Karnataka High Court
Sri. V. Ramaiah @ Amruth Mahal Ramaiah vs The Chief Secretary on 27 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.6229 OF 2011 (LA - BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI V. RAMAIAH @ AMRUTHMAHAL RAMAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S.
1(a) SMT.JAYAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAIAH @ AMRUTHMAHAL RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
1(b) SRI RAJANNA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH @ AMRUTHMAHAL RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
SY.NO.19, DODDAKALLASANDRA
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
AMENDMENT CARRIEDOUT VIDE ORDER
DATED 20.06.2022.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
5. THE TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 009.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SESHU V., HCGP FOR R-1, R-3 AND R-5;
SRI MURUGESH V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES IN THE
MATTER OF ACQUISITION PERTAINING TO SY.NO.19 OF
DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE
SOUTH TALUK; TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI & QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTIFICATIONS AT ANNEXURE-L BEARING
NO.BDA/SLAO/A4PR/257/88-89 DATED 17.11.1988 AND
ANNEXURE M BEARING NO.HUD/553/MNX/90 DATED 22.07.1991
3
AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DECLARE THE ENTIRE NOTIFICATON AT
ANNEXURE-L & M AS NULL & VOID WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER
SCHEDULE LAND FOR NOT COMPLYING THE PROCEDURE & ALSO
LAPSE IN THE SCHEME OF 1988 AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
acquisition pertaining to Survey No.19 of Doddakallasandra Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk; the preliminary
notification issued on 17-11-1988; the final notification issued
22-07-1991 and consequently seeking a direction by issuance of a
writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents - authorities not
to disturb their possession in the subject property.
2. Heard Sri M. Shivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, Sri Seshu V., learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 and Sri Murugesh
V. Charati, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
4
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
3.1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the
deceased petitioner, who claimed to be the landless agriculturist
and permanent resident of Doddakallasandra, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk for generations. In this order, reference to
'petitioner' would be reference to the 'deceased petitioner'. It is the
averment in the petition that the petitioner, to eke out his
livelihood, cultivated certain land by taking possession of
Government kharab land in Survey No.19 in the year 1960 and has
developed the land by setting up a small garden and dwelling house
in the said survey number as described. The land bearing Survey
No.19 in total measures 4 acres 10 guntas, out of which, 2 acres
and 10 guntas was in occupation at the hands of the petitioner and
the remaining was in the possession of one Smt.Kempamma. The
revenue records and other contemporaneous documents show that
the petitioner was in possession and occupation of the said land. It
is the averment in the petition that the then State of Mysore
notified a scheme known as 'Thakararu Takte', wherein the revenue
authorities would collect tax for utilisation of Government land. The
5
petitioner then submitted an application seeking cultivation of
Government land under Bagair Hukum scheme. On the said
application, the revenue authorities have issued several notices to
the petitioner since 1972 up to 1991.
3.2. When things stood thus, a preliminary notification comes
to be issued by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short
'BDA'), for the purpose of acquisition of several parcels of land for
formation of Jayaprakash Nagar (for short, 'J.P. Nagar') 9 th stage on
17-11-1988. On receipt of objections and consideration thereof, a
final notification was issued on 22-07-1991. Long thereafter, the
land in Doddakallasandra village is agreed to be transferred to
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'BBMP') to an extent
of 2 acres in Survey No.19. Twenty years after the final notification
so issued on 22-07-1991, an award notice is issued by the Land
Acquisition Officer in respect of acquisition of land in Survey No.19
to an extent of 2 acres 10 guntas on 28-01-2011, as 2 acres of the
land was transferred in favour of BBMP. The award notices were
issued to all the land owners under Section 12(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award amount is determined. The
6
Tahsildar, Bangalore is said to have received a cheque determining
the award amount at Rs.3,99,458/- by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer and the possession of the said land for the purpose of
formation of sites in J.P.Nagar 9th stage is taken. The layout plan
also springs for formation of the sites in J.P.Nagar, 9 th stage. The
State Government acknowledges the award amount by submitting
an affidavit before this Court. The subject petition springs calling in
question the aforesaid process of acquisition, only after the award
notice comes to be issued on 22-01-2011.
