Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1433 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 6456 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 8391 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 12256 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) IN W.P.No. 1433 OF 2024: BETWEEN:
1. SHANMUGANANDA S/O PARVATHAPPA @ PARVATHIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT 142, KANNALLI, KODIGEHALLI POST, BENGALURU 560091 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED
Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R 2. SRI PARAMASHIVAIAH Location: HIGH S/O PARVATHAPPA @ PARVATHIAH, COURT OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT 142, KANNALLI, KODIGEHALLI POST, BENGALURU 560091
3. SRI SIDDALINGAPPA S/O PARVATHAPPA @ PARVATHIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT 173, KANNALLI BYDARAHALLI, NEAR MAHADEVAMMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU 560091. -2-
4. MANJUNATH S/O PARVATHAPPA @ PARVATHIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT KANNALLI, KODIGEHALLI POST, BENGALURU 560091. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU 560020 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAND ACQUISITION, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU 560020
4. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU 560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. MURUGESH V.CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED:05.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND 4 -3-
ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION DATED 09.02.2023 AND 24.08.2023 AT ANNEXURES-T AND T1 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF 60:40 SCHEME TO THE PETITIONERS TO OBTAIN ONLY DEVELOPED SITES AS PER THEIR ENTITLEMENT BY THE PASSING THE MODIFIED AND REVISED AWARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. No.16919/2013
DECIDED ON 28.06.2013 ANNEXURE-R AND W.P. No.5849/2022, DECIDED ON 12.07.2022 ANNEXURE-S, ETC. IN W.P.No. 6456 OF 2024: BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. N RANGASWAMY S/O K. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.62, 4TH B CROSS, SHIVAPURA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560058 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KARTHIK.B.Y., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001
2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER -4-
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAND ACQUISITION, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020
4. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI.MURUGESHV.CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO 4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 01.04.2023 VIDE BEARING No.BDA/ALAO/T2449-20-23 ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R-4 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, ETC. IN W.P.No. 8391 OF 2024: BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HANUMEGOWDA S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANNAHALLI VILLAGE, KODIGEHALLI, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560091
2. SRI NARASIMAIAH, S/O LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT VARADAHALLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562120
3. SRI MUNIYALLAPPA, -5- S/O LATE PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, 5TH MAIN ROAD, A CROSS, NEAR PETROL BUNK, TIGALARA LAYOUT, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560039.
4. SRI C RAJANNA S/O LATE PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.24, TIGALARA LAYOUT, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560039.
5. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.15, MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, NAYANDANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560039
6. SRI NAGARAJU P S/O LATE PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING ATNO.92, 2ND MAIN, TIGALARA LAYOUT, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560039.
7. SRI P ASHOKA S/O LATE PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26, TIGALARA LAYOUT, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560039. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJESWARA.P.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, -6- BENGALURU - 560001.
2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAND ACQUISITION BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560020.
4. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. MURUGESH.V.CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT/LETTER DATED 06.03.2024 AT ANNEXURE-A
REFUSING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF THE PEITITONERS TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF 60.40 SCHEME TO OBTAIN ONLY DEVELOPED SITES AS PER THEIR ENTITLEMENT BY THE PASSING THE MODIFIED AND REVISED AWARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENTS IN W.P.No.16919/2013 DECIDED ON 28.06.2013 (ANNEXURE-N) AND W.P.No.5849/2022, DECEDIED ON 12.07.2022 (ANNEXURE-P), ETC. -7- IN W.P.No. 12256 OF 2024: BETWEEN:
1. SMT MAMATHA M H D/O B VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1433 PIPELINE ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560040
2. SRI ANAND V, S/O LATE VITTAL RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.30 2ND CROSS, NEAR ROTARY CLUB HOSPITAL VIVEKANANDA NAGAR RAMANAGARA-571511 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560001.
2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560020 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAND ACQUISITION BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -8- T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560020
4. ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. MURUGESHV.CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE DECISION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT
BEM.A.PRA/ABHUSWA.A./173/2023-24 LETTER DATED:06.03.2024 AT ANNEXURE-A REFUSING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF 60 ISTO 40 SCHEME TO OBTAIN ONLY DEVELOPED SITES AS PER THEIR ENTITLEMENT BY THE PASSING THE MODIFIED AND REVISED AWARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENTS IN WP No.16919/2013 DECIDED ON 28.06.2013 (ANNEXUREM) AND WP No.5849/2022, DECIDED ON 12.07.2022 (ANNEXURE-N), ETC. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -9- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CAV ORDER
I. Reg. Petitioner Nos.3 to 7 in W.P. No.8391 of 2024 and W.P. No.1433 of 2024 :
1. Writ Petition No.1433 of 2024 relates to the claim of
the petitioners for grant of developed sites in respect of Sy.No.39/1 measuring 01 acre 39 guntas of Kannalli village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
2. Writ Petition No.8391 of 2024 relates to the claim of
the petitioners in respect of grant of developed sites in respect of Sy.No.50 measuring 02 acres 05 guntas of Kannalli village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, belonging to petitioner Nos.1 and 2; and an extent of 03 acres 33 guntas in Sy.No.205 of Bheemanakuppe village belonging to petitioner Nos.3 to 7.
