Karnataka High Court
Dr A Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2011
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN TI-I 13 Hi Gil GOb RT OF IE2I \TAIs3\ Al BAN GALORE
DATED Tf-HS TI--IF 7 VI7MRFP 20:1 I
DAY OF N
BEFORE:
THE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINGI-IIGERI
WRIT PET.['ITiON Nos35e 17-3552.1 OF: 2009 1
U..J'
- BDA1
BETWEEN:
Dr.x,Par0iasarauw.
Aie.d about TI years,
S/o Sri R.anaehari.,
2. SnaVijava Sarathv
Aged about 63 years,
W'o DnA Partbasarathv
3 Sri. A JD Prajwai Deep,
Aged about 45 ears,
S/r) Dr.Parthasaraibv
4 Sri APUjwal Deep,
&ed about. 42 years.
S/o DrAPartbasaratbv
5 SmtKeerthL
.cI rb-oat
.,Cj \/4:;.i:4.s
I:) ;/ tiiur.
Petitioaers -- 2 to 5 are represeuteo
11), 44- fl
LilCi, U r
-
iS 4
1 jh,cz,
Dr .A i ann asa ratbu,
-- r L
a i%pzl i
Jail nt im
Bangalnrr 560 003. . Pcutinnn-s
(13 'n Ia Hli,C ik ci i
M .Ioa Ito )
&ND
a K a i.
I. than Dn lopmcnt Dc pa' tmcnl.
Vikasa Soudha.
Dr.Ai bedi-ir Veedhi
n r 5 t
y It Mi ipal Sceic ai'y
2. Bangalore Develupmeiii A'nhor'tv.
Cli ci taR d
In ii ac'eqt
Bangalore 560 020.
--
Br its Commissioner.
ed ii id
Acqwcitloi 011k sr.
Bangalore Development Authnrltv
r ChovdaI h Rc itt.
r I '
0 we 560020.
ing
The A'lsta.n Eteuine Fnglneer.
In ). 'o St )• o
nr it ye m k tot
Re%raln&ni%
)yC K M k in Ii Th. lo
%j.
1 '1 k w dv t r t 14
Tbr't rit u'ttP)ii ai' filed an4r .it'c it" 29 Is
7 Hi 0 itt Of 'It iy t CC t it
jut 0 p-n ci is i pee of 'a lc
4?
3
property was lapsed after the expiry of five years from
the final notification dated 28.12.1982, etc.,
These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary
hearing in B Group. this day. the Court made the
following:
ORDER
The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners are the owners of the land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas at Sy.No.4 of Boopasandra Vifiage, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Their lands, along with the lands of others, were notified for acquisition for the formation of the Rajamahal Vilas 2nd Stage Further Extension. In this regard. the preliminary notification dated 19.01.1978 and the final notification dated 28.12.1982 were Issued under Sections 17(5) and 19(1) respectively of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (BDA Act for short). At the petitioner's instance, the second respondent - Bangalore Development Authority (for short, BDA) recommended that the schedule property be denotified. It passed a resolution on
- ri it, p..
-4-
2.4.09.1992 In this regard. This was followed by the spot-inspection by Joint Director and Deputy Director of Town Planning. The endorsement dated 13.01.1993 issued on the basis of the spot-Inspection conflnns the existence of the residential buildings, coconut trees. wells with pump- house. etc. The proposed layout plan did not comprise the schedule property as on 08.05.1986. It Is therefore the case of the petitioners that their possession of the schedule property was not disturbed at all. The khata of the schedule property stood in the name of the petitioners. They have been paying the property tax till 2007. On 18.06.2008 they got the building plan sanctioned by Bangalore Mahanagara Pallke; the petitioners have also produced the electricity bills and the receipts for having paid the electricity charges In respect of the schedule property. When thus stood the state of affairs, the officials of the second respondent--BDA came to the schedule property on 26.09.2009, demolished a part of the structures tu'ditul tlcrtiot it '' i thtt 110 Ior:1iJjfl!ii'j', 1 1 1 1 t cr1111! .111 flt'r11fl m- (a tC(I ii 'tia i ( I 2 i I t cii tIl a 1 lIt U 1 C 11pI)1r1lTq tITi c Lw! at lit Del 1111 clam mpeiiI' 4 In )sti1t' U 'er imina t i 1. Ha ubm ta 6 at if H Os nit tnt 16 err 20 i Us ion in otl '-.
s!rna!("I In tiie sa \ Iliarija ( (wereo it! dt'r itir ' 10k
'11 1 i( L Ta Vi U I C
a( qutsi! tan pn(ieeetttiitts In 11115 V canal, in Hninqs to ow
ti K '1 1 H r
lIla ;wrnirTii(': S iaU(iS Ctrc itit'i tj iha IUi!d ',vFacli
ii ilL axr I tHe eq tIn or 'ci -. I
Intl I I Ti Till- t('i ftc r wi et II j H it I n
me' 'ic4'' I H t
Th i I 'T lii Ii. I U UI
OIL inoye I Cop oety I. s.
