- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6369 WP No. 9848 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 9848 OF 2017 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. V C PUTTAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. SRI. V.C.SHANKARAPPA, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 3. SMT. V.S.ANJANAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 4. SMT.SHANKARAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VENKATAPURA GRAMA JAKKASANDRA DHAKLE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 034. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.VIKRAM A HUILGOL SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ROHAN HOSAMTH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6369 WP No. 9848 of 2017 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA KRUPA WEST, BENGALURU-560 020 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. 4. 5. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA KRUPA WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU -560 001. TAHSILDAR KANDAYA BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU -560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, N. HCGP FOR R1, R4 AND R5 SRI. B.S. SACHI., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE IMPUGNED ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS I.E., PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 26.11.1959 PUBLISHED IN THE MYSORE GAZETTE ON DATED 28.01.1960 AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 29.09.1965 ISSUED BY THE THEN CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD, BANGALORE PASSED BY R-2 I.E., COMMISSIONER OF BENGALURU DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTIES VIDE ANNX-C AND D DEEMED TO HAVE LAPSED BY VIRTUE OF OPERATION OF SEC.24(2) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 (CENTRAL ACT NO.30 OF 2013 W.E.F. 1/1/2014) AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6369 WP No. 9848 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioners are the grand children of one Dyava bin Muniya who was one of the erstwhile owners of land bearing Sy.No.29, measuring 4 acres 22 guntas, out of which 2 acres 20 guntas was the dry land and 1 acre and 38 guntas was the garden land, which had been acquired by the then Mysore Land Acquisition Act in terms of preliminary notification dated 26.11.1959 and the final notification dated 28.09.1965 for the purpose of formation of Koramangala Layout. 2. Case of the petitioners is that during the period between the preliminary notification and the final notification in view of the Village Abolition Act, the lands stood vested with the State effective from 01.02.1963 and the said lands were re- granted in favour of the original owners, in terms of order dated 24.07.1978. In the meanwhile, award was passed in a sum of Rs.33,000 in respect of the aforesaid land. However, there is no evidence with regard to either the said award having been paid to the original khatedars or the same having - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6369 WP No. 9848 of 2017 been deposited in the treasury. It is the further case of the petitioners that out of the aforesaid 4 acres and 22 guntas of land, the respondent-BDA had taken possession of only 3 acres and 11 guntas, leaving out 29 guntas in possession of the petitioners herein, which the petitioners are still continuing to hold. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners are before this Court invoking provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013'). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that since the petitioners are continuing to be in possession of 29 guntas of land, they are entitled to invoke the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013, as the twin conditions contemplated therein are not satisfied. Therefore seeks for allowing of the petition. 4. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA drawing attention of this Court to the mahazar proceedings produced by the petitioner himself at Annexure-F, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6369 WP No. 9848 of 2017 page No.98 submits that the entire extent of 4 acres and 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.29, consisting of 2 acres and 20 guntas of dry land and 1 acre and 38 guntas of wetland including 4 guntas of karab had been taken as far back as on 11.08.1967. He further submits that the award that was passed determining the compensation as on 17.09.1966 has been deposited in the treasury and in this regard he refers to the additional statement of objection. Thus, he submits petition apart from not being maintainable on account of delay and laches also does not contain any merits for consideration. Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard and perused the records. 6. On a query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that possession of 3 acres and 11 guntas of land has been taken by the respondent-BDA in terms of the mahazar drawn on 11.08.1967 as per Annexure-R5. However he insists with vehemence that the petitioners are still continuing to be possession of 29 guntas of land. Therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6369 WP No. 9848 of 2017 7. However, except oral statement no documentary evidence is produced convincing enough to hold that the respondent-BDA had taken possession of only 3 acres and 11 guntas and not the entire extent of 4 acres and 22 guntas of land as contented by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since, the petitioner does not dispute the mahazar drawn on 11.08.1967 as per Annexure-R5, except contending that only an extent of 3 acres and 11 guntas was taken, this Court is unable to accept the submission, because the petitioner cannot be permitted to elect and select the contents of the document which he is relying upon, to suit his convenience. 8. Appropriate to refer to of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: '' (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6369 WP No. 9848 of 2017 has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.'' 9. The twin conditions are that respondent-Authorities not taking physical possession of the land or not paying the compensation within the time period as envisaged thereunder. In the instant case, admittedly possession has been taken, albeit according to the petitioners only to an extent of 3 acres and 11 guntas of land, which this Court declines to accept in view of the admitted document of mahazar. Secondly, the compensation has been deposited, details of which are provided in a Communication address by the Director, Bangalore District Treasury to Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk. Paragraph No.1 of which, reads as under: "ೕಲಂಡ ಷಯೆ ಸಂಬಂದಂೆ ೆಂಗಳರು ಅವೃ ಾ!ಾರದ ಕ#ೇ$%ಂದ ಧ'ಾ(ೇಶ ¸ÀASÉå:6076, ¢£ÁAPÀ 12.12.1967 gÀ°è gÀÆ.57,50/- gÀÆ UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÀ£ÁzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå :6077 ¢£ÁAPÀ 12.12.1967 gÀ°è ರೂ.33,752,50/- ರೂಗಳ ಧ'ಾ(ೇಶಗಳ+ ತಹ.ೕ/ಾ01 ೆಂಗಳರು ದ2ಣ ಾಲೂ4ಕು ಇವರ 6ಾೆ ಸಂ6ೆ7:46930/239 ೆ ಜ9ಾ:ರುವ ಬ;ೆ< =ೆ>ೕ? ಂ? ಪ!AಯನುC Dೕಡುವಂೆ ತಮF ಉ/ೆ4ೕHತ ಪತ!ದI4 ೋ$ರುAJೕ$". - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6369 WP No. 9848 of 2017 10. In view of this admitted position, no grounds to involve the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 are made out. 11. At this juncture, Sri. Vikram A Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out, though the said communication contains the details of sum of Rs.33,752/- having been deposited, as far back as dated 12.01.1968, the same communication also reflect non availability of the passbook. He submits, in that view of the matter the petitioners are not able to receive the compensation purportedly deposited by the respondent-authorities. 12. For the aforesaid reasons and the factual aspect of the matter, reserving liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the compensation, if not received by them, which has been deposited by the respondent- authorities as stated above, with all the accrued interest and benefits, if any, petition is disposed of. 13 . Petitioners are at liberty to make representation to the respondent-authorities seeking disbursement of the compensation, if such representation is made respondent- - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6369 WP No. 9848 of 2017 authorities shall disburse the compensation within an outer limit of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, on petitioner satisfying and complying with the requirement of law. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22