3. In W.P. No.8391 of 2024, there are two sets of
petitioners amongst seven petitioners. This portion - 10 - of the order is confined only to petitioner Nos.3 to 7 in W.P. No.8391 of 2024 and petitioners in W.P. No.1433 of 2024.
4. In respect of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, a separate order
(infra) is passed along with the claim of petitioners in W.P. No.6456 of 2024 and W.P. No.12256 of 2024 since their cases stand on a different footing.
5. It is not in dispute that both these lands were the
subject matter of a notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the subject lands of declaration under Section 17(1) of the Act were acquired for the purpose of formation of Nadaprabhu Kempe Gowda Layout.
6. It is not in dispute that in both these cases, notices
were issued to the petitioners giving them an option of accepting the award, which comprised of both the developed sites and cash in a prescribed proportion. - 11 -
7. On 23.09.2010, the petitioners claimed
compensation in the form of developed sites, however, subsequently, they claimed compensation in the form of cash and thereby gave up their claim for being granted compensation in the form of developed lands.
8. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners in both
these writ petitions entered into an agreement with the Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’, for short) agreeing to receive the compensation by cash and on the basis of these agreements, a consent award came to be passed on 17.01.2013 in respect of Sy.No.39/1 and on 17.05.2013 in respect of Sy.No.50 and Sy.No.205.
9. It is not in dispute that the possession of their properties was also taken over by the BDA on - 12 - 01.04.2013 (W.P. No.1433 of 2024) and on 26.07.2013 (W.P. No.8391 of 2024).
10. It is submitted that thereafter one Smt.Chandramma
filed objections to the award notice stating that the suit in O.S. No.1224 of 2012 had been filed in respect of the suit schedule property. This was in relation to the award of cash compensation in respect of Sy.No.39 of Kanalli village.
11. In light of the said facts, the BDA proceeded to
deposit the award amount of Rs.1,02,00,000/- before the Civil Court on reference of the matter under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for determination of the manner in which the compensation was to be apportioned.
12. The petitioners in both these writ petitions have in the year 2023 made representations requesting for compensation to be given to them in the form of - 13 - developed lands and not by way of cash compensation.
13. The BDA has refused this demand and consequently, the petitioners are before this Court.
14. In both these cases, the petitioners basically sought
to place reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No.16919 of 2013 (Sri.Yallappa vs. the State of Karnataka and others, DD: 28.06.2013) whereby this Court had held that “no party can be compelled to take the grant of land in lieu of cash compensation. Whether to opt for cash compensation or land-grant is a decision which is to be left to the concerned land owner.” and also the decision rendered in W.P. No.26362 of 2010 and W.P. No.26367 of 2010.
15. It is their case that these judgments of the learned
Single Judge of this Court giving the option to the land-losers either to choose cash compensation or for - 14 - grant of developed sites was challenged by the BDA in Writ Appeal No.2070 of 2014 and W.A. No.1163 of 2015, which were disposed of directing the land- owners to submit their representations to the BDA and to seek extension of the benefit of 40:60 scheme.
16. They contended that during the pendency of these
writ appeals, the petitioners therein made an application for grant of developed sites instead of cash compensation and this was accepted by the BDA and revised the awards, and by approving this fact, they filed a memo before the Division Bench and withdrew the writ petition itself.
17. But, in the case of the petitioners, the BDA taken up a stand that there was no provision to revise the awards and hence, they were constrained to approach this Court. - 15 -
18. At the outset, it has to be stated here that the
petitioners had entered into agreements whereby they had agreed to receive the cash compensation as well as the developed sites in the ratio of 60:40 and on the basis of the said agreements, a consent award was passed way back in the year 2013.
19. Pursuant to this consent award, the BDA has also
deposited the cash compensation in the Civil Court and at the same time, it has also conveyed the sites that it had agreed to hand-over to the petitioners under the agreements and the consent awards.
20. The petitioners, no doubt, contend that they have not received the cash compensation and therefore, they still have the option of seeking compensation in terms of the developed lands instead of cash.
21. It has to be kept in mind that the BDA would have
set apart the number of sites that they had to allot to the land-losers under 60:40 scheme i.e., 60% by - 16 - way of cash and 40% compensation in terms of the developed lands.
22. Obviously, the BDA would have taken into consideration the number of sites required on the basis of the agreements that they had entered into way back in the year 2013.
23. The petitioners having entered into the agreements
and having made the BDA deposit the cash compensation into the Civil Court cannot be permitted to contend that they have a right to change their mind by seeking for allotment of sites instead of cash compensation that has already been deposited before the Civil Court.