State cj Karnanaica reported in AIR 2004 St 3054 1 1 Sd ( A is a C 0 0 C Ci K 'U £ Td yc 1 0 Jut a ri Sioc it a U cr 1' C C S it Cv e t r
-t
4. Sn Holla 'ubmlt', tint 4i a r qclchntc J ze 'o pasi,ed thc tward Whe 1 thc. aw rd Usd1 '.nc 1. a 's d th'ou'uoi )iTatrgtt'w ssk IW di t r t all Hcal% ubrrt ti- (r tia 0 11 '(to 1(2 o it! rd CatiS Ii '4 S ' it es lisa 1 rrepo t C C s z of ins C i. t ir i a e Mint si amappa & Air Vs The State of Karr a aka & Os passed in W.P.no.19526/202 on 22.11.2010. hit relevant portion of I lie said outer reads as follows:
11 iihout passuig an award it is not pru.sblc fo tie rsoic'rp, ) lilcc pioc'soi o ii' id I oucto Therefore. the alleged mahara, for having taken over the possess ion os per ArniexurL R 5 and the pJssessror. a'r tgJicou rn per Air r ? r iuzlddcu, is, oflcn Is it Lv cponl' t 1' t. a pc'ssrcscnn in the yc.cu- 197') iy hauc "i t plot en arcq rnatgincd to cluw' that they c'rcr'tsc.' tiun ,silJ qf o"ncrs.u. .i. •h' LW sisciJ LiSt 0(11 1 iiilruio c 'cii ttO I i C, 603 0 as V Ys3748 & 6JJ18 0 e Doaor a aroppo & a a a 0 a z a I 3, 1 C ) I y) a i: U *1 1 .1 1 u a I flII a 1 /11 a I [Foci DAT no/as!' aad a rnuy on] sao qbuz no i,oaj ) a[ S 3 6 I) Cit IVt 119 ii It r.lsi ir 1 s 1% T s ibr its tI it ii e it ah i ar F di ann at 'lit tn w4 takim z C) tr Cit. X*.tS'i)i iii Li 1- I I. ii I I' ( mdt t.iicI f I wltne,ws.
8 He li-is lI'%( i t'scd eo'i'ilc --$1 ti ._,hcll )hJxtu) s. Ht sbmn. tim. th acquisi son nra terlinqs ne 1 e wc en IE8 -'ml 1386. 'be petitioiiers 1a c taker uo-t 1 a i (en! iii to app-ca FlIUr h tuic Court {b fay% a t n rclcc tinn of 1hes pt-titkn s on the grninc ;f cl:lnr iii ii he, '3 Sri SI-rn sl ui'ai M iit T i tint hr h)etiiP'Iwn an.
•ai iIt 4 hc '-'i',)1t 1(1) L liii. I b't ' ) I
m i tip kits it prey
'ILL'! Qs. '-I'-- i;bi'•, )a'
1 7''
ptitiumr' Ut
'ii iC'i a'. S\
2 1C,2 C)
ii iii 43) ')() n
ace h' t tat! J1'--i,ti' ci
tØ%" ii-. j . ) '-1(' ' I Di '
iii' 'k ir
4
-- I
JO Sr' Shiv ii''nr'ar 1;1)flfl% tjjfl tji ' 't tj(fl). '
it- lb
4 tk Oti1rI
T of the lair's iii j'i's'ioi' t ill lit
%ilbIflu(% iii It Iii' ,e((xdb sl Ii. it i1 1
-Pl C' 'iji it 'II
aeount ol the ran1ul% • the o uptlflcl ikhrs W'%
leyqitft'd to ibta narn" 't' ri.' ."liiers. Mi tapnr Sved
Khareeni.
11 At lh" iua''i it Raen!rt. the lea ned
C )t PS'l ft IC jet th TiLTS ft ins thc i Mf tf ii Syf
I aiiii€ ncshiis 1€ thi I 1 ttci ershp ',
it-sd ( 1 f4, I-
I ( T )ftl'
re . i f c ) I 41 r a si
ran of It tt s 1 1 I
L * rh
r's cIntN%) S n'4in Pt 1 .1 ii- I C U 1
I a ,tacd th' lie c qit-it ii (1 ba'e Ci 1
j'it '--di t 1
1 t i t d t' C Ji1'C Uc 1U%c 1 hi
tilt'
V 1I(t'
1 i ..
