Karnataka High Court
Sri M Venkatesh vs Bangalore Development Authority on 23 January, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.2206-2208 OF 2013 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. M. Venkatesh,
Son of Muniramappa,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at No.1. M.R.Garden,
1st Cross, Behind Munishwara Temple,
RMV 2nd Stage (Geddalahalli),
Bangalore - 560 094.
2. Sri. M. Srinivas,
Son of Muniramappa,
Aged about 57 years,
Residing at No.8,
M.R.Garden,
4th Cross, 40 Feet Road,
RMV 2nd State (Geddalahalli),
Bangalore - 560 094.
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. M.S. Bhagwat, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. Bangalore Development Authority
Represented by its Commissioner,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
2. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Housing and
Urban Development,
Bangalore - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. B.V.Shankaranaryana Rao, Advocate for Respondent
No.1
Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.2 )
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to call for the records from the
respondents and declare that the acquisition of land initiated by
the respondents pursuant to notification dated 3.1.1977 issued
under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act 1976, by the first
respondent vide Annexure-E and notification dated 2.8.1978
issued under Section 19(1) by the second respondent of the
BDA Act 1976, vide Annexure-E1, has lapsed/abandoned by
the first respondent, in so far as the petition schedule properties
are concerned and quash the said notifications and etc;
These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day,
the court made the following:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would state that the present petition raises an issue which is no longer res integra, as the same has been answered by a detailed order of this court passed in WP 16074-100/2010 and connected cases dated 2.9.2011, wherein it has been held that the Scheme under which, the land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired having lapsed by virtue of the Scheme not having been substantially implemented, the entire proceedings have been quashed and the said order has been followed in a series of petitions. The order dated 2.9.2011 is produced along with the petitioner at Annexure - N. The learned Counsel would, therefore, submit that the petitions be allowed. 4
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, in support of the statement of objections, would seek to resist the petitions on the ground that the order, on the basis of which the petitioners seek that the present petitions be allowed, is subject matter of an appeal, wherein there is an order of status quo and hence, would submit that this petition be deferred awaiting the decision in the said appeal, while also seeking to contest the petitions on merits on other grounds.
4. However, it is found from the Statement of Objections that there is a candid admission of the respondent - BDA having implemented the Scheme and having developed a layout over an area of 379 acres of land only.
It would therefore follow, as already held by a co- ordinate bench of this court, that the scheme has not been substantially implemented.
Following the decision in WP 16074-100/2010 and connected cases dated 2.9.2011, the present petitions are 5 allowed and the proceedings as against the petitioners are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv