the learned Single Judge on other judgments,
such as, Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh
and others reported in (2016) 16 SCC 258, Sunder v.
Union of India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211 and
Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah
reported in (2005) 12 SCC 508, was also misplaced.
11. It is also contended that the conclusion of the
learned Single Judge that the compensation had to be paid
immediately and that respondents had been in continuous
possession for over 60 years, was incorrect and the
inferences were drawn without proper consideration of the
facts, as the appellant had taken lawful possession and the
claim of respondents regarding continuous possession was
not justified.
12. In support of the above contentions, the following
decisions are relied on:-
• HMT Ltd. v. Rukmini and others, reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2614;
• C.V. Rama Rao and others v. Bangalore Development
Authority, by order dated 28.02.2012 passed in
15W.P.No.45314/2011 (BDA) c/w W.P.Nos.46661-
670/2011 (BDA);
• Sri. C.V. Rama Rao and others v. The Bangalore
Development Authority, by order dated 18.01.2013 passed
in W.A.Nos.2633-43/2012 (BDA);
• Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others,
reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129;
• Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal
Transport and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 467;
• Bangalore Development Authority v.
Dr.H.S.Hanumanthappa, reported in I.L.R. 1996 KAR 642;
• Krishnamurthy v. Bangalore Development Authority,
reported in I.L.R. 1996 KAR 1258;
• Bangalore Development Authority and others v. The
State of Karnataka and others, by order dated 12.02.2021
passed in W.A.No.508 OF 2014 (LA-BDA);
• Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh and
others, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 335;
• The Bangalore Development Authority and another v.
The Principal Secretary and others, by order dated
24.05.2022 passed in W.A.No.4121 of 2017 (LA-BDA);
• Bangalore Development Authority and another v.
Smt.Vanaja Munireddy and others, by order dated
21.06.2021 passed in W.A.No.3487 of 2016 (LA-BDA);
• The Bangalore Development Authority and another v.
The State of Karnataka and others, by order dated
20.06.2022 passed in W.A.No.4122 of 2017 (LA-BDA);
16
• The Commissioner v. Dr. K.S. Sundaram and others, by
order dated 18.11.2019 passed in W.A.Nos.1411-1431 of
2015 (LA-BDA);
• The Mysore Urban Development Authority and another v.
Chikkaboraiah and others represented by his L.Rs.,
reported in ILR 2011 KAR 1874;
• Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore
Development Authority and others, reported in (2011) 3
SCC 139;
• Smt. B.L. Ramadevi and others v. The State of Karnataka
and others, by order dated 27.09.2023 passed in
W.A.No.301 of 2023 (LA-BDA);
• Junjamma and others v. The Bangalore Development
Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, Bangalore and
others, reported in ILR 2005 KAR 608; and
• Nandkishor Babulal Agrawal v. The State of Maharashtra
& Ors., by order dated 10.11.2023 passed in Civil Appeal
No.7634 of 2023.
13. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel
appearing for respondent No.7 in W.A.No.978/2022 that the
respondents including respondent No.7, are the absolute
owners and are in possession of the property measuring 115
ft. x 140 ft., carved out of land bearing Sy.No.32/1 and
Sy.No.32/2, located in Gavipura Village, which now falls
within the corporation limits and is assigned as New No.5,
1st Cross, 2nd Block, Banashankari 1st Stage, Bengaluru. It is
17
undisputed that respondent No.7 has been in continuous
possession of the said property for more than 60 years.
14. It is further contended that the learned Single
Judge, held that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the
final Notification dated 22.04.1964 concerning Sy.No.32/1
and Sy.No.32/2 had lapsed and was abandoned.
Consequently, the Court directed respondent No.2 – BDA,
not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the property
measuring 115 ft. x 140 ft. carved out of Sy.No.32/1 and
Sy.No.32/2. The allegation of respondent No.2 that the lease
of C.A. Site No.10 (New No.5) to the appellant for a period
of 30 years for establishing a hospital, which was done
without the knowledge of respondent No.7.
15. It is contended that respondent No.1 – Urban
Development, Government of Karnataka decided not to file
an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition.
Subsequently, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, in
his letter dated 11.08.2021, stated that the case lacked
merit, leading to return of the Vakalath and relevant
documents to the authority. No appeal was preferred by
18
either respondent No.1 or respondent No.2. The appellant,
while filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, suppressed the fact that respondent No.7 had
already filed for the effectuation of khata on 14.10.2020
concerning the schedule property, which the appellant failed
to address.