•L •' \' fi] tiI 1• • tjg p
c1eri I( Jn', (I -
1', 1,1. 1
tg. ! 'I. II" iii' '
. •
h • •. --
: •,. , • • I. t
stibjulic., fihit ji( iie', a t tnrnitd LII Ilk ItIjOiflhlia arQ.s
lit thc. itt ptt in • Hi na en
t cn mitt nt 1 Ia hr lit him fl€ tiLt
B D.A' r'IrIjtr !"so
u
t hinn !br d'iittil nt tlu srln.'diilc
b I
13. 1 lit learned nnrnscl n-ad out pi'ra 143 0: the
\pe C tuirt jud°nient hi the .ise 4 Bondu
Rama wanw & Ore. vs Ba agate Do elopir nt
Authority & On. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129.
tr ci 'in w
113 14 e nail luslr( c ih 'i iph
relnrinq & pr.%ftwc 'rid rz°ywin. ' .i•t'u'tq i"ttl
i in to lvi. r 'na eq bvr
1. '•
I'. fllzert '1 l3r
1
1 ')Il'7 lrI :Lr'J ItS
C'jjlYtL S 1W (1 CUe I SL!. 1iQ i 'c •71U lk:i
2 a IC
(1 I'k A" i f
k
7 . Y'l 1
) 'iit'J.t.i t? . iC .JUL. 1. l"YL L'L s' 'qY" '.1 ';.4'
U 1'( L Dl' 'b' C I'AL kin
( • 1 I
I!' • .t a' . 1. i •, 411 .
- 13--
(Will ilk. pt'llLk)lZ('T'S 1(1114 L" ItO! c; ciCh'lflL. ilic'
p ftc, r ii Ic c Li cc i c c n it c. H
oj (LL%L'fllflLIIWiUiL. Hit ihe 1k'jIC)oLW lcuicl
11?. (L%liI( S 200t) .s,iL. UI'CL t C',JCflhIS 11 VIUUSC .e'
I) s _((l ri ,-r r
.)IZC cC re' ci.nd t'o,flajrgs (1 Isniice ,7te(cnzr4Lg iv)Qfl
.sr
1
fl.. rhc. pe.tiinrter c annnt t'I)i'IOLLSlL; ('Olittlill
1 Lb r "1 iqlb rpri
deleic'd Irvin ucquiciuou being a land icith co ist i Lain z. us one at re land should aLso ix dl'd'iL ria'rnrt' C 1L11 had a 10(Y) %qji. nnisiruc liv" 1 3 w it may he riossi nc Ii' In vi o conk'. ci 1(11 Un catcnt vj in! c, ut it IL' S v'asec tC it et ho h( Ic be .
4rc'lecL sec ii Vlie_ ii cu I rred ,flJ tin 'Ki ,hbow arc 'q al sic' hcr g s' ul r %lruciu'c s ha1 on. mis vma'msirunf(I IvtIör' t 1 II 17i 1f 1 PALIT 1 t c iui i c o.he, a '.' c Imsuu tp - .1.. .'.g'•l ' :. 4111ttLi. ,,. 4
:, j I'gfj(% j. .('iIg.
(
:''
4, Ii, C It
,7V p
a: 'it:, . • ' -r I)cr i
7.,f,(,t
.j Jj •J.l :i
t , H £ :
1
L L
C
I
o dcc c t
I
Ci
'3
a
C C Ut
Cf
SC A.
I
F
a
0
C I
( I C
C I
It C
C
C. 0 C
(CL I Cl Ft .41. 0
U'
I • I
C
1 S
1
1
nq of rut ha r ne of
) cr l't P0%St 011CC hit 1)0 on s taken b
tha Gn "n'ne'.l tii if the p. Itfr'r h:ivr 'r •'nterr'4
the %UILLc1uk pr'pem. it i ol nc' e"n't qucu' c 3i
1
aaperatiohi of law. tiLt' 'c'ht dub' prt'p°' 15 114(1 (1)11)1 Ii' 'C%t
in tlit State Go' isnein
15. He hat the c eat tha
là 'ft S
nec hei befc
sslr'g of the a Ht subn the •u at
;asrd nil 8.$' 9t$ .ini! t1iL1 tim a'c'ad UhloiliatS 1'v
!eL'o"iL ci utii ih Ntteia n'a ("hilt nfl 27.flF 2i(Jfl.
f I T 'til'nh1I 111111 tiM %(j.et' t .% 'Ul)'hitItidll
s'izplt flht'a)i (' q- litt'ttl i,ri,rtt- 01 ' :nt 'a.L'
t .'i in ' la.'it d I\b
()
I. (I
''K
•I. 1 I z i
p.'.. I ..-- ''
-17-
proprietary or possessory rights in the schedule
property, as the same Is compulsorily acquired; their entitlement is only to receive the compensation.
18. Sri K.S.Mallikarjunaiah. the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the responden t No.1 submits that if the layout plan Is to be revised, the BDA has to pass a fresh resolution. In the Instant case , no such resolution is passed.
