M/S. VINAYAK HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVESOCIETY LTD. versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. on 26 August 2019

M/S. VINAYAK HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVESOCIETY LTD.

v.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 3600 of 2011)AUGUST 26, 2019

[ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND

M. R. SHAH, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4(1), 6(1) and 48 –Withdrawal notification of the acquired land – State Governmentacquired 78 acres 16 guntas of land for public purpose – The Stateexecuted an agreement of the said land in favour of the appellant-cooperative society which included survey no.30 measuring 5 acres33 guntas – Respondent no.3 claimed to be the owner of the surveyno.30 – Before the acquisition proceedings, respondent no.3 hadsold a certain portions of land to a third party – Thereafter,respondent no.3 filed writ petition questioning the acquisition andlater filed another writ petition questioning the award determiningthe market value of the land – Both writ petitions were dismissed bythe High Court – Out of the total 5 acres 33 guntas, 2 acres 36guntas of land was handed over to the appellant by the State –Respondent no.3 sought de-notification of the remaining 3 acres 5guntas i.e. the disputed property in survey no.30 – Inspite of dismissalof writ petitions rejecting the challenge made by the respondentno.3, the State Government issued a withdrawal notification u/s. 48of the Act in respect of the disputed property, even without affordingan opportunity of being heard to the appellant – Aggrieved,appellant filed writ petition before the High Court, which wasdismissed – Writ appeal was also dismissed – On appeal, held: It isclear that sub-section (1) of s.48 of the L.A. Act empowers thegovernment to withdraw from acquisition proceedings of the landof which possession has not taken place – In the instant case, theState had acquired 78 acres 16 guntas of land in favour of appellantincluding the land in survey no.30 and possession was also takenexcept the disputed land to an extent of 3 acres 5 guntas in surveyno.30 – Further, the lands were notified for public purposes – Theapproved layout plan was issued by the government in compliance

243

A

B

CDE

F

G

H

Awith the provisions of the BDA Act and the planning Act – Thedisputed property was within the layout – Materials on record alsomade clear that the disputed property was earmarked as civicamenity – If the order of the de-notification is allowed to stand, thevery object of the planned development of the layout would be lost– Thus, order of de-notification passed by the State was withoutBapplication of mind and was arbitrary in nature – Further,respondent no.3 had already sold 1/3rd of the 3 acres 5 guntas ofland in survey no.30, so she could not have maintained theapplication for de-notification of the said portion of the land asshe had no subsisting interest in the said land – Karnataka TownCand Country Planning Act, 1961 – Bangalore Development Act,1976.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.48 – Purpose of – Held: Acombined reading of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of s.48 ofthe L.A. Act makes it clear that the purpose of s.48 was mainly toDensure that the State Government is not compelled to acquire theland when the acquisition ceases to be beneficial for the intendedpurpose – That is why, sub-section (2) of s.48 provides for paymentof compensation to the owner, whose land was notified foracquisition but not acquired for the reason that such an acquisitionis against the public interest and public revenue.E

Conclusion

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.48 – Precautions under – Held:The government should refrain from de-notifying or dropping anyland being acquired for the formation of a layout, u/s.48 of the L.AAct or under any other law – The courts should also be very strictwhile considering the plea of the landowners seeking de-notificationFof the lands which are being acquired or quashing of the notificationon the ground of lapsing of the scheme or on any other grounds inrespect of the acquired lands for the formation of the layout – Ithas to be kept in mind that private interest always standssubordinated to the public good.GDisposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It is clear that sub-section (1) of Section 48 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 empowers the government towithdraw from acquisition proceedings of the land of whichpossession has not been taken. It is further provided that whenHthe government withdraws from acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damagessuffered by the owner in consequence of notice or proceedingsthereunder. A combined reading of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the L.A. Act makes it clear that thepurpose of Section 48 was mainly to ensure that the StateGovernment is not compelled to acquire the land when theacquisition ceases to be beneficial for the intended purpose. Thatis why, sub-section (2) of Section 48 provides for payment ofcompensation to the owner, whose land was notified foracquisition but not acquired for the reason that such an acquisitionis against the public interest and public revenue. [Para 27] [256-G-H; 257-A-C]

2. It has come to the notice of this Court that of late theState Government has been de-notifying the lands acquired forpublic purpose for the benefit of the authorities like BDA or otherurban development authorities and for the formation of privatehousing layouts, adversely affecting the planned development ofthe city of Bangalore and other cities in the State of Karnataka.The instant case is a classic example where the power has beenblatantly misused ignoring larger public interest. [Para 33] [259-C-D]

3. As noticed above, the State Government had accordedsanction for initiation of acquisition proceedings for the benefitof the appellant in the year 1982 itself. The State Governmentexecuted the agreement in the month of August 1984, undertakingto acquire 78 acres 16 guntas of land in favour of the appellant,including the land in Sy.No.30 belonging to the 3[rd] respondent.Notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the L.A Act wereissued and possession was taken except the disputed land to anextent of 3 acres 5 guntas. [Para 34] [259-E]

4. The approved layout plan was issued by the governmentin compliance with the provisions of the BDA Act and the PlanningAct. The layout plan produced by the appellant would indicatethat meticulous planning has been undertaken for planneddevelopment of the layout. The plan also indicates that lands havebeen reserved for civic amenities, open spaces and also for roads.The width of the street and its alignment, the building line andthe proposed sites abutting the streets, have been perfectlydrawn. [Para 35] [259-F-G]

A

B

C

D

E

F

GH

A5. The appellant has contended that the disputed propertyfalls in the layout. It is also clear from the materials on recordthat a portion of the disputed property has been earmarked as acivic amenity and the remaining portion abutting the street hasbeen proposed for residential sites. If the order of de-notificationis allowed to stand, the very object of the planned developmentBof the layout would be lost. There will be shortage of civic amenitysites in the layout and it would no longer be possible to set thestreet alignment and the building line as per the approved plan.This will have adverse impact on the planned development ofthe layout leading to public inconvenience. It will nullify the objectCand the purpose for which Planning Act and the BDA Act havebeen enacted by the Legislature. [Para 36] [259-H; 260-A-C]