4. A coordinate bench of this Court granted an interim order
in the case at hand and the said order is subsisting even as on
today.
5. Sri M. Shivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would vehemently contend that the acquisition by the
BDA for the purpose of formation of the layout is to an extent of
241 acres and 20 guntas. This Court had directed an affidavit to be
filed along with the sketch as to the extent of acquisition and
utilisation of land for the purpose of formation of the layout.
7
Affidavit is filed before this Court on 09-09-2024, indicating that
formation of layout is only to an extent of 10 acres and 26 guntas,
which is 4.40% of implementation of the scheme. With regard to
remainder of the land, which is acquired and not utilised, the
scheme has lapsed and therefore, the land of these petitioners
must be dropped from acquisition. The petitioners are in the
possession of the property even as on today. He relies upon several
judgments concerning this very scheme 'J.P.Nagar, 9 th stage'. The
judgments so relied on would bear consideration in the course of
the order qua their relevance.
6. Sri Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel for the
respondents - BDA would contend that the challenge made in the
petition is hit by gross delay, as the preliminary notification and the
final notification are of the years 1988 and 1991 respectively, which
are sought to be challenged in the year 2011. Therefore, the
petition must be dismissed on delay and laches. He would further
contend that the lands acquired by issuance of final notification
vests with the BDA and never can be divested by the BDA on the
score that there is delay in passing the award. Even if it is 20
8
years, the rights of the BDA would not take away the effect of
acquisition, as reasonable period principle is not applicable to the
BDA. He would submit that even if the Scheme lapses, the
acquisition will not lapse. In the light of the acquisition not lapsing,
the lands would not be given back to the hands of the land owners.
In all, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the petition. He also
places reliance upon plethora of judgments on every point he has
canvassed, all of which would bear consideration in the course of
the order.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A preliminary
notification comes to be issued on 17-11-1988 for formation of JP
Nagar 9th Stage, in which the subject land in Sy.No.19 measuring 4
acres and 10 guntas did find place in the preliminary notification.
Between 11-04-1989 and 15-03-1999 the BDA conducts enquiry by
affording an opportunity to all the stake holders or affected persons
9
by publication of a notification in the newspapers. On 22-07-1991,
a final notification comes to be issued, in which the subject land in
Sy.No.19 measuring 4 acres and 10 guntas was shown. The
petitioner was said to be in unauthorised occupation of certain piece
of land in the year 1991. He filed an application for regularization
before the revenue authorities. No order was passed thereon.
Therefore, he approaches this Court in Writ Petition No.2168 of
2006 seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus for regularization of his unauthorised occupation of the
land. On 07-03-2007, a learned single Judge of this Court disposed
of the petition with a direction to the concerned authorities to
consider the representation and pass necessary orders in
accordance with law. While so doing, it was directed that the report
of inspection and mahazar if any conducted earlier, must be taken
note of.
9. On 15-02-2008, the BDA is said to have agreed for transfer
of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.19 from the hands of the BDA to the
BBMP in favour of slum dwellers of Puttenahalli Tank Bed area. On
19-02-2008 the revenue authorities issued a notice on the
10
application of the petitioner for regularisation under Bagair Hukum
Scheme and directed to wait for passing of final order. There was a
conflict. Upon consideration and mandamus being issued by the
learned single Judge, a notification comes to be issued that 2 acres
of land would be transferred to the slum dwellers of Puttenahalli
tank bed area. When things stood thus, an award comes to be
passed on 22-01-2011 only insofar as 2 acres and 10 guntas of
land and the remaining 2 acres was to be handed over to the BBMP
as aforesaid. Possession is taken on 29-01-2011 by the BDA. After
the possession being taken, the petitioner prefers the subject
petition seeking quashment of preliminary and final notifications.