16. It is also contended that the survey sketch
prepared by respondent No.2 corroborates that respondent
No.7 is in possession of the property, while the appellant is
not. Moreover, the allegations of the appellant against
respondent No.7 regarding Criminal Complaint under
Sections 143, 147, 427, 447 and 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 was dismissed by XXIV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore, on 14.08.2014
after a full-fledged trial, which resulted in acquittal of
respondent No.7. Thus, the fact remains that respondent
No.7 has been in possession of the property for over 40
years. The appellant’s contention that khata stands in it’s
name without substantiating proof of payment or a valid
contract with respondent No.2 further weakens it’s claim as
19
no documentation proving the deposit of Rs.6,98,456/- has
been provided.
17. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing
for respondents No.3 to 13 in W.A.No.978/2022 that the
appellant claims to have acquired the disputed site as a civic
amenity site as per the Bangalore Development Authority
(Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Allotment Rules’ for short). However, the
plot does not meet the definition of a “civic amenity site”
under Rule 2(b) of the Allotment Rules and hence, could not
have been allotted to BBMP as claimed. The BDA, a
contesting party in the writ petition, did not mention this
alleged allotment in affidavits filed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer on 20.06.2015 and 12.04.2019 or by the
BDA Commissioner on 02.11.2019. The absence of any
mention of the allotment in these affidavits calls into
question the authenticity of BBMP’s claims, which rely solely
on the disputed allotment letter dated 07.04.2012, as per
annexures R6, R7 and R8.
20
18. It is further contended that the allotment letter
alone does not confer any enforceable rights on the
appellant under the Allotment Rules. The Rules specify a
process involving provisional allotment, registration of the
lease-cum-sale deed, and fulfillment of various conditions
under Rule 10 of Allotment Rules. These include payment of
remaining lease amount within 90 days, execution of a lease
agreement within 45 days as stipulated under Rule 10(4) of
Allotment Rules and building construction within 3 years
from the date of registration and lessee shall not sub-lease
or alienate the plot allotted. It is evident that in terms of
Rule 10-A(v) of the Allotment Rules, the allottee shall
become the owner and derive title of the civic amenity sites
from the date of the execution of lease-cum-sale deed. In
the absence of compliance of the conditions prescribed
under the provisions of Rule 10 of the Allotment Rules, the
allotment remains incomplete and without a registered deed,
no legal right or title can vest with the appellant.
19. It is also contended that, the site had previously
been allotted to People’s Educational Society on 22.02.2011
21
but was canceled on 12.07.2011 in the light of the challenge
to the said allotment before this Court in
W.P.No.20032/2011(PIL). Despite this, the site was
allegedly re-allotted to the appellant within a few months.
The BBMP attempted to pass a resolution on 28.08.2018 to
sublet the property to Shree Adichunchanagiri
Mahasamsthan Math, as the BBMP failed to register the
lease deed within 4 years of the initial allotment and then
resolved to transfer the site nearly 6 years of alleged
allotment. It is also contended that the BBMP is not
competent authority to make any such alienation. Hence,
the said resolution is non-est in law. There is no merit in
the appeals. Consequently, the plot measuring 115ft x 140ft
(16100 sq.ft) remains with the possession of the
respondents and the BBMP lacks the authority for such
alienation.
20. In support of the above contentions, the following
decisions are relied on:-
• Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh and
others, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 258;
22
• Prahlad Singh and others v. Union of India and
others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 386;
• Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal
Agarwal and others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394;
• Sri.M.Sreenivas v. State of Karnataka and others
reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 5290;
• Meenakshi Thimmaiah and others v. State of
Karnataka by its Secretary, Urban Development
Department and another reported in ILR 2010 KAR 62;• Bangalore Development Authority v. State of
Karnataka, rep. by Principal Secretary, Department
of Housing and Urban Development and others
reported in ILR 2018 KAR 2144; and• Bondu Ramaswamy and others v. Bangalore
Development Authority and others reported in (2010)
