AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J.—The Appellants, who are the Petitioners in the writ petitions, being aggrieved by the order dated 6-8-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 2101-2104/2010, wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition upholding the order dated 5-1-2010 passed by the second Respondent, have preferred these appeals.
The facts of the case are as follows:
The State Government sanctioned an improvement scheme for the formation of a layout called "Sir M. Vishveswaraiah Nagara Layout" by the Bangalore Development Authority. Pursuant to the Scheme approved by the State Government, the BDA issued preliminary notification on 14-12-2001 acquiring vast extent of land situated at Kengeri and Yeshwanthpura Hobli and issued notification calling for objections to the said preliminary notification. After considering the objections filed to the preliminary notification, the final notification was issued on 31-10-2002. Thereafter, the award has been passed and the BDA has taken possession of the acquired land and issued notification u/s 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
The preliminary and final notifications issued by the BDA have been questioned in number of writ petitions before this Court. this Court by its order dated 30th September 2004 in a batch of writ petitions reported in Junjamma and Others Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and Others, dismissed the writ petitions upholding the notification issued by the BDA with certain directions. The relevant directions issued in the above said case are as under:
2(a) All the Petitioners who are the land owners who are seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings insofar as their respective lands are concerned, on the ground that (a) their lands are situated within green belt area; (b) they are totally built up; (c) converted for non-agricultural use; (d) garden land and nursery land; (e) who have built hospitals, educational institutions and factories, (f) who have not been served with the notice of acquisition and (g) who are in doubt about the inclusion of their land in the notification are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their contentions within three months from the date of this order.
(b) It is made clear that the authority shall consider such request keeping in mind the status of the land as on the date of preliminary notification and to exclude any developments, improvements, constructions put up subsequent to the preliminary notification and then decide whether their cases are similar to that of the land owners whose objections were upheld to the extent of 35 7 acres 25 guntas and in respect of those lands no final notification is issued.
(c) In the event the Authority come to the conclusion that ttiose persons are similarly placed, then to identify their lands and exclude them from acquisition.
Petitioners who are interested in availing this benefit shall make appropriate application within 90 days from the date of this order and thereafter the authority shall give notice to those persons, hear them and pass appropriate order expeditiously.
Till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the Authority and the applications filed by the Petitioners either for allotment of site or for denotifying or exemptions sought for considered their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing constructions shall not be demolished. After consideration of the applications in the light of aforesaid directions, the Authorities are at liberty to proceed with the acquisition.
The land belonged to the Appellants has been acquired by the BDA for the purpose of improvement of scheme and formation of the layout called Sir M. Vishweshwarauiah Nagara Layout.
The following are the lands belonging to the Appellants have been acquired by the BDA
Sy. No. Preliminary Notification Final Notification
69 37 guntas 37 guntas
98 3 acres 34 guntas 2 acres 9 guntas
101/1 3 acres 23 guntas 3 acres 15 guntas
100/2 39 guntas 35 guntas
As stated above, though in the preliminary notification larger extent of land has been shown, after considering the objections, certain extent of the land is deleted in the final notification since the said lands were covered either by built up area or by the arecanut and coconut gardens. The preliminary and final notifications issued by the BDA had been questioned by the Appellants in W.P. No. 1350-51/2003 before this Court. this Court by its order dated 20-12-2005 disposed of the said writ petition in terms of the order made in Junjamma''s case which was reported in Junjamma and Others Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and Others, upheld the acquisition proceedings and directions issued to the BDA to consider the case of the Petitioners who have lost their lands under acquisition proceedings.
In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in the judgment cited supra, the Petitioners have submitted a representation dated 10-6-2006 requesting the Authority to drop the acquisition proceedings contending that the Government itself denotified vast extent of the land belonged to other land owners. Further they have raised arecanut and coconut gardens in the said lands and the borewell is also dug in the said land. It is their contention that the Government itself has taken a decision to drop the acquisition proceedings, in respect of the lands, which are covered under the garden land and sought for dropping the acquisition proceedings. The BDA considered the representation of the Petitioners and after conducting the spot inspection of the land in question, issued an endorsement dated 18-3-2008 rejecting the representation of the Petitioners. The Petitioners being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 18-3-2008 filed W.P. No. 6964/2008 contending that without holding necessary enquiries, endorsements are issued in a cyclostyle form and no reasons have been assigned in the endorsement. The only reason given is that the land is required for the formation of layout and their case has not been considered in terms of the guidelines issued by this Court in Junjamma''s Case. this Court by its order dated 22-4-2009 allowed the said writ petition, quashed the endorsement and directed the BDA to consider the application filed by the Petitioners in accordance with law. The Petitioners were permitted to produce additional documents to substantiate their case.
The BDA issued notice to the Petitioners to appear for the Enquiry on 14-10-2009 and on that day, the Petitioners submitted one more representation dated 14-10-2009 reiterating the very same contentions which were taken in the earlier representation dated 10-3-2006. The written statement was also filed on the said date. The officers of BDA once again visited the land in question on 22-10-2009 and found that there is no truth in any of the contentions of the Petitioners. The land which is covered under the built up area and arecanut garden has already been deleted while issuing the final notification and reported that the layout has already been formed and allotted to the general public in the land bearing Sy. No. 101/1. The BDA after considering the representation of the Petitioners held that the lands which were acquired by the BDA are not garden lands or the lands covered by borewell, tomb, school building and they have already been deleted. The lands in question have not come under any of the guidelines of the Junjamma''s case. Accordingly, by its order dated 5-1-2010 rejected the representation of the Petitioners.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioners once again approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 2101-2104/2010 challenging the rejection of the representation and also the notification issued u/s 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on various grounds and contended that the reasonings assigned by the BDA to reject the representation is contrary to law. The Petitioner further contended that, the vast extent of the land has been denotified on the ground that the lands have been covered by the garden as well as the built up area, whereas the case of the Petitioners has been discriminated. The record of rights clearly discloses that the Petitioners had raised arecanut, coconut and banana plantation. The land in question is a garden land. The spot mahazar conducted on 22-10-2009 does not depict the correct facts. Further, no notice was issued before holding the spot inspection. Even though the BDA passed the award and 16(2) notification has been issued, the Petitioners continued to be in possession of the said land and no layout has been formed in Sy. No. 101/1 measuring 3 acres and 15 guntas of land and allotted to the public.