10. Insofar as regularization of 2 acres which was remaining
to be considered, Smt. Kempamma approaches this Court in Writ
Petition No.8055 of 2010. The Court noticing that saguvali chit for
2 acres had been issued on 31-10-1978 and the fact that no notice
was issued for acquisition, quashed preliminary/final notification
insofar as it concerns 2 acres of land. The coordinate Bench also
notices that as on the date of filing of the writ petition possession
was not taken by the BDA.
11
11. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he approaches this
Court in Writ Petition No.36313 of 2017 for issuance of saguvali chit
for the subject land and consideration of his representation for
regularisation. The said writ petition comes to be disposed of on
11-03-2020 with a direction to the jurisdictional Tahsildar to
consider and pass orders on the representation submitted by the
petitioner. In the case at hand, a coordinate Bench directed the
BDA to produce a sketch and file an affidavit indicating acquisition
of lands in Doddakallasandra Village. On 09-09-2024, the BDA files
its affidavit before this Court in the subject petition along with a
tabular column of the lands notified for acquisition, sketch prepared
and the lands that are subject matter of acquisition where
acquisition is complete. The matter was heard at that stage.
12. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner even today is in
possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the land and necessary
statutory entries show the petitioner as occupant in cultivation of
the land. Insofar as lapsing of the Scheme is concerned, which is
projected as the prime ground for seeking quashment of the
acquisition, the issue stands answered by a Division Bench
12
judgment rendered on 21-01-2020 in respect of the same Scheme.
The Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.311 of 2013 and connected
cases holds as follows:
".... .... ....
14. In terms of the aforementioned facts, the following
points that would arise for our consideration in these appeals
are:
1. Whether the possession of the lands were
taken by BDA ?
2. Whether the Jayaprakashnarayan Nagar
th
9 Stage Scheme was substantially implemented ?
15. Re. Point No.1:
Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-BDA submits that
certain inadvertent discrepancies regarding the dates mentioned
in the notification issued under Section 16(2) cannot take away
the legal effect of taking possession of the lands, which is
evident from the mahazar. It is his contention that even in the
absence of a Section 16(2) notification, the factum of taking
possession cannot be negated since the BDA has placed
sufficient material on record to show that the possession of the
lands in question were, in fact, in the possession of BDA. The
absence of names and addresses of the witnesses in the
mahazar cannot invalidate the mahazar. It is his further
vehement contention that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the BDA has substantially implemented the Scheme.
To buttress his submission, the learned Counsel would
seek to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BANDA, VS. MOTI LAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS reported in
(2011) 5 SCC 394, particularly to paragraphs 19 and 38,
which read as follows:
"19. In matters involving challenge to the
acquisition of land for public purpose, this Court has
consistently held that delay in filing the writ petition
should be viewed seriously and relief denied to the
13
petitioner if he fails to offer plausible explanation for the
delay. The Court has also held that the delay of even
few years would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if
the acquired land has been partly or wholly utilised for
the public purpose.
38. In the light of the above discussion, we hold
that the action of the State authorities concerned to go
to the spot and prepare panchnama showing delivery of
possession was sufficient for recording a finding that
actual possession of the entire acquired land had been
taken and handed over to BDA. The utilisation of the
major portion of the acquired land for the public purpose
for which it was acquired is clearly indicative of the fact
that actual possession of the acquired land had been
taken by BDA. Once it is held that possession of the
acquired land was handed over to BDA on 30-6-2001,
the view taken by the High Court that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance with
Section 11-A cannot be sustained. "
16. The learned Counsel would further seek to place
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of PRAHLAD SINGH AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS reported in (2011)5 SCC 386 which followed
Banda Development Authority's case to contend that once
possession is taken, the land would vest with the BDA.
17. The learned Counsel would further rely on the
judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case
of THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
ANOTHER VS. CHIKKABORAIAH AND OTHERS
REPRESENTED BY L.RS. reported in ILR 2011 KAR 1874, at
paragraph No.9, which reads thus:
" 9. The material on record would clearly show
that final Notification was passed on 25.6.1988. Section
27 of the Act reads as follows:
"27. Authority to execute the scheme
within five years: where within a period of five
years from the date of publication in the Official
Gazette of the declaration under sub-Section (1) of
Section 19, the Authority fails to execute the
scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and
14
the provisions of Section 36 shall become
inoperative."