7 SCC 129.
21. We have considered the contentions advanced
and the extensive material on record. It is an admitted fact
that there was a Preliminary Notification dated 27.11.1959
for acquisition of property including 3 acres 30 guntas in
Sy.No.32/1 and 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.32/2 of Gavipura
Village, Bengaluru North Taluk by the CITB. A final
notification was issued on 22.04.1964, where the entire
property stood notified for acquisition. The father of the
petitioners filed W.P.No.554/1965 challenging the
23
acquisition. During the pendency of the said writ petition,
the CITB adopted a resolution dated 18.07.1962. The said
resolution is available before us as Annexure-R1. The
resolution reads as follows:
“CITB Meeting dtd. 18-7-1962
Subject No.77Subject:
Private layout (Srinagar Association) in Survey No.7, 8, 9, 11,
22, 23, 24, 27, 33 to 41 etc., of Gavipura Village Revenue Sites
called Srinagar Association. This areas is a part of the scheme
of the City Improvement Trust Board mentioned layout called
“First Stage Layout from Banashankari to Mysore Road”.
The layout of Srinagar association has sites varying in
dimension from 30′ X 45′ & 40′ X 60’/ The Roads are 20 ft and
30 ft and most of them are 20 feet. In the sanctioned layout of
the City Improvement Trust board, the roads are all 30 ft. 40 ft.
and 50 ft. The layout works are not yet taken up as the
acquisition proceedings are not yet finalized.
The association has paid Rs.72,593/- as part layout charges
through their 283 numbers. The Hon’ble Minister for local self
Government and Development had ordered on 17-11-1961 to
receive the layout charges. Hence, the layout charges have
been received in advance. The members of the Association
desire that the sites may be reconveyed to them.
The question of reconveyance of plots to the owners may be
considered favourably subject to the following conditions:
1) The lands have to be handed over the City
Improvement Trust Board immediately.
24
2) The Private Layout will have to fit in the City
Improvement Trust Board Plan.
3) Layout charges will be actual cost plus 10%
surcharge.
4) The question of supply of water is not
guaranteed.
5) The area shown as parks, play grounds, CA in the
City Improvement Trust Board plan will not be
reconveyed.
After completion of the layout, the available sites
will be reconveyed to the respective owners.
Resolved-
“That the proposal to reconvey the lands in Survey Nos: 7, 8, 9,
11, 23, 24, 27, 33 to 41 etc., of Kathriguppa and Gavipura
Village subject to the above conditions (1) to (5) only on
completion of the layout in the above areas be approved.
Further the width of roads be kept as per the sanctioned plan.
Lung space should not be reduced and displaced persons
consequent on their of being reserved for providing Civic
Amenities might as far as possible be accommodated in the
neighbouring areas without any extra cost.”
Sd/-
(S. Ramanathan)
Chairman
CITB., Bengaluru”
22. It is pertinent to note that neither Survey
No.32/1 nor 32/2 is mentioned in the resolution. It is further
specified that area shown as parks, play ground and Civic
Amenities in the CITB plan shall not be re-conveyed.
25
23. W.P.No.554/1965 was withdrawn by the writ
petitioners including the petitioners’ father accepting the
resolution dated 18.07.1962. It is also an admitted fact that
the property measuring 115 ft x 140 ft was shown as CA site
in the City Improvement Plan and Scheme.
24. It is the specific case of the BDA, on the strength
of documents produced, that separate awards were passed
in respect of the entire extent of land in Survey No.32/1 &
32/2 in the ownership of Sri. Venkata Rao on 07.05.1964
and that possession had been taken.
25. The Award in respect of the land in Sy.No.32/2 of
Gavipura Village is available at page No.344 of the paper
book in W.A.No.1194/2022 while the award in respect of
Sy.No.32/1 is available at page No.356.
26. The Mahazar for taking possession of the
properties are also produced. It is worth noticing that
challenge to the acquisition, manner of taking possession
etc., of land acquired in 1960’s are being raised after scores
of years have passed and the BDA, which is the successor of
the beneficiary of the acquisition was called upon to produce
26evidence of deposit of compensation in Court after more
than 50 years.