A

A

6. This Court is of the considered view that the governmentshould refrain from de-notifying or dropping any land beingacquired for the formation of a layout, under Section 48 of theL.A Act or under any other law. The courts should also be veryDstrict while considering the plea of the landowners seeking de-notification of the lands which are being acquired or quashing ofthe notification on the ground of lapsing of the scheme or on anyother grounds in respect of the acquired lands for the formationof the layout. It has to be kept in mind that private interest alwaysEstands subordinated to the public good. [Para 38] [260-G-H;261-A]

7. The appellant has opposed the proposal for de-notification by filing detailed objections. The conduct of 3[rd]respondent in filing case after case for quashing the notificationFissued by the State Government for acquisition of the land hasbeen brought to the notice of the government. It was also statedthat since the lands have been notified for acquisition for a publicpurpose, namely, for the formation of a layout, a portion of thesaid land cannot be de-notified as it will adversely affect the layout,causing public inconvenience. The 1[st] respondent, withoutGadverting any of these contentions, has passed an order of de-notification. The said order has been passed without applicationof mind and it is arbitrary in nature. [Para 45] [263-A-B]

8. According to the appellant, the disputed property isvacant and no allotment/sale of the sites have been made out ofHthis land. However, it is evident from the referred two letters and other materials on record that the appellant has illegallyformed the sites in the other lands reserved for civic amenitiesin the approved plan. In order to compensate for the loss of landreserved for civic amenities, it is just and proper to direct theappellant to reserve the entire disputed property measuring 3acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.30 for civic amenities and play ground.Therefore, we direct the appellant to utilize the portion of thedisputed property reserved as a civic amenity site in the layoutplan for providing civic amenities. The competent authorities aredirected to develop the balance of the disputed property as apark or a playground or both for the benefit of general public.The appellant shall not allot/sell the disputed property or anyportion thereof either to its members or to any other parties.The Commissioner BDA is directed to ensure compliance of thisorder. [Para 55] [268-C-E]

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and Ors. v.M/s Godrej and Boyce (1988) 1 SCC 50 : [1988] 1SCR 590 – relied on.

B.K. Srinivasan and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.(1987) 1 SCC 658 : [1987] 1 SCR 1054 ; StateGovernment Houseless Harijan Employees’ Associationv. State of Karnataka and Others (2001) 1 SCC 610 :[2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 483 – referred to.

Case Law Reference[1987] 1 SCR 1054referred toPara 1[1988] 1 SCR 590relied onPara 26[2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 483referred toPara 28

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3600of 2011.

From the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2008 of the HighCourt of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 2583 of 2004 (LA-HS)

With

Contempt Petition (C) No. 823 of 2018.

Basava Prabhu Patil, Huzefa Ahmadi Sr. Advs., Anand SanjayM. Nuli, Suraj Kaushik, Ms. Rachita Hiremath (for M/s. Nuli & Nuli),Darpan K. M., Hetu Arora Sethi, Joseph Aristotle S., Mrs. Priya Aristotle, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ARijuk Sarkar, Sanjay Jain, Yatinder Singh, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advs. forthe appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

B1. “Bangalore was a beautiful city – once” said Justice O.Chinnappa Reddy, in one of his judgments of the year 1987 (B.K.Srinivasan and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.[1]). He went on tosay “It was a city with magic and charm, with elegant avenues, gorgeousflowers, lovely gardens and plentiful spaces. Not now. That was beforethe invasion of concrete and steel, of soot and smoke, of high rise andCthe fast buck. Gone are the flowers, gone are the trees, gone are theavenues, gone are the spaces……” Indeed, Bangalore was a beautifulcity. It had luscious gardens, beautiful lakes, well-laid roads, plenty ofopen spaces and wonderful weather throughout the year. It was one ofthe most beautiful cities in the country. It was rightly called the “GardenDCity” and a “Pensioner’s Paradise”. These are things of the past. Thecity’s environment is degraded so much and so fast that the time will notbe far away for us to say “once upon a time Bangalore was abeautiful city.” Traffic jams, over-crowding, haphazard constructions,dying lakes, destruction of the flora, shrinking of lung spaces etc havebecome the order of the day. Its clear cool foggy air has turned into greyEsmoke and brown dust. All this has happened in the name of development.Of course, the development in today’s time comes at a cost that the cityof Bangalore has very dearly paid. What is lost has already been lostand no amount of work or effort can bring back the glorious garden daysof Bangalore. The only thing that can be done and must be done is toFat least wake up now, meticulously plan and develop the city in orderto maintain whatever little is left of the old Bangalore city and developthe ever-growing city on the broad lines of the glorious days of thepast.

2. Keeping the above in mind as a blue print, let us come to theGfacts of this case.

3. The appellant is a society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959, with the objective of inter alia acquiringlands for formation of house sites and for distributing the same to itsH1 1(1987) 1 SCC 658)

members. The appellant had requested the State Government to acquirean extent of 100 acres of land in Nagarabhavi Village, YeswanthapuraHobli, Bangalore. In the year 1982, the State Government accordedsanction for initiation of proceedings for acquisition of 78 acres 16 guntasof land for the benefit of the appellant. It appears that even before theinitiation of acquisition proceedings, Vijayanagar Industrial WorkersHousing Co-operative Society Ltd had approached the appellant with arepresentation that it had already entered into an agreement dated06.11.1982 with respondent No.3 to purchase the entire extent in SurveyNo.30, of which she claimed to be the owner. Accordingly, the saidsociety requested the appellant to withdraw its request for acquisition ofthe said land. This is evident from the agreement at Annexure P1 enteredinto between the 3[rd] respondent and the said society. Under the saidagreement, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- per acre,respondent No.3 had received a sum of Rs.25,500/- and had parted withpossession of the land in favour of the said society and stated that shehad no objection to the land being acquired by the State Government.

4. In compliance with the procedure prescribed under ChapterVII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘L.A. Act’), the StateGovernment executed an agreement at Annexure P-2, undertaking toacquire land in favour of the appellant which included Sy.No.30 measuring5 acres 33 guntas and 8 guntas of pot kharab land. On 16.01.1985,notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act was issued proposing toacquire the required extent of land including Sy.No.30. An enquiry underSection 5A of the L.A Act was conducted and a report was submitted tothe State Government recommending acquisition.