It is clear on perusal of the above said provisions
of Section 27 of the Act that entire scheme will lapse if
there is no substantial compliance in executing the
scheme and the order passed by the Learned Single
Judge to the effect that scheme has lapsed only insofar
as it relates to the land of the petitioner is clearly
contrary to the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. It is
well settled that in view of the decision of this Court in
K. Sathyanarayana, Since Dead by his LRs. v. State of
Karnataka [ W.A. Nos. 2106/2007 C/w 1944/2007
decided on 28.1.2008.] , merely because there is
dispute about taking possession and implementing the
scheme insofar as the land of the Writ Petitioner is
concerned, scheme will not lapse as the scheme would
lapse when there is no substantial implementation of the
scheme. Having regard to the particulars filed along with
the affidavit of the Commissioner of the Appellant --
Authority and having regard to the allotment register
which is produced, we are satisfied that there is
substantial compliance with the scheme as the layout
has been formed, allotment of civic amenity sites have
been made and sites of various dimensions have been
formed in an area of 240 acres out of 260 acres.
Therefore, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge
cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
The Writ Appeal is allowed. The order passed by
the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 31712/2002 dated
23.7.2003 is set aside and W.P. No. 31712/2002 is
dismissed.”
18. In terms of the aforementioned judgments, it is
urged by the learned Counsel for the BDA that once possession
having been taken and the Scheme implemented, the learned
Single Judge could not have reversed the same on the ground
that the Scheme insofar as it pertains to the lands of the
petitioners have lapsed.
19. In this context, it is necessary to notice the
notification dated 1.6.1998 depicting that BDA has taken
15
possession of the lands mentioning the survey numbers to the
extent indicated therein and the respective dates of possession
in months and years. Though the notification was issued on
1.6.1998, for certain lands, the BDA has taken possession after
the said date is an impossible act that can be done. There
cannot be taking possession on subsequent months and years
notified under the notification of having taken possession in
terms of section 16(2) of the LA Act.
20. It would be useful to extract this impossible act of
BDA in several cases stated in the notification dated 1.6.1998,
which reads as follows:
Sl. LAC No. Sy.No. Extent Date of
No. taking
possession
2. 44/97-98 28/6 1 acre of 13 guntas 29.7.1998
3. 45/97-98 28/7 13 guntas 29.7.1998
14. 494/91-92 91 04 acres 29.7.1998
15. 495/91-92 92 04 acres 05.1.1999
17. 382/91-92 28 22 guntas 30.7.1998
25. 22/97-98 10/3 02 acres 20 guntas 18.6.1998
26. 23/97-98 11/1 24 guntas 18.6.1998
27. 36/97-98 84/1 1 acre 30 guntas 18.6.1998
28. 37/97-98 84/3 02 acres 18.6.1998
29. 321/91-92 91 5 acres 29.7.1998
Thus, it can be seen from the notification dated 1.6.1998,
possession of the land was taken in July 1998 and also in
January 1999. This itself is enough to conclude that the
possession was not taken on 1.6.1998.
21. The next evidence of taking possession according to
the BDA is the mahazar, which was drawn on 30.5.1998
(Annexure-R2) and Section 16(2) notification (Annexure-R3)
which shows that possession was taken on 10.5.1998. As we
have indicated hereinabove, because of these impossible acts
and self destructive contradictions that are made in the
annexures, no credence can be attached to such
notification issued under Section 16(2) of the LA Act.
