Case Note & Summary
Background: The case involves acquisition of land for the formation of a residential layout known as Dr. Shivarama Karanth Layout by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The petitioner, B. Sathyanarayanachar, claimed ownership of one acre of land in Sy.No.11/2 of Kempanahalli Village, which he purchased in 2005 and where he operated a nursery named Sri Govardhana Nursery. He sought exemption from acquisition based on a Government Order dated 01-01-1987 that exempts nursery lands from BDA acquisition schemes. Facts: The preliminary notification under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act was issued on 30-12-2008, including the petitioner's land. The petitioner filed objections citing the nursery exemption. The notification was challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 55863-55865/2014 before the Karnataka High Court, which declared the acquisition lapsed. The BDA's appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. However, the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7661-63/2018 set aside the High Court orders, upheld the preliminary notification, and directed issuance of a final notification. The final notification was published on 30-10-2018. Following various grievances, the Supreme Court constituted the Justice A.V. Chandrashekar Committee to examine claims. The Committee exempted two other nurseries but rejected the petitioner's claim on 08-08-2023, leading to the present writ petition. Legal Issues: The primary issue was whether the Government Order dated 01-01-1987 exempting nurseries applied to the petitioner's land, and whether the Committee's rejection was arbitrary. A secondary issue was the claim for compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Arguments: The petitioner argued that he had been running a nursery continuously since 2005, supported by RTC entries and an irrigation pumpset, and relied on the government order to exempt nurseries. He sought parity with two other nurseries that the Committee had exempted. The BDA contended that the nursery was not in existence at the time of the preliminary notification and was artificially created to avoid acquisition. The Committee's decision was defended as factually correct and not arbitrary. Court's Analysis: The High Court noted the undisputed facts and examined the petitioner's objections and the government order. It considered the evidence of nursery operations and the BDA's counter-arguments. The matter was heard and reserved for orders on 23.08.2024. Decision: The Court pronounced its judgment on 25.10.2024 (details not available in the provided excerpt).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's land used as a nursery is exempt from acquisition under Government Order dated 01-01-1987; whether the decision of the Justice A.V. Chandrashekar Committee rejecting the exemption claim is valid; whether the petitioner is entitled to parity with two other nurseries that were exempted; alternatively, whether compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 should be awarded.
Law Points
- Nursery lands exempt from BDA acquisition under Government Order dated 01-01-1987
- Exemption subject to continued use as nursery
- Burden on landowner to prove existence of nursery at time of notification
- Parity claims require similar factual circumstances.
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (10) 17
Writ Petition No.21760 of 2023 (GM – RES)
Krishna S Dixit, M. Nagaprasanna
G. Krishna Murthy (Senior Counsel), Madhusudhana G. (for petitioner); Anukanksha Kalkeri (HCGP for respondent No.1); Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar (for respondents 2-4)
State of Karnataka, Bangalore Development Authority, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Justice A.V. Chandrashekar Committee
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking certiorari to quash rejection of nursery exemption claim and final acquisition notification, alternatively for compensation under 2013 Act.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of proceedings dated 08-08-2023 and final notification dated 30-10-2018, or mandamus for compensation.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's land was included in acquisition despite being a nursery exempted by government order dated 01-01-1987.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge of Karnataka High Court allowed petition declaring preliminary notification lapsed; Division Bench affirmed; Supreme Court set aside and directed final notification; Committee constituted by Supreme Court rejected petitioner's claim; petitioner filed present writ petition after Supreme Court remitted matters to High Court.
Issues
Whether the petitioner's land qualifies for exemption as a nursery under Government Order dated 01-01-1987
Whether the rejection by the Committee is arbitrary
Whether the petitioner is entitled to parity with two other exempted nurseries
Alternatively, whether compensation under the 2013 Act should be awarded
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argues that he has been running a nursery since 2005, relies on government order to exempt nurseries, and seeks parity with other exempted nurseries.
BDA argues that the nursery is not genuine and only came up after notification, and that the Committee rightly rejected it.
Judgment Excerpts
From the past 04 years I am running 'Govardhana Nursery Farm' in the said premises and I have availed irrigation pumpset electrical connection vide No.LT-4/YIP/1669, dated: 04-05-2005.
Government have further examined the request and hereby order that the lands used for nurseries be exempt from land acquisition for its development scheme by the Bangalore Development Authority. If the owners of these nurseries discontinue to use those lads for nurseries, the lands will be acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority. This order shall come into force with immediate effect and until further order.
In that background, I do not propose to refer to the contentions in detail for the reason that in respect of the very same notification, this Court had made a detailed consideration in W.P.No.9640 of 2014 and connected petitions on 26-11-2014.
The afore-narrated facts, though not in dispute would require reiteration as they are hereinabove succinctly stated.
Procedural History
Petitioner purchased land in 2005. Preliminary notification issued on 30-12-2008. Petitioner filed objections seeking exemption. Writ Petition Nos. 55863-55865/2014 filed; Single Judge allowed petition declaring lapse on 16-12-2014. BDA filed Writ Appeal No. 5098/2016; Division Bench dismissed on 28-04-2017. Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7661-63/2018 set aside High Court orders and directed final notification on 03-08-2018. Final notification issued on 30-10-2018. Committee constituted by Supreme Court. Petitioner filed representation; rejected on 08-08-2023. Supreme Court remitted pending matters to High Court. Present writ petition filed. Heard and reserved on 23-08-2024. Pronounced on 25-10-2024.
Acts & Sections
- Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976: 17(1), 17(3)
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