5. The State Government, having accepted the recommendationissued a declaration under Section 6(1) of the L.A Act on 04.03.1986, tothe effect that several extent of land including Sy. No.30 was neededfor the public purpose of the appellant society.

6. The 3[rd] respondent, claiming to be the owner of an extent 4acre 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.30, filed W.P. No. 12566 of 1986 beforethe High Court of Karnataka questioning the notifications issued underSection 4(1) and 6(1) of the L.A Act and obtained an interim order dated08.07.1986 staying dispossession. Acquisition was challenged on theground that 3[rd] respondent was not issued with any notice; that no enquirywas held; and that acquisition was not for public purpose.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A7. Subsequently, awards were passed which were approved bythe State Government. In respect of Sy.No.30, an award was passedfixing compensation at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per acre. The LandAcquisition Officer in terms of his letter dated 06.04.1987 (Annexure P-5) called upon the appellant to deposit Rs.19,76,948/- including the generalBaward amount, in compliance whereof the appellant has deposited theamount.

8. The 3[rd] respondent made a representation as per Annexure P-6 dated 26.08.1990 to the State Government for withdrawing theacquisition proceedings in respect of 3 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.30C(hereafter referred to as ‘disputed property’). The representation ofrespondent No.3 stated that she had sold the land in Sy.No.30 long back.The purchasers of the sites had come forward to construct the houseson the sites which was objected to by the Land Acquisition Officer andthe appellant. It was also contended that she had sold the sites as shehad to maintain her family as her children were unemployed and thatDshe had to perform the marriages of her sons and daughters.

9. The High Court by its order dated 22.02.1991 dismissed thewrit petition by rejecting all the contentions of respondent No.3.

10. Soon after the dismissal of the writ petition, respondent No.3Eclaiming to be the owner of 4 acres 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.30, againfiled W.P. No. 5558 of 1991 before the High Court questioning the awarddetermining the market value of the acquired land. On 12.03.1991, theHigh Court granted an interim order staying the dispossession. The StateGovernment delivered possession of the land acquired in terms of theofficial memorandum dated 13/14.10.1992 to an extent of 68 acres 17Fguntas to the appellant. The extent delivered to the appellant included 1acre 25 guntas in Sy. No.30 out of total extent 6 acres 1 gunta. Balanceof disputed land measuring 4 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.30 which formedsubject matter of interim order of stay in W.P. No. 5558 of 1991 was notdelivered to the appellant.G

11. The High Court by order dated 15.07.1998 dismissed the writpetition W.P. No. 5558 of 1991 by imposing a cost of Rs.2,000/- on theground that the appellant having suffered an order in W.P. No. 12566 of1986, ought not to have filed another writ petition for the same relief.Respondent No.3 challenged this order in intra court appeal before theHDivision Bench of the High Court in W.A. No. 4245 of 1998.

12. In spite of dismissal of W.P. No. 12566 of 1986 and W.P. No.5558 of 1991 rejecting the challenge made by the respondent No.3 tothe acquisition, the State Government issued a withdrawal notificationdated 19.08.1998 under Section 48 of the L.A Act in respect of thedisputed property, even without affording an opportunity of being heardto the appellant. The appellant challenged this order by filing writ petitionNo. 26558 of 1998 before the High Court.

13. Writ appeal No. 4245 of 1998 filed by respondent No.3 cameto be dismissed by the Division Bench in terms of the order dated18.11.1998, thereby confirming the order in W.P. No. 5558 of 1991. Onthe same day, i.e. 18.11.1998, the High Court allowed W.P. No. 26558of 1998 filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had notbeen heard in the matter before issuing the notification under Section 48of the L.A Act and the matter was remitted to the State Government forreconsideration after affording opportunity to the appellant. It wasdirected that until the time State Government took fresh decision, thestatus quo as regards possession and nature of the property would bemaintained.

14. Respondent No.3 had only sought de-notification of the disputedproperty, i.e. 3 acres and 5 guntas in Sy.No.30. However, even out ofthe balance 2 acres and 36 guntas, only 1 acre 25 guntas had beenhanded over to the appellant. Accordingly, after dismissal of the writappeal W.A. No. 4245 of 1998 filed by respondent No.3, the appellantrequested the State Government to deliver possession of further 1 acre11 guntas in Sy. No.30 which did not form part of the request made bythe respondent No.3 for de-notification. The State Government havingfailed to act, the appellant filed W.P. No. 2592 of 1999 before the HighCourt for necessary direction. The High Court in terms of the orderdated 02.02.1999 allowed the said writ petition directing the StateGovernment to hand over possession of 1 acre 11 guntas of land to theappellant and accordingly possession of the said extent was handed overto the appellant. Thus, a total extent of 2 acres 36 guntas of land washanded over to the appellant out of 5 acres 33 guntas. The reviewpetition filed by respondent No.3 seeking review of the order dated02.02.1999 in W.P. 2592 of 1999 was dismissed by the High Courtimposing cost of Rs.2500/- with the following observations :

“…thus it is clear that a clever attempt is being attemptedto be made by the petitioner to get over an order this Court AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aby creating an impression that the petitioner has attemptedsuppression of fact and has practiced fraud. On the contraryit is clear that the petitioner is playing fraud on this by meansof representing that 1 acre 11 guntas of land restored to the1[st] respondent form part of the property, claimed by thepetitioner. This is a clear misrepresentation. I am of theBopinion that this writ petition is totally misconceived and ismade with oblique motive. Accordingly this Revision Petitionis dismissed with costs of Rs.2,500/- payable to the 1[st]respondent.”

15. After lapse of about 5 years of the order dated 18.11.1998 inCW.P. No. 26558 of 1998, in terms whereof the notification under Section48 of L.A Act in respect of the disputed property had been quashed, theState Government issued notice to the appellant regarding its proposal tode-notify the land. On 28.08.2003, the appellant filed detailed statementof objections to the proposed de-notification of the acquired land. IgnoringDobjection raised by the appellant, the State Government proceeded topass an order deciding to withdraw the aforesaid land measuring 3 acres5 guntas in Sy.No.30.