The learned Single Judge after considering the matter in detail dismissed the writ petition holding that the land in question has not been demarcated as a garden land and the record of rights produced by the Petitioners clearly disclose that the land in question is a kushki (dry) kind. Just because the Petitioners had raised some trees, it cannot be classified as garden land and BDA while issuing final notification deleted the land which is covered by built up area, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition on 6-8-2010.
The Petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 6-8-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, preferred these appeals.
Sri. M.R. Rajgopal, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants reiterated the very same contentions urged before the learned Single Judge and contended that the land in question is a garden land and before holding the spot inspection on 22-10-2009 no notice was issued. The spot inspection does not depict the correct facts. It is further submitted that in Junjamma''s case this Court directed the BDA to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land situated within (a) the green belt area (b) totally built up area (c) converted for non-agricultural use (d) garden and nursery land (e) who have built hospital, educational institutions and factories (f) who have not been served with notice of acquisition (g) who are in doubt about the acquisition of their lands. In the instant case, the lands of the Appellants come within the purview of garden and nursery land. Without considering the existence of the vast extent of coconut and arecanut trees, the representation made by the Appellants has been rejected which is contrary to law and sought for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also order passed by the BDA.
On the other hand, Sri. P.S. Dinesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent-B.D.A. contended that in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, in W.P. No. 6964/2008, the representation of the Appellants has been considered. Further the officers of the BDA have inspected the said lands and they have submitted the report stating that, 37 guntas of land in Sy. No. 69 is fully vacant. Out of 2 acres and 9 guntas of land in Sy. No. 98, there is no building or nursery except few coconut and mango trees. In Sy. No. 101 measuring 3 acres 15 guntas of land, the layout has already been formed and allotted to the allottees. 35 guntas of land in Sy. No. 100/2 is vacant and there are few coconut trees. On the basis of the said report, the 2nd Respondent has passed the order rejecting the representation of the Petitioners-Appellants. There is no infirmity or irregularity in the said order. learned Counsel further submitted that, on an earlier occasion, inspection of the land has been conducted in presence of both the parties. In view of that, while conducting inspection on 22-10-2009, no notice has been issued and only in order to verify the statement of the Petitioners, inspection has been conducted. There is no nursery or the arecanut garden as alleged by the Appellants and sought for dismissal of the writ appeals.
We have carefully gone through the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the second Respondent and considered the arguments addressed by the parties.
It is not in dispute that land belonging to the Appellant has been acquired by the BDA for the implementation of the scheme of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Nagara layout. The vast extent of the land has been acquired for that purpose. Though in the preliminary notification, larger extent of the land as been notified in paragraph 4 of this judgment, while issuing final notification, the BDA has deleted the land which is covered by the school building, borewell, tomb and arecanut garden and acquired lesser extent of the land. The BDA has passed the award and possession has been taken after drawing the mahazar and 16(2) notification under the Land Acquisition Act has also been issued. Thereafter, the Appellant filed W.P. Nos. 1350-1351/2003 challenging the same. The said writ petitions have been disposed of 20-12-2005 upholding the notification issued by the BDA and also directed the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners in the light of the judgment of Junjamma''s case. Their case has been considered and an endorsement has been issued on 18-3-2008 and the said endorsement has been questioned in W.P. No. 6964/2008. this Court quashed the said endorsement on 22-4-2009 and directed the BDA to consider the matter in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Junjamma''s case. Pursuant to the same, the Respondents 1 and 2 considered the representation in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the Junjamma''s case and passed a detailed order. Before considering the representation, the Authorities have conducted the spot inspection on 22-5-2005 got the report and accordingly the passed order dated 5-1-2010. The said order has been questioned before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after examining the matter in detail held that the case of the Appellant has been considered in accordance with the guidelines issued in Junjamma''s case. For the first time, 16(2) notification has been challenged in W.P. Nos. 2101-2104/2010. Earlier the Appellant has approached this Court twice and he has not challenged the said notification. Further the record of rights in respect of the land in question clearly shows that the land has been classified as dry land (kushki) and not a garden land (bagayath). Hence, the contention of the Appellants cannot be accepted.
The contention of the Appellants that the lands are classified as garden lands is not supported by any document. Mere growth of trees and shrubs cannot change the classification as per the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Admittedly, the land was classified as dry land. Hence, the contention of the Appellants that the lands in question are garden or bagayath lands cannot be accepted. On the other hand, RTC entry clearly depicts that the land in question is dry or kushki land. We find that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. While issuing final notification, i acre 25 guntas of land in Sy. No. 98, 8 guntas of land in Sy. No. 101/1, and 4 guntas of land in Sy. No. 100/2 are deleted from the acquisition proceedings as the said lands are covered by the building and garden. Hence, the contention of the Appellants that the garden land has been acquired cannot be accepted. For the purpose of the development of the scheme, the State Government has acquired the land in question. The acquisition of the land is within the domain of the State Government. We find that the Appellants have not made out any case for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge.
There is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge so as to interfere in an intra court appeal. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
The appeals are dismissed.