27. We notice that long after the awards were
passed, the petitioners as the legal heirs of Sri. Venkata Rao
had filed W.P.No.45314/2011 and W.Ps.No.46661 to
46670/2011 (BDA), seeking consideration of their
representation dated 04.11.2011 seeking re-conveyance of
the property bearing No.1 (New No.5), situated at 1st Cross,
2nd Block, Banashankari I Stage, Bengaluru, measuring
115’x140′ along with the building constructed thereon. The
writ petitions were disposed of finding that no relief can be
granted since the petitioners have approached the Court
after a lapse of 40 years. It was further found that the site
in question is a civic amenity site. However, the respondents
were directed to consider the representation on merits. The
matter was taken in an appeal and this Court by Judgment
dated 18.01.2013 in Writ Appeals No.2633-43/2012 (BDA),
considered the contentions and found that the request of re-
conveyance could not have been considered positively and
that the rejection of the writ petitions, was justified.
27
28. We notice that the present writ appeals raised a
direct challenge against the acquisition proceedings i.e., the
Final Notification dated 22.04.1964 and the Preliminary
Notification dated 27.11.1959. We fail to see how the said
prayer could have been entertained at this distance in time.
The contention of the private respondents that the layout
has not been formed pursuant to the acquisition cannot be
accepted in view of the fact that the property tax receipt
produced by them as Annexures ‘H’ to ‘R’ would show that
the property in question is situated in No.1, 1st Cross,
Banashankari 1st Stage, II Block. Further, the description of
property in Annexure ‘S’ – General Power of Attorney would
also show that the site is situated within the Banashankari
1st Stage and is bounded by road on East and South and by
Swamy Vivekananda School and PES College on the West
and North. After the land vested with the BDA., the civic
amenity site in question had been leased out which was
never under challenge at the instance of Venkata Rao or the
present private respondents/writ petitioners.
28
29. Having considered the contentions advanced and
having taken note of the extensive material, which is found
on record to show that the property in question was the
subject matter of an acquisition which commenced in the
year 1959, the awards having been passed in 1964 and
possession having been taken on 14.06.1967 and in view of
the withdrawal of the challenge against the acquisition by
father of the petitioners, we are of the opinion that the
petitioners could not have justifiably challenged the
acquisition itself at this distance in time. Further, having
raised the claim for re-conveyance of the property in
W.P.No.45314/2011 and W.Ps.No.46661 to 46670/2011
(BDA) and Writ Appeals No.2633-43/2012 (BDA) cases,
which were dismissed by this Court, finding that the claim
for re-conveyance was not justified, the further claims raised
on the prayers in the instant writ appeals were totally
misconceived. The sole fact that the khata of the disputed
property remained unchanged cannot be a reason for the
private respondents to contend that they remain in
ownership and possession of a civic amenity site which was
29acquired scores of years ago. We also notice that the
resolution adopted by the CITB on 18.07.1962 did not
mention the land in Sy.No.32 and that the resolution also
specifically excluded civic amenities sites. The only
conclusion that can be drawn is that the entire property
which was notified for acquisition which was originally in the
ownership and possession of Venkata Rao, stood acquired by
the CITB. The sole fact that the BDA was unable to produce
evidence of deposit of compensation in the Civil Court after
more than 50 years cannot be a valid ground to come to a
conclusion that the site was excluded from the acquisition or
was liable to be re-conveyed. We are therefore of the
opinion that the finding that the acquisition had lapsed on
mere assumption that the appellant could not place
materials to show that the compensation had been
deposited before the Civil Court was completely unjustified,
especially in view of the fact that it was after 50 years that
the appellant, which was the successor in interest of the
original beneficiary was being called upon to produce
material to show that the compensation, had, as a matter of
30fact being deposited in Court. In view of withdrawal of the
writ petition by the original owner and the dismissal of the
claim for re-conveyance made by the private
respondents/writ petitioners in 2011-2012, the consideration
of the challenge to the acquisition was clearly extremely
belated.
30. The instant writ petition filed challenging the
Preliminary Notification of 1959 and the Final Notification of
1964 was admittedly hopelessly belated and should not
have been entertained by this Court. The BDA, which is the
successor of the original beneficiary of the acquisition could
not have been called upon to explain the mode of taking
possession or expected to produce evidence of deposit of
compensation amount in the Civil Court after lapse of more
than 50 years. The finding of the learned Single Judge that
the details of deposit of compensation before the Civil Court
could not be produced by the BDA., and that the property
in question therefore continued in the possession of private
respondents cannot be accepted in view of the extensive
materials on record.
31
31. In the above view of the matter, the following
order:-
(i) Writ Appeals are allowed;
(ii) Order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.60065/2016, is hereby set-aside.
(iii) The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Pending IAs., if any, in the both appeals, stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
cp*