16. Being aggrieved by the government order dated 27.12.2003and the consequential notification dated 12.01.2004 issued under SectionE48 of the L.A Act, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge ofthe High Court by filing W.P. No. 4912 of 2004. The learned SingleJudge dismissed the writ petition on 08.03.2004 and the writ appeal filedby the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2583 of 2004 challenging the saidorder has been dismissed by the Division Bench on 07.08.2008. TheFappellant has called in question the legality and correctness of the saidorder in this appeal.

17. We have heard Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senioradvocate for the appellant, Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior advocate for respondentGNo.3.

18. Mr. Patil, learned senior counsel, submits that the firstrespondent has exercised the power under Section 48 (1) of the L.A Actin an arbitrary and whimsical manner. The order prejudicially affects theinterest of the appellant. The exercise of power lacks bona fides andHsuffers from vice of arbitrariness. It is further submitted that the disputed property forms an integral part of the layout formed by the appellant. Aportion of the disputed property is reserved for civic amenities. If theland in question is de-notified, it will have adverse impact on the planneddevelopment of the layout leading to public inconvenience. It is furthersubmitted that the individual interest of respondent No.3 cannot come inthe way of larger public interest. It is also submitted that according tothe third respondent, she had already sold 1/3[rd] of 3.5 acres to the thirdparties by a registered sale deed on 28.05.1992. According to herrepresentation, the purchaser has already formed sites in disputedproperty. She cannot maintain an application under Section 48(1) of theL.A Act for de-notification of the land already sold. Having failed in herchallenge to the acquisition proceedings, she could not have maintainedthe application for de-notification. Section 48 (1) was basically meantfor the State Government to de-notify the land from acquisition when itis not possible to acquire the said land and not meant for the owners,particularly when lands are being acquired for public purpose.

19. On the other hand, learned advocates appearing for therespondents have sought to justify the impugned order. Mr. Ahmadi,learned senior counsel, appearing for the 3[rd] respondent submits that theappellant society is not a bona fide housing society. It is submitted thatthere was no bar for the 3[rd] respondent to maintain an application for de-notification under Section 48 (1) of the L.A Act even though her writpetition challenging the acquisition proceedings has ended in dismissal.Taking into account the hardship suffered by the 3[rd] respondent, theState Government has de-notified the land in her favour. Accordingly,the 3[rd] respondent prays for dismissal of the appeal.

20. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learnedcounsel made at the Bar.

21. Section 48 of the L.A Act corresponds to Section 54 of the oldAct ‘X’ of 1870. For ready reference Section 54 of the old Act is asunder:

“54. Except in the case provided for in s. 44, nothing in thisAct shall be taken to compel the Govt. to complete theacquisition of any land unless an award shall have beenmade or a reference directed under the provisionshereinbefore contained.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

ABut whenever the Govt. declines to complete anyacquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount ofcompensation due for the damage (if any), done to suchland under s. 4 or s. 8 and not already paid for under s. 5,and shall pay such amount to the person injured”.

B22. Section 54 of the old Act gave power to the government forwithdrawal of the land which it has proposed to acquire. This power had

to be exercised before the award is made. This was causing greathardship to the government. The reasons for re-enacting the saidprovision in the L.A Act of 1894 can be gathered from the preliminaryreport of the Select Committee dated 2[nd] February, 1893, which is asCunder:

“Section 54 of the Act (10 of 1870) gives to the Govt. or thepublic bodies whom it represents the power of withdrawal fromland it has proposed to acquire. This power, however, must beexercised before the award is made. After award, withdrawal isDprohibited whatever may be the circumstances. Experience hasshown that the only occasion on which powers of withdrawal,would be really useful are when an award has shown that theGovt. was seriously misled by an underestimate of the value ofthe land. A case has been reported in which a municipality hasEbeen nearly ruined by being compelled to proceed with anacquisition in which the award was inordinately in excess of theoriginal valuation.We think, therefore, that power to withdrawshould be given after, as well as before, the award, but that, if soexercised, it should only be on terms of the most liberalcompensation to the owner and that, if he is dissatisfied with theFCollector’s offer, he should have the same rights of reference tothe Judge as in case of acquisition”.

(emphasis supplied)

23. The Select Committee in its second report dated 23[rd] March,G1893 has given certain clarifications, which are as under:

“We have altered the terms of the first clause of s. 48, whichgives certain powers to Govt. to withdraw from a contemplatedacquisition of land so as to make it clear that this withdrawalmay be made at any time before possession is taken but notHafterwards. Instances were quoted in our Preliminary Report in which the Collector was proved by the Judge’s award to havebeen seriously misled as to the value of the land and in which theGovt. would not have acquired the land had it received a correctappraisement. We think, that a Govt. which provides compensationfrom the taxes of the Empire should have larger powers ofwithdrawal than are given by the present Act, but we are of opinionthat no such power should be given after possession has oncebeen taken and that each Local Govt. must protect itself byexecutive instructions to Collectors to refrain from takingpossession until after the award of the Judge, in every case inwhich there is a material difference between the Collector andthe owner as to the value of the property”.

(emphasis supplied)

24. Section 48 of the L.A. Act of 1894 is as under:

“48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, butcompensation to be awarded when not completed.--(1)Except in the case provided for in section 36, the Governmentshall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land ofwhich possession has not been taken.

(2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any suchacquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount ofcompensation due for the damage suffered by the owner inconsequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, andshall pay such amount to the person interested, together with allcosts reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of theproceedings under this Act relating to the said land.

(3) The provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far as maybe, to the determination of the compensation payable under thissection”.

