K.G. Pramila, D.T. Santhosh and D.T. Sangeeth vs The State of Karnataka, The Special Land Acquisition Officer Visveswaraiah Centre and The Bangalore Water Supply And Sewerage Board

Mohan Shantanagoudar

The petitioners have sought for quashing the preliminary notification dated 16.12.1991 and Final notification dated 13.12.2001, by which, the property of the petitioners, who claim to be owners of certain portion of the land bearing Sy. No. 33 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas, is acquired for the purpose of establishing treatment plant by Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board. They have also sought for a declaration that the acquisition notifications Annexures-H and J have rendered themselves infructuous and inoperative under law. Consequential reliefs are also sought for. Petitioner No. 1 owns 18 guntas of land in Sy. No. 33. She purchased the property through two sale deeds dated 16.3.1998 executed by its earlier land-owners. Second petitioner is the owner of 18 guntas of land by virtue of the sale deed dated 16.3.1998 executed in his favour by the earlier land-owner. Third petitioner purchased the remaining extent of land in the very survey number on 16.3.1998. Thus, these petitioners owned an area of 1 acre 5 guntas comprised in Sy. No. 33 of Kengeri village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Said land alongwith various adjoining lands bearing Sy. Nos. 19/2, 20, 37/1, 37/2 and other lands came to he acquired for construction of treatment plant by Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Preliminary notification was issued on 16th December 1999 and Final notification was issued on 13th February 2001.

The contention of the petitioners is that no award is passed by the respondents in respect of the property in question; land bearing Sy. No. 36/2, 36/1 and 35 were de-notified on 3.6.2002 and two of the survey numbers i.e., Sy, No. 37/1 and 37/2 were sold by Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board in favour of BMRTC; the acquisition in respect of Sy. No. 34 is quashed by this Court in W.P. No. 19938/2007 and connected matters disposed of on 21.7.2010; since the property in question is not taken possession off and as all other adjoining properties are either de-notified or sale or that acquisition is held to be bad, the acquisition in respect of the property in question also should fail.

Writ petitions are opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents by filing statement of objections.

The contention of the petitioners that possession was not taken and award was not passed, cannot be accepted, As could be seen from document Annexure-R2 produced alongwith statement of objections, it is clear that possession of the land in question was taken on 6.5.2004, The records maintained by the State Government also reveal that award was passed on 15.3.2003 i.e., prior to taking possession.

It is no doubt true that Sy. Nos. 36/2, 36/1 and 35 are de-notified by the State Government, as per the order Annexure-L dated 3.6.2003, It seems, possession of the said properties was not taken by the State Government and therefore after considering the case on merits, must have de-notified the same. But in the matter on hand, the property in question is already taken possession off on 6.5.2004 and therefore same treatment cannot be made in favour of the petitioners.

Two of the acquired properties viz., Sy. No. 37/1 and 37/2 were sold by Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board in favour of BMRTC, BMRTC is a State owned Corporation, Since the aforementioned properties had vested in the State, State has decided to utilise said properties for different public purpose. Hence, the same cannot be found fault with.

Sy. No. 34, which is adjoining the petitioners property is released from acquisition, inasmuch as, acquisition notification in respect of said property stood quashed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 19938/2007 and connected matters by the order dared 21st July 2010 Copy of the order is produced at Annexure-N to the writ petitions. In the said matters, this Court has ruled that Sy. No. 34 had remained un-utilised. Under such circumstances, the Court has taken lenient view and quashed the acquisition notification in respect of Sy. No. 34, Merely because, this Court has quashed the notification in respect of Sy. No. 34 under different facia and circumstances, the same cannot be made use in favour of the petitioners.

It is relevant to note that the land owners whose lands bearing Sy. Nos. 19/2, 20, 37/1 and 37/2 of Kengeri village came to be acquired, had approached this Court seeking quashing of acquisition in W.P. Nos. 34589-34640/2001 and connected matters. Said writ petitions came to be dismissed on 26th February 2002 confirming the acquisition notifications. Since possession is taken long back and as the property is said to have been utilised for the purpose for which the same is acquired and as the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P. Nos 34589-34604/2001 and connected matters, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same stand dismissed.