16
22. Perusal of the copy of the mahazar (Annexure-R2)
would indicate that it is a cyclostyled form, some columns are
filled in and some are just left blank. It does not contain the
names and particulars of the persons whose signatures are
taken at the time of taking possession. The purpose of drawing
the mahazar and the affixture of signatures thereon by the
independent witnesses who are present on the spot, is only
to establish that the possession was taken. When the
witnesses’ names and addresses were not furnished and merely
their signatures were found on the mahazar, this Court is unable
to accept that the respondents have done anything equivalent to
taking effective possession.
23. The judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for
the BDA are distinguishable on facts. With reference to the
factum of taking possession of the land that is acquired, the
Apex Court in case of BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BANDA, VS. MOTI LAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS reported in
(2011) 5 SCC 394, at paragraph No.37, has held as follows:
” 37. The principles which can be culled out from
the above noted judgments are:
(i) No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to
what act would constitute taking of possession of the
acquired land.
(ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the
State authority concerned to go to the spot and prepare
a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to
constitute taking of possession.
(iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or
building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the
authority concerned will, by itself, be not sufficient for
taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the
authority concerned will have to give notice to the
occupier of the building/structure or the person who has
cultivated the land and take possession in the presence
of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the
panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land
or building/structure may not lead to an inference that
the possession of the acquired land has not been taken.
17
(iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it
may not be possible for the acquiring/designated
authority to take physical possession of each and every
parcel of the land and it will be sufficient that symbolic
possession is taken by preparing appropriate document
in the presence of independent witnesses and getting
their signatures on such document.
(v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an
agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total
compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3-A)
and substantial portion of the acquired land has been
utilised in furtherance of the particular public purpose,
then the court may reasonably presume that possession
of the acquired land has been taken.”
This was again followed in the case of PRAHLAD SINGH AND
OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in
(2011)5 SCC 386. The Apex Court in the said judgment, at
paragraph 19, has held as follows:
“19. The same issue was recently considered in
Banda Development Authority vs. Moti Lal Agarwal
decided on 26.04.2011. After making reference to the
judgments in Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs.
M.D.Bhagwat, Balmok and Khatri Educational and
Industrial Trust vs. State of Punjab, P.K.Kalburqi
vs. State of Karnataka, NTPC Ltd., vs. Mahesh
Dutta, Sita Ram Bhandar Society vs. Government
of NCET of Delhi, Omprakash Verma vs. State of
A.P. and Naharsingh vs. State of U.P. this Court laid
down the following principles: (Banda Development
Authority case, SCC Page 411, para 37)
i) No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as
to what act would constitute taking of possession of
the acquired land.
ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of
the State authority concerned to go to the spot and
prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as
sufficient to constitute taking of possession.
iii) If crop is standing on the acquired
land or building/structure exists, mere going on the
spot by the authority concerned will, by itself, be
not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such
18cases, the authority concerned will have to give
notice to the occupier of the building/structure or
the person who has cultivated the land and take
possession in the presence of independent witnesses
and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of course,
refusal of the owner of the land or
building/structure may not lead to an inference that
the possession of the acquired land has not been taken.”
In terms of the afore-extracted judgments, it is evident that the
BDA has not taken possession of the lands belonging to the
petitioners.
24. It is also useful to refer to the statement of
objections filed by BDA before the learned Single Judge in
the writ petitions. There is no whisper in the entire
statement of objections as to how the possession was
taken and from whom the possession was taken of the
lands in question. Thus, neither the mahazar nor the
statement of objections would indicate that the owners of
the lands in question were ever called upon to hand over
possession or to be present when the mahazar was
drawn. The reliance placed by the BDA on the judgment
in case of Banda Development Authority (Supra) would
not come to its aid, as in the said case, the said
Authority, after taking the possession of the acquired
lands, formed the roads, constructed nalas, laid down
pipelines, erected electrical poles with lights fixed,
carved out plots and allotted them to the people
belonging to different categories. It is on those facts,
the Apex Court held that the possession was complete
and the Scheme have been completed.
25. Even in the statement of objections, it is not
the case of the respondents that the land in question
was developed by BDA in any way after 30.05.1998 on
which date they claim to have taken the possession of the
lands belonging to the petitioners.