25. It is clear that an important change was affected in law in1894 by enactment of this section. Under the previous Act, thegovernment could not withdraw from the acquisition after an award hadbeen made or a reference directed. This was causing hardship in caseswhere the land turned out to be more valuable than the acquisition wasworth. The difficulty has been removed by fixing the bar at the taking ofpossession, an act which can be indefinitely postponed to meet theoccasion. When possession under Section 16 of the L.A. Act is not A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ataken, the government can withdraw from acquisition and the personinterested would be entitled to compensation for the damage suffered inconsequence of the acquisition proceedings and also to such costs of theproceedings as reasonably incurred by him. Section 48, however, willhave no application when once the land has vested in the governmentunder Section 16 of the L.A. Act.B

26. The two reports referred to above indicate that the liberty towithdraw from acquisition under Section 48 (1) of L.A Act was madeavailable prior to taking possession of the land in order to curtail paymentof exorbitant award amount in cases where it was no longer possible forthe government to effectuate the intended purpose of acquisition. InCSpecial Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and Ors. v. M/s Godrejand Boyce[2], this Court was considering the de-notification of land beforetaking its possession. In this case, the government had intended to acquirevast piece of land for construction of houses by the State Housing Boardbut this land had been overrun by slum dwellers to such an extent that itDwas no longer possible for the government to effectuate the intendedpurpose of acquisition. It was observed that the State Government wasnot responsible for the occupation of land by trespassers. Therefore, theState Government cannot be compelled to go ahead with the acquisitionwhen the purpose of such acquisition could not be achieved. In thisEregard it is beneficial to note the observations of the Supreme Court:

“Where slum dwellers on a large scale occupy pieces of land,social and human problems of such magnitude arise that it is virtuallyimpossible for municipalities, and no mean task even for thegovernment, to get the lands vacated. If the government is reluctantFto go ahead with the acquisition in view of these genuine difficulties,it can hardly be blamed. We see no justification to direct thegovernment to acquire the land and embark on such a venture.We are also of the opinion that the fact that the governmentexercised the power of withdrawal after the writ petition wasfiled does not spell mala fides once the existence of circumstances,Gwhich, in our opinion, justified the government’s decision towithdraw, is acknowledged”.

27. It is thus clear that sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the L.AAct empowers the government to withdraw from acquisition proceedings H2 1988 (1) SCC 50

of the land of which possession has not been taken. It is further providedthat when the government withdraws from acquisition, the Collectorshall determine the amount of compensation due for the damages sufferedby the owner in consequence of notice or proceedings thereunder. Acombined reading of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 48 ofthe L.A. Act makes it clear that the purpose of Section 48 was mainly toensure that the State Government is not compelled to acquire the landwhen the acquisition ceases to be beneficial for the intended purpose.That is why, sub-section (2) of Section 48 provides for payment ofcompensation to the owner, whose land was notified for acquisition butnot acquired for the reason that such an acquisition is against the publicinterest and public revenue.

28. However, from the language employed in sub-section (1) ofSection 48, it can also be inferred that there is no bar to de-notify theland from acquisition at the request of the landowners. We are of theview that when an application is made for de-notification of the land, thegovernment has to consider the same with great care and caution. Thegovernment has to consider the application keeping in mind thesubservience of public interest because the lands are being acquired forpublic purpose. The government should not exercise this power in anarbitrary and whimsical manner. The decision of withdrawal fromacquisition should be bona fide and backed by valid reasons. It is settledthat the government could not withdraw land from acquisition withoutgiving the beneficiary of acquisition an opportunity of being heard. (See:State Government Houseless Harijan Employees’ Association v.State of Karnataka and Others[3])

29. It is also necessary to emphasize here the need to have planneddevelopment of the city and the importance of planning schemes and theill-effects of de-notification of the land from the approved scheme/plan.Town planning schemes are made for the immediate need of thecommunity. Town planning is meant for planned development of certainlocal areas in order to make utilities and facilities available to the generalpublic. Planned development of the city is a sine qua non for its healthand growth, given the rapid increase in population of the city on accountof influx of thousands of people from other parts of the country.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A30. The Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (forshort ‘Planning Act’) and the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (forshort ‘BDA Act’) play an important role in the planned development ofthe city of Bangalore. The Planning Act was enacted by the StateLegislature for the regulation of planned growth of land use andBdevelopment and for executing town planning schemes in the State ofKarnataka. The Planning Act has created a Planning Authority whichhas been given power to check, survey and locate the area fordevelopment by declaring it as a planning area. It also provides forpreparation of master plan for development of the city after carrying outthe survey of the area within its jurisdiction. The zoning regulations areCmade from time to time, classifying the land use in the planning area.

31. The State Legislature has enacted the BDA Act for theestablishment of a development authority for the development of city ofBangalore and areas adjacent thereto and for matters connectedtherewith. The State Government has constituted BangaloreDDevelopment Authority to effectuate the purpose of the BDA Act. Thisauthority is a Planning Authority for the city of Bangalore. The mainobject of the BDA Act is planned development of the city of Bangaloreand to check haphazard and irregular growth of the city. BDA is the soleauthority which draws the schemes for formation layouts within theEBangalore Metropolitan Area. This Act envisages development of twotypes of layouts. The first is formation of a layout by the BDA itself. Forthis purpose, BDA has to draw a development scheme. The particularsto be provided in the development scheme are enumerated in Section 16of the BDA Act. The development scheme made by the BDA providesfor acquisition of the land, laying and re-laying of all or any land includingFthe construction and re-construction of buildings, formation and alterationof the streets, provision for drainage, water supply, electricity, reservationof not less than 15% of the area of the layout for public purpose andplayground and an additional area of not less than 10% of the total areaof the layout for civic amenities. Section 18 of the BDA Act providesGfor sanction of the scheme submitted by the BDA. After acquisition,State Government vests the acquired land with the BDA for formationof a layout strictly in accordance with the sanctioned scheme.

32. The second type of layout under the BDA Act is a privatelayout. Section 32 of the BDA Act provides for formation of privateHlayouts. If any person intends to form an extension or a layout, he has to make a written application with a plan to the Commissioner, BDA undersub-section (2) of Section 32. The said plan has to contain laying outsites of the area, reservation of land for open spaces, the intended level,direction and width of the street, street alignment and the building lineand the proposed sites abutting streets, the arrangement for leveling,paving, metalling, flagging, channelling, sewering, draining, conservingand lighting the streets and for adequate drinking water supply. A privatelayout cannot be formed without the approval of the layout plan by theCommissioner, BDA and such layout has to be formed strictly inaccordance with the approved plan. While forming the layout, the BDAor a private individual or a society, as the case may be, cannot deviatefrom the sanctioned scheme or the approved layout plan.

