- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:24679-DB WP No. 10090 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 10090 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. MR MARTHAND SINGH MAHINDRA S/O LATE SURESH MAHINDRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT AVALAHALLI ESTATE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560064 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI KIRAN J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020 3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020 Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:24679-DB WP No. 10090 of 2023 4. THE SECRETARY TO HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKAR COMMITTEE, DR.SHIVARAMA KARANTHA LAYOUT, OFFICE OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMAR PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT SHILPA S GOGI, AGA FOR R1 SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 SRI S S NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER/COMMUNICATION DATED 04.03.2023 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT COMMITTEE (SMS RECEIVED THROUGH VK-NVGJCC I.E., NAVIGEM DATA) AS PER APPLICATION No. JCC-14-03867 WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY BEARING Sy. No. 70 MEASURING 13 ACRE 22.86 GUNTAS OF AVALAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT (SCHEDULE A PROPERTY) (ANNEXURE A AND R2) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, G. NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Having heard Sri Udaya Holla, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior counsel for BDA and Sri S.S. Naganand, learned Senior counsel, we are of the opinion that the Committee is not a necessary party. Even as per the order of the Apex Court the Committee is required to submit its report to the Apex Court and orders will be passed by the Apex Court. - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24679-DB WP No. 10090 of 2023 2. Sri Udaya Holla would take the Court through Annexure-S being the copy of the interim order dated 13.04.2023 wherein, the Apex Court has been pleased to pass the order of the following nature: "1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's land was already denotified by the Bangalore Development Authority vide endorsement being No.BDA/SLAO/LAC/186/02/2014-15 dated 05.04.2014, that is prior to the judgment of this Court in Bangalore Development Authority and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka decided on 03.08.2018. 2. It is, therefore, submitted that the said judgment would not be applicable to the fact of the present petitioner's property. 3. In that view of the matter, issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the special leave petition. 4. In the meantime, there shall stay of the possession with regard to the suit property." 3. On perusal of the order, it is seen that the Apex Court has been pleased to grant protection from dispossession in respect of the appellant whose lands had been de-notified in the year 2014 prior to the lands were directed to be reacquired by the Apex Court by its judgment 03.08.2018 rendered in the case of BDA and another V/s. State of Karnataka. He would take this court through Annexure - J dated 13.02.2009 and would submit that the Petitioner is also similarly situated as the - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24679-DB WP No. 10090 of 2023 appellant in SLP No.9330/2023 arising out of the Writ Appeal No.1412/2021 which came to be disposed of by order dated 23.05.2022 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 4. That apart, learned Senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla would also take this Court through the Registration Certificate dated 03.04.2017 produced as Annexures-G1 and G2 and whereby the stud licence of the Petitioner has been renewed w.e.f. 03.06.2022 and extended till 02.06.2027. He would submit that there are 80 thoroughbred horses, housed in the said Farm, which if not permitted to be housed, the lives of the thoroughbred would be jeopardized and would be at stake. He would also submit that it is not merely stud Farm but also has buildings, dwelling houses and houses have been put up even prior to the acquisition, but none of these aspects have been looked into by the Respondent-authority or the committee. He would further submit that some protection be granted to him till the Petitioner approaches the Apex Court. 5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel Sri Jayakumar Patil, submits that in view of the fact that the issue of land acquisition is seized of by the Apex Court and similar petition is - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:24679-DB WP No. 10090 of 2023 pending, it would not be appropriate for this Court to consider the matter on merits and he would place before this Court a copy of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, wherein a Writ Appeal preferred by a company represented by the instant petitioner came to be withdrawn with liberty to avail the appropriate remedy under law including approaching the Apex Court. 6. Sri S.S. Nagananda, learned Senior counsel would take this Court through the judgment of the Apex Court dated 03.12.2020 and submits that, pursuant to the judgment dated 03.08.2018, by judgment dated 03.12.2020 the Apex Court has been pleased to constitute a Committee and execution of works, formation of layout have been through the Committee and he would submit that any orders at this juncture would impeach upon the orders of the Apex Court and the directions issued by the committee. 