26. Thus, in terms of the table which we have
hereinbefore extracted, which contains information
regarding the notification dated 1.6.1998, it is impossible
19
to accept that the BDA had taken possession of the
property.
Thus, we answer point No.1 in favour of the writ
petitioners.
27. Re. Point No.2:
In order to examine as to whether the
Jayaprakashnarayan Nagar 9th Stage Layout Scheme was
substantially implemented, it is necessary to refer to the
relevant statutory provisions of Section 27 of the Act,
which reads thus:
"Section 27: Authority to execute the Scheme within five years
– Where within a period of five years from
the date of the publication in the Official Gazette
of the declaration under sub-section (1) of
Section 19, the authority fails to execute the
Scheme substantially, the Scheme shall lapse and
the provisions of Section 36 shall become
inoperative.”
Thus, it is clear that the improvement Scheme has to
be implemented within five years. If there is no
substantial execution of the Scheme within the said
period, the Scheme shall lapse and the provisions of
Section 36 shall become operative.
28. The land utilization certificate is produced before us,
pertaining to Jayaprakashnarayan Nagar 9th Stage Layout, which
reads as follows:
Extent of Land Notified : 1118 Acres 9.8
Guntas
Extent of land Handed over to : 262 Acres 14 Guntas
Engineering Section
Extent of Land utilized for Formation : 179 Acres 31 Guntas
of Layout
Total No. of Sites Formed : 3078
Note :- Details are as per information available in this Office.
20
In terms of the afore-extracted chart, out of the 1118
acres and 9.8 guntas of land, only 262 acres and 14
guntas have been handed over to engineering section.
Out of which, only 179 acres and 31 guntas were utilised
for formation of layout and total number of sites is 3078.
In the case of Doddakallasandra village, the situation is
still worse. Out of total 241 acres and 20 guntas, only 12
acres were utilized. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it
can be held that the Scheme namely,
“Jayaprakashnarayan Nagar 9th Stage Layout” is
substantially implemented. It is not even implemented to
the tune of 50 percent even after the lapse of 29 years of
issuance of final notification.
29. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the BDA
in the case of Mysore Urban Development Authority
(Supra) also would not come to his aid as in the said
case, 240 acres out of 260 acres acquisition of lands had
been developed by the Mysore Urban Development
Authority. It is in those circumstances, the learned
Division Bench was of the view that there was substantial
compliance. In view of our finding that there is not even
50 percent of compliance in the present case, the
judgment of the learned Division Bench would not be
applicable.
Hence, we answer point No.2 in favour of writ
petitioners.
30. The learned Single Judge has considered the
case in its entirety and on thorough examination of the
facts, has held that the Scheme had lapsed insofar as it
pertains to the lands of the petitioners. Consequently,
the acquisition proceedings insofar as the lands of the
petitioners are concerned had also lapsed. In our view,
the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant
any interference.
31. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeals being
devoid of merit are dismissed.
21
There shall be no order as to costs.”
The Division Bench considered the challenge to the order of the
learned single Judge who had quashed the very preliminary and
final notifications on the score that the Scheme had lapsed in the
light of the BDA not taking possession of the land for close to 29
years.
13. Further, it becomes germane to notice the observations of
the Apex Court in KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v.
BIMAL KUMAR SHAH1, wherein it is held as follows:
“…. …. ….
33.6.The Right to an efficient and expeditious
process
33.6.1. The acquisition process is traumatic for
more than one reason. The administrative delays in
identifying the land, conducting the enquiry and
evaluating the objections, leading to a final declaration,
consume time and energy. Further, passing of the award,
payment of compensation and taking over the possession
are equally time-consuming. It is necessary for the
administration to be efficient in concluding the process
and within a reasonable time. This obligation must
necessarily form part of Article 300-A.
33.6.2. Sections 5-A(1), 6, 11-A and 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 6(1-A) and 9 of the
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 968
22
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952,
Sections 4(2), 7(4), 7(5), 11(5), 14, 15(1), 16(1), 19(2), 25,
38(1), 60(4), 64 and 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 and Sections 3-C(1), 3-D(3) and 3-E(1)
of the National Highways Act, 1956, prescribe for statutory
frameworks for the completion of individual steps in the process
of acquisition of land within stipulated timelines.