33. It has come to the notice of this Court that of late the StateGovernment has been de-notifying the lands acquired for public purposefor the benefit of the authorities like BDA or other urban developmentauthorities and for the formation of private housing layouts, adverselyaffecting the planned development of the city of Bangalore and othercities in the State of Karnataka. The instant case is a classic examplewhere the power has been blatantly misused ignoring larger public interest.

34. As noticed above, the State Government had accorded sanctionfor initiation of acquisition proceedings for the benefit of the appellant inthe year 1982 itself. The State Government executed the agreement inthe month of August 1984, undertaking to acquire 78 acres 16 guntas ofland in favour of the appellant, including the land in Sy.No.30 belongingto the 3[rd] respondent. Notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of theL.A Act were issued and possession was taken except the disputed landto an extent of 3 acres 5 guntas.

35. The approved layout plan was issued by the government incompliance with the provisions of the BDA Act and the Planning Act.The layout plan produced by the appellant at Annexure P-13 would indicatethat meticulous planning has been undertaken for planned developmentof the layout. The plan also indicates that lands have been reserved forcivic amenities, open spaces and also for roads. The width of the streetand its alignment, the building line and the proposed sites abutting thestreets, have been perfectly drawn.

36. The appellant has contended that the disputed property falls inthe middle of the layout. However, the 3[rd] respondent has contended A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athat the disputed property is situated in the southern end of the layout.Whether the disputed property falls in the middle of the layout or in thesouthern end makes no difference so long as it is within the layout. It isalso clear from the materials on record that a portion of the disputedproperty has been earmarked as a civic amenity and the remaining portionabutting the street has been proposed for residential sites. If the order ofBde-notification is allowed to stand, the very object of the planneddevelopment of the layout would be lost. There will be shortage of civicamenity sites in the layout and it would no longer be possible to set thestreet alignment and the building line as per the approved plan. This willhave adverse impact on the planned development of the layout leadingCto public inconvenience. It will nullify the object and the purpose forwhich Planning Act and the BDA Act have been enacted by theLegislature.

37. Experience has shown us that the lands are being de-notifiedbefore taking possession or dropped from acquisition before the issuanceDof declaration by the government are mostly at the instance of landmafias in connivance with influential persons; political or otherwise.These lands are generally situated within the layouts in major cities andspecially in Bangalore city. After de-notification, multi-storied complexescome up on these lands comprising of large number of residential andnon-residential units. This has a direct impact on the existing infrastructureEconsisting of water supply, sewerage and lighting. Similarly, the trafficmovement facility suffers unbearable burden and is often thrown out ofgear because the original scheme/layout plan did not envisage constructionof these complexes. The civic amenities provided in the original layoutplan were in proportion to the development proposed in the scheme/Fplan. The purchasers of residential sites, who wish to have a roof overtheir heads, fall prey to the designs of unscrupulous land mafias. Wemay not hesitate to add that irreparable damage has already been doneto many layouts in Bangalore and in other places by allowing constructionof multi-storied buildings within the layouts.G

38. We are of the considered view that the government shouldrefrain from de-notifying or dropping any land being acquired for theformation of a layout, under Section 48 of the L.A Act or under anyother law. The courts should also be very strict while considering theplea of the landowners seeking de-notification of the lands which areHbeing acquired or quashing of the notification on the ground of lapsing of the scheme or on any other grounds in respect of the acquired lands forthe formation of the layout. It has to be kept in mind that private interestalways stands subordinated to the public good.

39. It is also to be noted here that the area reserved for civicamenity should not be diverted for any other purpose other than thepurpose for which it was reserved in the sanctioned scheme or theapproved layout plan. The plan for building in the layout should besanctioned strictly in accordance with the building bye-laws. If a site isearmarked for residential purpose, no plan should be sanctioned forconstruction of a non-residential building at such site. The constructionon the sites by the allottees should be made in accordance with the plansanctioned by the competent authority.

40. It is no doubt true that right to build on one’s own land is aright incidental to the ownership of the land. This right has been regulatedin the interest of the community residing within the limits of the city ingeneral and the layout in particular. This has to be strictly implementedfor the planned development of the city. If it is not controlled, it will havetremendous burden on the infrastructure available in the layout.

41. We are of the view that Section 14-A of the Planning Act,which empowers the Planning Authority to grant permission for changeof land use or development, has no application to the lands acquiredunder Sections 17 to 19 of the BDA Act for the implementation of thescheme or the layout approved under Section 32 of the said Act. Theposition is similar even in respect of the other Development Authoritiesin the State of Karnataka.

42. We make it clear that henceforth, the planning/developmentauthorities in the State of Karnataka, including the BDA shall not permitchange of land use within the layout formed by the BDA or a privatelayout formed under Section 32 of the BDA Act or the layout formed byany other authority contrary to the scheme sanctioned by the StateGovernment or the layout plan approved by the competent authority.The BDA or the other planning/development authorities shall not ventureto alter the sanctioned scheme/approved layout plan in any manner. TheBDA and the other planning/development authorities, Bruhat BangaloreCity Municipal Corporation Bangalore, or any other authorities in theState of Karnataka authorized to sanction the plan for construction ofthe buildings shall not sanction any plan for construction contrary to the A

BC

DE

F

G

H

Asanctioned scheme/approved layout plan. The sites reserved for parks,playgrounds or for providing other amenities shall be used strictly for thepurpose for which they were reserved. Be it noted that violation of anyof these directions by the authorities will be viewed strictly.

43. It is also hereby clarified that if de-notified lands or the landsBdropped from acquisition before the issuance of the declaration underthe BDA Act or any other law are available within the BDA layout orthe private layout approved by the BDA or the layout formed by anyurban development authorities in the State of Karnataka, the said landsshall be utilized strictly in accordance with the land utilization proposedin the scheme/approved layout plan. Hence, building permission or theCsanctioned plans to build on these lands shall not be issued by anyauthorities contrary to the land utilization proposed in the scheme/approvedlayout plan.

