HC: No voluntary surrender of land, no incentive sites

Division Bench sets aside single-judge order which granted three sites to the land owner from BDA

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Three incentive sites granted to a land owner whose land was acquired for the formation of Banashankari VI Stage have been set aside by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.

A single judge bench of the HC had passed the order for the incentive sites, but the Division Bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar said that the land owner had not voluntarily handed over the land. As per the Rule 3 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme For Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules a land owner who voluntarily hands over the possession of the land is entitled to an incentive site.

The division bench in its judgment noted, “There is no material on record to prima facie indicate that respondent had voluntarily handed over the possession of land in question after receipt of the notice. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to allotment of plots by way of an incentive. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

For the reasons mentioned in the preceding parag raph, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly, quashed.” GS Shivanna was the owner of 4 acres and 3 guntas of land at Uttarahalli, Manavar thekaval. 

The BDA issued notification for acquiring the land in 2002. A final notification was issued in 2003. Shivanna challenged the acquisition in the HC. A status quo was ordered in 2003 but in 2006 the HC disposed of the case by holding that the acquisition of land was valid.

In 2007 Shivanna sought sites by way of incentive. This was rejected by the BDA. Shivanna challenged it in the HC which ordered that he be given three incentive sites. The BDA challenged this in 2014 and the Division Bench gave its judgment recently.

“In the instant case, the notice to hand over possession of the land was given to the respondent on 23.09.2003. The respondent instead of handing over the possession filed a writ petition on 10.10.2003, in which an interim order directing the parties to maintain the status quo was granted on 12.11.2003. The writ petition was disposed of on 30.08.2006. Thereafter, an award was passed on 01.12.2007 and thereafter, the possession was taken,” the Division Bench noted. Allowing BDA’s appeal the single judge order was quashed.