33.6.3. On multiple occasions, upon failure to adhere to
the timelines specified in law, the courts have set aside the
acquisition proceedings.”
The Apex Court holds that the acquisition process is traumatic for
more than one reason. Administrative delays eat away the right of
parties. Therefore, the delay in challenge would not come in the
way of consideration by the Courts.
14. Diving back to the facts of the case, this very acquisition
process insofar as 2 acres in Sy.No.19 is concerned has been
quashed by the co-ordinate Bench solely on the score that no notice
was given to the petitioner therein viz., Smt. Kempamma despite
the land being granted to her in terms of saguvali chit and there
had been huge delay in taking possession. The order of the learned
single Judge reads as follows:
“2. The records reveal that the petitioner was granted 2
acres of land in Sy.No.19 under the provisions of Rule 27 of
23Land Grant Rules, 1969 (for short hereinafter referred to as the
‘Rules’) as per the order at Annexure-A, dated 31.10.1978. The
upset price of `700/- per acre was to be paid by the grantees.
However, the petitioner being the lady, 75% of the upset price,
subject to the maximum of `500/- was waived under Rule 12(4)
of the Rules and the balance amount was ordered to be
recovered in three equal instalments. Accordingly, the upset
price at the concessional right was said to have been paid.
Pursuant to the said order at Annexure-A, the possession
certificate (certificate of grant of Saguvali chit), was given to the
petitioner as per Annexure-B, on 2.6.1979. Thus, it is clear that
the petitioner became grantee of land on 31.10.1978 and was
continued in possession of the property by grant of certificate at
Annexure-B, dated 2.6.1979. The name of the petitioner came
to be entered in the revenue records from the year 1978-79
itself. The mutation was certified as per Annexure-D. Thereafter,
i.e., from the year 1981 onwards, the name of the petitioner
came to be entered in the revenue records as is clear from
Annexures-E to H. It is relevant to note here itself that the
name of the petitioner entered in ownership column as well as
possessor’s column till the year 1989. However, her name was
discontinued from the year 1989 onwards in possessors column
though the same continued in the ownership column till 2010.
When the facts stood thus, the notifications came to be
issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act, 1976 (for
short hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), proposing to acquire
number of properties, including the property of the petitioner.
The petitioner’s property bearing Sy.No.19 is found at Sl.No.514
of the preliminary notification, but the said entry does not reveal
the name of the petitioner as the owner of the property, but it
reveals as Kharab Katte, meaning thereby the property is owned
by the State Government and is a waste land. Subsequently, the
final acquisition notification came to be issued as per Annexure-
K under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act. The petitioner’s property
bearing Sy.No.19 finds place at Sl.No.411 in the final
notification. Once again, the said property is shown to be owned
by Kharab Katte (State Government’s waste land). However, the
possession continued with the petitioner till the filing of the writ
petition. After coming to know that her property is also sought
to be acquired without notice to her, she has approached this
Court with the delay of 20 years by filing this writ petition.
24
3. The writ petition is opposed by the learned advocate
appearing on behalf of BDA. He submits that wide publicity is
given in the local newspapers i.e., in ‘Kannada Prabha’ and
‘Deccan Herald’ during the relevant period and the notifications
were published; that therefore the petitioner ought to have filed
statement of objections suo moto without waiting for service of
notice to be served on her. Relevant portion of the statement of
objections is as under:-
“But so far in respect of the land bearing
Sy.No.19 of Doddakallasandra Village measuring 4 acres
10 guntas, Government was the owner as per the RTCs
pertaining to the years 1986-87 7 and 1988. The said
land was described as Kharab Katte and stands in the
name of the Government. As such, there was no need
for this authority to issue any notice to the petitioner
herein.”
Thus, it is contended by the BDA that there was no
question of issuing notice to the petitioner as the property is a
Government property.