44. Now, let us focus on the conduct of the 3[rd] respondent whohad managed to obtain an order of de-notification. It is clear from theDmaterials on record that even prior to the issuance of preliminarynotification, M/s. Vijayanagar Industrial Workers Housing Co-operativeSociety Ltd had entered into an agreement on 06.11.1982 with the 3[rd]respondent to purchase the land in question. In fact, the 3[rd] respondenthad also received partial compensation from the said society. She haschallenged the acquisition proceedings thereafter by filing writ petitionEin W.P. No. 12566 of 1986. During the pendency of this case, she fileda representation dated 26.09.1990, requesting the State Government towithdraw from acquisition of the said land. In the said representation, itwas contended that she had sold the said land long back for the purposeof collecting funds to perform the marriage of her children and that sheFhad divided the sale proceeds amongst her children. It was also contendedthat pursuant to the sale, the purchaser had come forward to constructhouses and the Land Acquisition Officer and the appellant had objectedto the same. On the said ground, she had sought de-notification of theland after the dismissal of W.P. No. 12566 of 1986. Therefore, the LandAcquisition Officer passed an award. She filed the second writ petitionGchallenging the acquisition proceedings in W.P. No. 5558 of 1991, whichwas rightly dismissed by the High Court and intra court appeal filed byher challenging the said order was also dismissed by the Division Bench.It is obvious that in the said cases, she had raised the grounds which hadbeen raised by her in her representation seeking de-notification of theHdisputed property.

45. The appellant has opposed the proposal for de-notification byfiling detailed objections as per Annexure P-12. The conduct of 3[rd]respondent in filing case after case for quashing the notification issuedby the State Government for acquisition of the land has been brought tothe notice of the government. It was also stated that since the landshave been notified for acquisition for a public purpose, namely, for theformation of a layout, a portion of the said land cannot be de-notified asit will adversely affect the layout, causing public inconvenience. The 1[st]respondent, without adverting any of these contentions, has passed anorder of de-notification. We are of the view that the said order has beenpassed without application of mind and it is arbitrary in nature.

46. In this appeal, the 4[th] respondent has filed an applicationcontending that he had purchased certain extent of land out of the disputedproperty. In support of his contentions he has produced sale-deed dated27.5.1992 executed by 3[rd] respondent in favour of his vendor, Smt. P.N.Kanthanna. In fact, the 3[rd] respondent in her statement of objectionsfiled in this appeal has admitted having sold the land. However, it ispleaded that de-notification of the land is necessary in order to conveybetter title in favour of the purchasers. It is stated as under:

“23. The contention that this respondent has no subsisting interestin the land in question as she has sold the land is totally false. Thisrespondent has to convey better title in favour of the purchasersand therefore her request to denotify the land is not tainted withany malafides. As stated earlier, this respondent has sold certainland to sustain herself and her family.”

47. Since the 3[rd] respondent has already sold certain portion ofthe land, she could not have maintained the application for de-notificationof the said portion of the land as she has no subsisting interest in the saidland. We are also of the view that even the subsequent purchaser of theland cannot seek de-notification of the land from acquisition as his sale-deed is void.

48. We have also noticed that the State Government has beende-notifying the lands under Section 48 (1) of the Act for the past 10-15years and allegations have been made that these orders have been passedwith ulterior motives. We are of the view that the State Government hasto re-consider all these orders and take corrective steps in case it is AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afound that such orders have been passed in violation of the law.Perpetuation of illegality has to be ceased, desisted and deterred at anycost.

49. Mr. Ahmadi, learned senior counsel, submits that the appellantis not a bona fide housing society and that 90% of its members are notBeligible to become its members and that they are not entitled for allotmentof sites from the appellant. It is not possible to consider these contentionsof Mr. Ahmadi in this appeal. However, if the 3[rd] respondent has anygrievance in relation to the bona fides of the society, she may lodge asuitable complaint before the competent authority. If such complaint isCfiled, we direct the concerned authority to consider the same inaccordance with law.

50. A contention has also been raised by the 3[rd] respondent thatthe appellant-society has sold sites meant for civic amenities illegally tovarious persons and the show-cause notice has been issued by theDcompetent authority in this regard. The 3[rd] respondent has produced thenotices issued by the Pattangere City Municipal Council, Bangalore dated8.7.1998 at R-18 which is as under:

“Annexure R-18 Pattanagere City Municipal Council Bangalore, Dated 08/07/1998

E

The President/Secretary,Sri Vinayaka House BuildingCo-operative Society Limited,FNo.3, Adi chunchanagiri complex,Vijayanagar, Bangalore -40

Sir,

Sub: Representation with regard to transfer of kathaGfrom the City Municipal Council fraudulently in respectof C.A. reserved sites to some of the members of yoursociety contrary to law and rules of BDA in the layoutformed at 2[nd] Stage, Nagarabhavi and suppressing theinformation.

H

—-

M/S. VINAYAK HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. v.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

With relation to the above subject, the layout formed by SriVinayaka House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., is the layout whichcomes within Ward No.7 of our City Municipal Council limits. It isnoticed that the sites have been developed, approval being obtained bythe Bangalore Development authority, the sketch/plan has been gotsanctioned and the sites have been allotted.

But, the Local City Municipal Council Member, Sri V. Prakash,B.Com., LL.B., Advocate has submitted the complaint in writing onbehalf of the general public that the plan/sketch in respect of certainareas has not been sanctioned by the BDA and the area which has beenreserved for civic amenities by the BDA have been formed in to sitesand by giving wrong information to some of the members and in violationof the rules of government and BDA, the President, C.H. Subboji Raoand the Secretary M.S. Srinivasa Murthy have fraudulently registeredthe said civic amenities sites to the civilians and cheated the said persons.

Therefore, it has come to the notice of our City Municipal Councilthat kathas have been effected for 39 members by giving wronginformation. I hereby order to give explanation as to why legal actionshould not be initiated against the President, Secretary and the memberswho have obtained the sites, within 7 days from the date of receipt ofthis notice.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

CommissionerPattangere CMCBangalore-39.”