24. It has to be borne in mind that in these two cases,
the BDA has discharged its obligation of depositing the cash compensation more than 12 years ago and merely because, in another case, the BDA had revised its award, that cannot confer a legal right on - 17 - the petitioners to once again seek for grant of compensation in terms of developed lands. The petitioners are fundamentally seeking for compensation in the form of developed lands only because the order passed in favour of certain persons, whose claim was completely different.
25. It is no doubt true that the petitioners therein had
made a claim initially for grant of compensation in the form of sites, but had subsequently changed their mind. However, in these cases, the petitioners had requested the BDA to pay them cash compensation and the BDA had in fact deposited this compensation into the Civil Court and therefore, the agreements that they had entered into with the BDA stood concluded in all respects.
26. Consequently, the petitioners in these cases cannot reopen these concluded contracts and make a - 18 - demand for payment of cash compensation instead of developed lands.
27. I am therefore of the view that there is no merit in these writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.
(II) In W.P. No.6456 of 2024, W.P. No.12256 of 2024 and petitioner Nos.1 & 2 in W.P. No.8391 of 2024 :
28. In respect of the petitioners in W.P. No.6456 of 2024, it relates to the claim in respect of land measuring 17.08 guntas in Sy.No.32/1 of Kannalli Village.
29. W.P. No.12256 of 2024 relates to the claim of compensation in the form of developed land by the petitioners in respect of land measuring 02 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.119 of Kommaghatta village. - 19 -
30. W.P. No.8391 of 2024 relates to the claim for grant of developed land in respect only of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to an extent of 02 acres 05 guntas in Sy.No.50 of Kannalli village.
31. It is to be stated here that in these cases, petitioners
would stand on a different footing and cannot be compared to a decision rendered earlier in respect of petitioner Nos.3 to 7 in W.P. No.8391 of 2024 and the petitioners in W.P. No.1433 of 2024 essentially because in those cases, pursuant to the consent agreements and the consent awards, the BDA had deposited the cash compensation into the Civil Court and in that view of the matter, it has been held that they would not be entitled to change their mind and demand payment of compensation in the form of developed lands, insofar it relates to the cash component of the compensation. - 20 -
32. In these cases also, the lands bearing Sy.No.32/1 of
Kannalli village; Sy.No.119 of Kommaghatta village and Sy.No.50 of Kannalli village, were notified for acquisition for the formation of Nadaprabhu Kempe Gowda Layout.
33. In these three cases also, the consent agreements
for cash compensation and developed sites were entered into between the petitioners and the BDA in the ratio of 60:40. The consent awards were also passed by the BDA, awarding both developed lands in the form of sites and also cash compensation and the petitioners had also executed a bond and an affidavit.
34. However, in these cases, the cash compensation was
not deposited into the Court, apparently because there was a demand not to disburse the compensation of sites to anyone and also because a civil suit had been instituted. - 21 -
35. This part would distinguish the order passed in
favour of the other two petitions and this is because under the aforementioned two writ petitions, it was the BDA that had entered into a contract and the terms of this contract were concluded and the obligations thereunder were discharged by the BDA by depositing the cash component into the Civil Court.
36. It is therefore held that the BDA cannot be
prejudiced by calling upon them to make an allotment in the form of developed lands in lieu of the cash compensation that has already been deposited by the BDA before the Civil Court.
37. However, in this case, since the BDA has not
deposited the cash compensation, in my view, no prejudice as such would be caused to the BDA as the BDA has in fact retained the compensation though the lands were acquired way back in the year 2008. - 22 -
38. If the BDA had retained the compensation from 2008
and had also utilized the lands of the petitioners, it would be open for the petitioners to make a demand for allotment of developed sites instead of insisting upon the payment of cash compensation as per the consent awards.
39. It has to be borne in mind that the BDA did not
discharge its obligations under the consent agreements and went on to retain the amounts that is required to be paid to the petitioners, but, at the same time, they had also utlisied the lands of the petitioners.
40. Keeping this in mind and drawing a distinction with
the aforementioned two cases, it would be appropriate to direct the BDA to accept these requests of the petitioners for grant of compensation by means of developed lands. - 23 -
41. If necessary the Land Acquisition Officer shall modify
the awards on the basis of this order and the BDA shall grant compensation to the petitioners in W.P. No.6456 of 2024, W.P. No.12256 of 2024 and petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in W.P. No.8391 of 2024 in the form of developed lands under 60:40 Scheme in relation to the cash compensation also.
42. Accordingly, W.P. No.1443 of 2024 and insofar as petitioner Nos.3 to 7 in W.P. No.8391 of 2024 are dismissed.
43. W.P. No.12256 of 2024, W.P. No.6456 of 2024 and
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in W.P. No.8391 of 2024 are allowed. The BDA is directed to grant developed lands in the form of sites to the petitioners (in the petitions mentioned above) in terms of 60:40 scheme insofar as it relates to the cash component that has been deposited or paid to the petitioners. - 24 -
44. In view of the disposal of the petitions, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 132