Learned Government Advocate also opposes the writ
petition.
4. In the normal course, this Court would not have
entertained the writ petition as the writ petition is filed after
long lapse of 20 years. The writ petition would have been
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. But in the matter
on hand, the delay is properly explained. The facts and
circumstances clearly go to show that there is no delay on the
part of the petitioner in approaching this Court.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was
granted 2 acres in Sy.No.19 of Doddakallasandra Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk as she was a
landless and unauthorised occupant of the very land. The
property initially was a Government property and the
petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of 2 acres of
land which is granted to her as per Annexure-A, dated
31.10.1978 under the provisions of the Rules. By passing
the said order, the State Government has recognized the
petitioner’s possession over the property and it has also
25
recognized that she is a landless person. Possession
certificate is also granted to her as per Annexure-B on
2.6.1979, by which the petitioner’s possession was
continued as the regular occupant of the land though it
was unauthorised earlier. Thereafter, the entries were
mutated in the revenue records in respect of the property
in question. The entries continued till the year 2010. As
aforementioned, the petitioner’s name continued in
possessor’s column till 1989. Without any reason her
name was discontinued from the year 1989 onwards in
possessor’s column. But the name of the petitioner is
continued in the ownership column even till 2010 i.e., till
filing of the writ petition. Which means that the petitioner
is undisputedly the owner of the property as on the date
of issuance of acquisition notifications.
6. Though the petitioner was the owner of the
property in question, though her name was entered in the
revenue records as is clear from Annexures-E to H as the
owner of the property, strangely the BDA has proceeded
to show the name of the owner of the property in
acquisition notification as the State Government by
describing the land as the Government waste land. Final
notification came to be issued on the same lines.
Thereafter, award was not passed in respect of the
property in question, inasmuch as the BDA has treated
the property as a Government land. Therefore, there was
no occasion of passing the award also. It is also relevant
to note that the possession of the property is not taken
till filing of the writ petition.
7. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the
learned counsel appearing for BDA that the possession of
the property is taken on 29.1.2011, i.e., after filing of the
writ petition. All these facts would clearly go to show that
the petitioner continued to be owner in possession of the
property. The BDA ignored the ownership of the
petitioner while issuing the acquisition notifications.
Possession continued with the petitioner till filing of the
writ petition. In view of the same, it is but natural that
the petitioner did not have notice of the acquisition
proceedings. Thus, virtually, there is no delay on the part
of the petitioner. Even the justice and equity are in favour
26
of the petitioner. She cannot be penalized unheard. Her
name is not shown in the acquisition proceedings.
Possession is not obtained from her and award is also not
passed. In such an event, it cannot be said that the
acquisition proceedings have taken place in an orderly
manner in so far as the petitioner’s property is
concerned. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings as in
respect of the property in question vitiate and
consequently the acquisition notifications are liable to be
quashed.
Accordingly, the acquisition notifications dated
17.11.1988 and 22.7.1991 vide Annexures-J and K respectively
in respect of Sy.No.19, measuring 2 acres of Doddakallasandra
Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk is concerned,
stand quashed.
Petition is allowed accordingly.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
15. In the light of the issue being answered by the Division by
its judgement supra, as also the order of the learned single Judge
in the case of Kempamma which was concerning this very land, the
petition deserves to succeed, as the order of quashing the
notification to an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.19 has attained
finality. If the acquisition qua adjacent land of 2 acres is quashed
on account of delay and lapsing of the Scheme and that has
attained finality, it cannot be said that the BDA can now take
possession of the land of the petitioner concerning final notification
of 1991 in 2026, which would be 34 years after issuance of final
27
notification. The petition thus deserves the same treatment as the
adjacent lands deserved at the hands of the coordinate Bench.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: –
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The Preliminary Notification dated 17-11-1988 and the
Final Notification dated 22-07-1991 concerning the land
of the petitioner in Sy.No.19 measuring 2 acres 10
guntas of Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk stand quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:MJ