[Emphasis supplied]

51. The second notice at Annexure R-19 dated 03.08.1998 issuedby the BDA to the Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation, Pattangerereads as under:

“Annexure R-19M.R.C.R. Shopping Complex,Vijayanagar,Bangalore-560 040.Dated: 03.08.1998

No.BDA/EE(W)/111/98-99.

A

B

D

E

F

G

H

[2019] 11 S.C.R.

ATo:

The Commissioner,

City Municipal Corporation,Pattanagere,

BBangalore.

Sir,

Sub: Approval layout by Bangalore DevelopmentAuthority in Sy. Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, 31, 32, 36/1, 37,64, 71, 95 to 98, 112/19, 135 to 137(17) of NagarabhaviVillage, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Talukin favour of Vinayaka HBCS Reg., C

** ** **

With reference to the above subject, B.D.A. has approved layoutDplan in respect of Sy. Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, 31, 32, 36/1, 37, 64, 71, 95to 98, 112/19, 135 to 137(17) of Nagarabhavi Village, YeshwanthapuraHobli, to an extent of 78 Acres from a layout in favour of Sri.VinayakaHBCS vide resolution No.883 dated 23.01.1988 with a condition afterformation of Layout all the roads and C.A., Sites has mark to be handed Eover to B.D.A. through relinquishment.

Accordingly society has the layout and so for about 71% of siteshas been released by B.D.A. and the rest of sites will be released tosociety after handling over of roads and C.A. site to B.D.A.

But now it is learnt that the society has registered some sites withFa Sub Numbers to their Members in the marked C.A. Area and in parkArea and in the approved layout plan. This is illegal. Also it has come toknow that Khathas and sanctioning of plan to these illegal site membersare being processing in your office.

GIn the light of the above information it is requested not to accordmaking any Khathas or sanctioning of any residential/commercial plansand also not be regularize any illegal holdings in the preserved area, asthe area is can marked as park and civil amenities sites in C.D.P.

Also it is requested to restrain your officials ElectedHrepresentatives that not to interfering in B.D.A. Jurisdiction.

Any clarification in this regard may please be obtained from theExecutive Engineer (West) B.D.A. Vijayanagar, or Asst. ExecutiveEngineer No.4 West Sub-division, B.D.A. before taking any approval orsanction.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

Bangalore Development Authority,M.R.C.R. Complex, Vijayanagar,Bangalore-560 040.”[Emphasis supplied]

52. The appellant has not denied the above contentions by filing arejoinder. It is necessary to notice here that out of 5 acres 33 guntas and8 guntas of port kharab land in Sy.No.30, possession of 2 acres 36 guntashas been taken by the State Government and delivered to the appellant.The subject matter of this appeal is only 3 acres 5 guntas of land inSy.No.30. Admittedly, the possession of this land has not been taken sofar. In the layout plan, a portion of this land is reserved for civic amenitiesand the balance of the land is meant for formation of house sites.

53. An intervener application has been filed by one Mrs. BhavnaPraveen contending that certain sites have been formed in the disputedproperty and possession of these sites have been given to members ofthe appellant-society, namely, R. Dhanabalan, D. Vinod Kumar and Mrs.D. Geetha. The sale-deeds have also been executed in respect of thesesites in their favour.

54. A Contempt Petition (civil) No.823 of 2018 was filed by S.Krishnappa complaining of violation of the interim order of status quogranted by this Court in this Appeal dated 07.01.2009. It was allegedthat the contemnors therein have trespassed into the disputed propertyand began to construct illegally on the said land. A reply was filed by theappellant herein contending that site Nos. 501, 526, 527, 528 and 529have been formed out of 2 acres 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.30, thepossession of which was already delivered to the appellant and that thesites formed in the said land have been allotted to the members of thesociety as per the plan approved by the BDA prior to the order of de-notification. Relevant portion of the objection is at paragraph 10 which isas under:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“10. That, the said Sites No.501, 526, 527, 528 & 529 have beenformed out of 2 acres 36 guntas of land in Survey No.30 whichhas been handed over in favour of the Societyby the Order passedby the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 10249/2003and the same has been allotted in favour of the members of thesociety as per the approved BDA and that too, prior to the orderBof the de-notification dated 27.12.2003 and notification dated12.01.2004 issued by the Government of Karnataka”.

(Emphasis supplied)

55. Therefore, even according to the appellant, the disputedCproperty is vacant and no allotment/sale of the sites have been made outof this land. However, it is evident from the above referred two lettersand other materials on record that the appellant has illegally formed thesites in the other lands reserved for civic amenities in the approved plan.In order to compensate for the loss of land reserved for civic amenities,it is just and proper to direct the appellant to reserve the entire disputedDproperty measuring 3 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.30 for civic amenities andplay ground. Therefore, we direct the appellant to utilize the portion ofthe disputed property reserved as a civic amenity site in the layout planfor providing civic amenities. The competent authorities are directed todevelop the balance of the disputed property as a park or a playgroundEor both for the benefit of general public. The appellant shall not allot/sellthe disputed property or any portion thereof either to its members or toany other parties. The Commissioner BDA is directed to ensurecompliance of this order.

56. If it is found that the appellant has allotted any site in theFdisputed property in favour of its members or any other parties, theappellant has to refund the consideration paid by them with interest @18% p.a. from the date of the allotment till the date of payment. Orderedaccordingly.

57. The State Government is directed to take possession of theGaforesaid disputed property and transfer the same to the appellantforthwith for its utilization in terms of paragraph 54 of this judgment.58. In the light of the above discussions, we pass the followingorders:(i) The judgment and order of the Division Bench as also of theHlearned Single Judge impugned herein are hereby set aside.

M/S. VINAYAK HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. v.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

(ii) The order passed by the 1[st] respondent dated 27.12.2003and the consequent notification dated 12.01.2004 pertainingto the lands in dispute are hereby quashed.

59. The appeal and all the pending applications are disposed ofaccordingly, without any order as to costs.

60. In view of the above, Contempt Petition(C) No.823 of 2018 inC.A. No.3600 of 2011 is also disposed of.

61. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to theCommissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore forthwith.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H