High Court of Karnataka Directs BDA to Hand Over Vacant Possession of Land Unauthorizedly Appropriated Without Acquisition — Senior Citizen's Land Used for Layout Formation Without Due Process. The Court held that the BDA's admission of unauthorized use of land without acquisition constituted a clear violation of the petitioner's right to property, and the BDA cannot be allowed to benefit from its own wrong.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, a senior citizen, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining against the callous and grossly culpable act of the respondent, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), in unauthorizedly and high-handedly appropriating his land ad measuring 63162 sq. ft. in site No.19 of Jettagarahalli Village, Hemmigepura Grama, Kengeri Hobli, Banashankari 6th Stage, Bengaluru, without any acquisition process. The BDA, after service of notice, filed a Statement of Objections specifically admitting at paragraph 5 that it had utilized the petitioner's land ad measuring 63000 sq. ft. for the formation of roads, parks and sites without acquiring the said lands for the purpose of Banashankari 6th Stage Layout. In paragraph 7 of the Statement of Objections, the BDA stated that it would give 50% of the developed land i.e., 17296 sq. ft. to the petitioner in terms of Government Order dated 09.10.2018 in the same layout subject to availability or in the alternative, in some other layout. The petitioner's counsel vehemently contended that the BDA's act was illegal and arbitrary, and that the petitioner was entitled to the return of his land. The Court, after hearing both sides, found that the BDA's admission of unauthorized use of the land without acquisition was a clear violation of the petitioner's rights. The Court rejected the BDA's offer of 50% developed land as inadequate and not a substitute for the land taken. The Court held that the BDA cannot be allowed to benefit from its own wrong and directed the BDA to hand over vacant possession of the land to the petitioner within six months from the date of the order. The Court further warned that if the order was not complied with, the Commissioner of the BDA would be liable for contempt proceedings. The petition was allowed with costs of Rs. 25,000 payable to the petitioner.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Unauthorized Appropriation of Land - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner, a senior citizen, sought a writ of mandamus directing the BDA to hand over vacant possession of his land measuring 63162 sq. ft. which the BDA had utilized for formation of roads, parks and sites without any acquisition process. The BDA admitted the unauthorized use and offered 50% developed land as per Government Order dated 09.10.2018. The Court held that the BDA's act was callous and grossly culpable, and directed the BDA to hand over vacant possession of the land within six months, failing which the Commissioner would be liable for contempt proceedings. (Paras 1-4)

B) Property Law - Right to Property - Unauthorized Taking of Land - The BDA's admission that it utilized the petitioner's land without acquisition constituted a clear violation of the petitioner's right to property. The Court rejected the BDA's offer of 50% developed land as inadequate and not a substitute for the land taken. The Court emphasized that the BDA cannot be allowed to benefit from its own wrong. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) can be directed to hand over vacant possession of land which it has unauthorizedly appropriated without any acquisition process, and whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The respondent-BDA is directed to hand over vacant possession of the land ad measuring 63162 sq. ft. in site No.19 of Jettagarahalli Village, Hemmigepura Grama, Kengeri Hobli, Banashankari 6th Stage, Bengaluru, to the petitioner within six months from the date of the order. The respondent is also directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner. If the order is not complied with, the Commissioner of the BDA shall be liable for contempt proceedings.

Law Points

  • Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Unauthorized appropriation of land without acquisition
  • Right to property
  • Compensation for land taken without acquisition
  • Government Order dated 09.10.2018
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (KAR) (03) 56

Writ Petition No. 56283 of 2018 (BDA)

2019-03-01

Krishna S. Dixit

Sri. Murthy D Naik (for petitioner), Sri. A Lakshmish Rao (for respondent)

Sri. P. G. Belliappa

The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent to hand over vacant possession of land unauthorizedly appropriated without acquisition.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to hand over vacant possession of site No.19 of Jettagarahalli Village, Hemmigepura Grama, Kengeri Hobli, Banashankari 6th Stage, 10th Block, Bengaluru.

Filing Reason

The respondent-BDA unauthorizedly and high-handedly appropriated the petitioner's land ad measuring 63162 sq. ft. without any acquisition process.

Issues

Whether the BDA's unauthorized appropriation of the petitioner's land without acquisition is illegal and arbitrary? Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the BDA to hand over vacant possession of the land?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner contended that the BDA's act of utilizing his land without acquisition was illegal and arbitrary, and that he was entitled to the return of his land. Respondent-BDA admitted the unauthorized use and offered 50% developed land as per Government Order dated 09.10.2018.

Ratio Decidendi

The BDA's admission of unauthorized use of the petitioner's land without acquisition constitutes a clear violation of the petitioner's right to property. The BDA cannot be allowed to benefit from its own wrong, and the petitioner is entitled to the return of his land. The offer of 50% developed land is inadequate and not a substitute for the land taken.

Judgment Excerpts

Petitioner, a senior citizen is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court complaining against a callous and grossly culpable act of the respondent – BDA in unauthorizedly and high handedly appropriating his land ad measuring 63162 Sq. Ft. in site No.19 of Jettagararahalli Village, Hemmigepura Grama, Kengeri Hobli, Banashankari 6th Stage, Bengaluru, without any acquisition process. The respondent – BDA ... has specifically admitted at Para No.5 thereof that it has 'utilized petitioner’s land ad measuring 63000 Sq. Ft. for the formation of roads, parks and sites without acquiring the said lands' for the purpose of Banashankari 6th Stage Layout.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent-BDA entered appearance and filed a Statement of Objections. The petition was heard and reserved for order, and the Court pronounced the order on 01.03.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Directs BDA to Hand Over Vacant Possession of Land Unauthorizedly Appropriated Without Acquisition — Senior Citizen's Land Used for Layout Formation Without Due Process. The Court held that the BDA's admission of unauthorize...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Directs Consideration of Representation for Road Widening in Public Interest. Statutory Authority Must Consider Representation Within Three Months Under Article 226 of Constitution of India.