AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The facts as narrated are as follows:
The petitioners are said to be the legal representatives of one T. Krishna Reddy. The first petitioner is said to be his widow and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are said to be his children. Krishna Reddy was said to be the owner of land bearing survey No. 59, of Jaraganahalli, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, to-tally measuring about 7 acres 23 guntas. The said land is said to have fallen to his share at a family partition. Krishna Reddy is said to have died intestate, as on 2.3.1999.
It transpires that during the year 1983, acquisition proceedings had been initiated in respect of 4 acres of land out of the total extent mentioned above, for the purpose of housing employees of the Geological Survey of India. In that regard, a preliminary notification dated 19.3.1983, followed by a final declaration dated 11.9.1984, are said to have been issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the �LA Act�, for brevity ).
The petitioners are said to have challenged the above acquisition proceedings, by recourse to a writ petition before this court, in WP 4536/2004. The said writ petition having been dismissed, an appeal is said to have been preferred against the order, in WA 3131/2012, which is said to have been allowed and the acquisition proceedings were said to have been quashed, vide judgment dated 2.12.2014.
It further transpires that even as the above said acquisition proceedings were pending, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had simultaneously initiated acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the �BDA Act�, for brevity), proposing to acquire 25 guntas of land, out of the total area of 4 acres already notified as aforesaid, for the formation of a ring road. In that regard, a preliminary notification dated 16.11.1988 was said to have been issued, followed by a final notification dated 1.8.1990. An award is said to have been passed on 5.11.1990 and possession of the extent of 25 guntas is said to have been taken.
Pursuant to the judgment dated 2.12.2014, in WA 3131/2012, when the petitioners had embarked on development of the land measuring 3 acres 15 guntas of land, it was found that the BDA had utilised only 2 and a half guntas of land out of the 25 guntas acquired. The remaining 22 and a half guntas of land remains unutilized and it is claimed that it cannot also be effectively utilised by the BDA for any other purpose, as the formation of the ring road is completed. On the other hand, the said extent of 22 and 1/2 guntas of land if provided to the petitioners, it would enable them to provide better access to their land measuring 3 acres 15 guntas, which is otherwise almost land locked. In this regard, the petitioners are said to have made a representation to the BDA, dated 2.2.2016, seeking re-conveyance of the said extent of 22 and 1/2 guntas of land, on a refund of the proportionate compensation received by the petitioners.
It is contended that the petitioners had a mere prospect of salvaging the larger extent of 3 acres and 15 guntas of land that was notified for acquisition for housing of the employees of the Geological Survey of India, and it is only with the judgment rendered in appeal in WA 3131/2012 that the petitioners were in a position to lay claim over the same and consequently were in a position to survey the land and thereafter had discovered that the BDA had not implemented the formation of the ring road over the entire extent spanning 25 guntas, but had utilised only 2 and 1/2 guntas. It is hence contended that in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act, the Scheme has lapsed in respect of the extent of 22 and a half guntas of land.
It is contended that the acquisition of land for the formation of the ring road was preceded by a Scheme and it was formulated based on the alignment of the road and it was envisaged that 25 guntas of the petitioners land would be required. However, with a change in the alignment subsequently, only 2 and a half guntas of land has been utilized. The remaining extent of 22 and a half guntas of land remaining unutilized cannot be diverted to any other purpose. Whereas it would most usefully provide the much needed access to the petitioners� remaining extent of land for better utility.
It is contended that in similar circumstances, the BDA had thought it fit to restore the land to the original land owners, when it was found that the BDA had acquired land in excess of its actual requirement. The petitioners have produced Resolutions passed by the BDA in this regard, in favour of third parties, vide memo dated 12.4.2016.
The petitioners therefore seek that the BDA be directed to reconvey the land in question to the extent of 22 and a half guntas of land in Survey No. 59 of Jaraganahalli, while the petitioners would refund the proportionate compensation received in respect of the said land.
The BDA in the Statement of Objections on its behalf, has admitted the sequence of events, except denying knowledge of the writ proceedings initiated by the petitioners in respect of the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the larger extent of 3 acres 15 guntas of land, that was proposed to be acquired for formation of a housing colony for employees of the Geological Survey of India. However, it is specifically admitted that apart iron utilising 2 and a half guntas of land out of 125 guntas acquired under the provisions of the BDA Act the remaining extent has remained without being utilised or proposed to be utilised for any purpose. It is merely asserted that the land has vested with the State and the BDA.
In the above circumstances, there is no dispute that the acquisition proceedings, initiated under the provisions of the BDA Act in respect of 25 guntas of land in Survey No. 59 of Jaraganahalli, belonging to the petitioners, was completed in the year 1992. The ring road, for the formation of which the land had been acquired, was also completed in the same year. There is also no dispute that out of 25 guntas of land acquired, only 2 and a half guntas was utilised and the remaining extent of 22 and a half guntas has remained vacant without being utilised for any purpose, not has it been diverted for any other public purpose as on date. In other words, the BDA has not envisaged any use for the said land under the Scheme pursuant to which the land was acquired. There also does not appear to be any dispute that the land acquired has proved to be in excess of BDA�s requirement, on account of a subsequent re-alignment of the ring road, resulting in the land remaining unutilized. This isolated and relatively small extent of land measuring 22 and half guntas of land may not possibly accommodate any other alternative stand alone Scheme of the BDA This would explain the fact that even after almost 25 years, the land has remained without any change.
On the other hand, the petitioners who had suffered acquisition proceedings not only under the provisions of the BDA Act in respect of the aforesaid 25 guntas of land, they had also to contend with acquisition of another extent of 3 acres 15 guntas of land adjoining the above 25 guntas of land. The petitioners have successfully challenged the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the larger extent of land, culminating in a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in WA 3131/201 2, dated 2.12.2014. It is only with that development, that the utility of the unused land measuring 22 and 1/2 guntas gains much significance for the petitioners. For it is this extent of land which would provide better and desirable access to the larger extent of land measuring 3 acres and 15 guntas of land that is now available to the petitioners for development, but is otherwise almost land locked.
It is noticed that the BDA has in the past considered restoring land sought to be acquired, but not utilised or otherwise not capable of being conveniently utilized, to the occupants such land. In the present case on hand, the land in question has remained vacant and without being of any utility to the BDA. The petitioners have not chosen to approach this court earlier, apparently because of the circumstance that the prospect of the utility of the land in question has multiplied manifold only with the larger extent of land becoming available with the culmination of the proceedings before this court in the writ appeal in WA 3131/2012, resulting in a judgment in favour of the petitioners as on 2.12.2014.
It can hence be said that the Scheme under which the land was acquired has only partially been implemented, for reasons stated. The Scheme has for all practically purposes in respect of a unutilized land, been rendered redundant and has spent itself out. Even if the land so unutilized was capable of being diverted for some other public purpose, which exercise, in any event, is not contemplated or provided for under the provisions of the BDA Act, ought to have been put to any such use within a reasonable lime and the same having remained unused and abandoned even after a period of 25 years. Consequently, the acquisition proceedings in so far as it pertains to unutilized portion of the land measuring 22 and a half guntas of land in Survey No. 59 of Jaraganahalli is declared as having been abandoned and lapsed. The said acquisition proceedings to that extent stand quashed. The petitioner are directed to refund to the respondents the compensation amount received corresponding to 22 and a half guntas of land within a period of eight weeks, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of receipt till the date of refund, upon which the ownership of the land shall revert to the petitioners.