7. We have perused the material available on record, more particularly order dated 03.12.2020. Para Nos.3, 6 and 11 reads as under: "3. Judgment dated 03.08.2018, inter alia, observes that 45% of the land covered under the - 6 - NC: 2023:KHC:24679-DB WP No. 10090 of 2023 scheme was to be utilised for the civic amenities like play grounds, roads etc, and residential sites would be formed by utilising remaining 55% of the land covered under the scheme. It is also clear that out the said 55% of developed residential area, 40% of 55% will be offered as compensation to the land-owners as specified in the scheme and remaining 60% of 55% will be the share of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The land-owners would be given option to accept the developed eligible residential land or opt for compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the LA Act’). 6. As stated above, the buildings constructed in the layout with valid sanction/permission from the competent authority/authority(ies) needs to be saved from demolition. Therefore, it is important to identify the lawful constructions made in the notified lands. For this purpose, we appoint a Committee comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.V. Chandrasekhar, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court, as its Chairman, Mr. Jayakar Jerome, former Commissioner of the BDA and Mr. S.T. Ramesh, former Director General of Police, as its members. The Committee is required to look into each of the requests of the owners of the dwelling houses/buildings for its regularisation. The Committee should also find out whether the said dwelling houses/buildings have been constructed in accordance with the sanction/permission of the competent authorities. The constructions which have come up after the date of pronouncement of the judgment by this Court Le. 3.8.2018, shall not be eligible for regularisation. The Committee is permitted to devise its own mechanism/procedure for holding the enquiry including issuing notices in the local newspapers in this regard. Final orders regarding dwelling houses/buildings which will be - 7 - NC: 2023:KHC:24679-DB WP No. 10090 of 2023 protected, would be passed after we receive the report of the Committee. 11. It appears that certain writ petitions are pending before the Karnataka High Court challenging the final notification for acquisition of lands for the formation of Dr. Shivarama Karanth Layout. BDA is directed to furnish the list of pending cases in respect of the said layout to the Registrar General of the High Court within a week from today. We request the Registrar General to list them before the Court within two weeks. We request the High Court to dispose of the said cases on their merits expeditiously." 8. From a reading of paragraph 3 of the order dated 03.12.2020, it appears that unlike earlier when acquisition completely deprived the land owner of any interest in the land, except to the extent of monetary compensation, a scheme was envisaged which indicates the land owner still retains some interest in the land. Be that as it may, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S.Patil for the authority, the right to and subsisting interest of the land owner in the acquired land is subject to acquisition being implemented. 9. Be that as it may, the scheme envisages a right for 55% developed land. In the instant case, the extent is said to be about 39 acres. Assuming that the Petitioner fails in - 8 - NC: 2023:KHC:24679-DB WP No. 10090 of 2023 preventing the acquisition, yet he would be entitled to opt for a share of the developed land. 10. But the fact, in our opinion, which goes against the petitioner is the withdrawal of similar Writ Petition with liberty to approach the Apex Court. The petitioner in the said case has represented a commercial entity and is fully aware of the prevailing position. In that view of the matter, the petitioner being aware of the position, we do not find it appropriate to examine the merits of the contentions. 11. That apart, the Petitioner has not placed any material to demonstrate any coercive action by the respondents. The fact remains that work has been progressing at a slow pace. But the fact also remains that a committee is still carrying out its tasks and the project is still a work in progress. 12. That apart, the authorities are also aware of the pendency of the litigation before the Apex Court and also aware of the fact that the Apex Court has deemed fit to grant an interim injunction. The only fact for concern is the live stock - 9 - NC: 2023:KHC:24679-DB WP No. 10090 of 2023 i.e., the thoroughbred horses said to be housed in the lands in question. 13. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Petitioner has already chosen to approach the Apex Court and the Apex Court being seized of the similar matters, we dispose of the writ petition by reserving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Apex Court and seek appropriate remedy as is available to the Petitioner. The writ petition stands ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE BS/nd List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0