19. SrI Malllkarjunalah submits that out of 108 acres. 17 guntas for which the final notification is issued, 35 acres. 36 guntas are de-notifled. He submits that the scheme Is not substantially Implemented. The layout has been formed on land measuring only 13 acres. 34 guntas. He submits that his perusal of the records does not show that 12(2) notice was issued to the petitioners.
20. The learned Government Pleader submits that the stilts filed by the petitioners and others appear to have been dismissed on account of the non-compliance 18 with the rcquiremcnt of usuin prior notice to trw BDA as per Section 64(lj of the Bl) \ct. 1976.
21. He submits that thc Government hac sc'rt the pn;poe.aF oh 13 04.2001 and 23 11.2010 for de ot11Intion of the lands in question H' submits thu fl) lessileson than tleCh'fMiit -of h Sit a se llcdupcn The 3lAt fy hetoc th phj. C I p s c son ns ta&en in tccoMancc. with 1ac. but so far the BDA has not sent its report to the Government. He submits thu dS per the spot Inspection, the petitioners are m physicai pc ssesslon of 'hc schedule property.
22 In the course of 3 re n der jo. Sri Udava Hollu subnus diii tkc is" 'ci v bc I 'n heck k it p titiot 1 ci tig,t wt liii nii 'rcisfle ly h pcti Ott s i nn ' . h nil c irtshneno j1 ir s dwtic , ovtr an pitpcrt3 which is the Mthjt ci matter I aI..cInisiboil pr t edings.
•14 I') 9 si Tcij 1i J .' . ...i 'i, it .hc T3DA' gil atct. 2M5.23Ol siibi.utiewI •: lilt P119' Ipa S' I '1 •lfl It I be I I'M lit C Iwt Iini. t i 'hr itply iet"i to the spot -iIsr 'tti w v'ik'I v s 'i 1? ii 505 it I As j In %T( I r f ) c 'om mind i . t 'ted ar miiI the t lad' tic prs,pu ft.
there an S At C heIs, flit. RCL hot ist. three open
wells I8 oconut trees thrt-t. inota trt. 's .u.td t'iree
riot %Hcsibris 1' 11 ja
ii ii'
'. crc ' ii U I c i-iaji ad it ' nil 1 lknc Nt i nleai
mat Utev nc n' existing ,' en prior Ij' me iflhtiatioli of the
J.'jlii%ltiOii J)i (Wi t. diru'
Vt ib issc I I I ir C
ru h d a tr .h f 1 'iaickr..ti '
tilsi " : /fj/2 I t 'tkiig. 11. flit ricPnnit jut rjjt.
f• '( i' g,
j "k. • a. ii ' 'I. I i1
a. ii' t I i I
1')'liii i)f(J I p
C Pa '! '1.
p ' ( it ii I .4
.t•.
a
. .1'
I I L (I
--, 111 , I).
')Iflk I
'
1
t I 4T7 I )) TT )T_'.t 11 ' •t?l ' 01%' %(I
•
1 • P". I ..e.j. .JP "1TIIL) ') )L'Jl U0'II%Tflb3 ) B I •
)tj' p' r' ...T •i ,rçpT. •: '1 '
drro •
U iflU J.I' )tl 1X)i
4 'lj 1 .1 I%3 IIOjIl') 141.1
TT)% ..11 nti so, qrzop:a(t jis:i am
jO UIII
T LeU.C)dTtt IUI'S )Ija iiUiitOflUi111 OU
4 u PUP
ci1n aqi mlii!. JJL{O flP iaU'14IJaCI nfl jo i)tIflUt riLj;
do stJOLjfl)d ;saqj naha oj )) wu .ndun we i 'ir
j)(1d1 151 t)QSIi.I))1
14 .itapi occi 1fl S tC)t (Mi .a.1O1Cj isno
cyqi qannidth' cu peq %rhTEon.lad aqi aq oozr(;ivqg Ut) (it ILUOS Pt)I rIit;uaP %111.)!I40 s.wn1 iii.pu' wi'ai fl •J.9.h Sjti' i i 'par'ej a uq c$uipaaaozd nuijisnib w q i'.p'1')p; ij't j ' fin.,' I 1 II I I 1 1' ' 1 .L I 1.3'U.1L 1 'ft 11 ' ILL ' tttt I aiii if U p ItiqL qi .IIl1IL%%B )1 I rtift( by the Apes Court 1 ;tidgniej n the t Case of State of Bihar us, Dhirendra Lamar & Ors, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 229 and iv The eae of Lmz hand & Ors us, GramPanchayat Karana & Ors reported in (1996) 75cc 218, The Stilts art disiniss d not on m rits, hut on1 on the ground of nialni nabjjitv
27. The hrst qnestio That fails ft r my COnsideration IS whether th Possession of h land is taken by the Goverzimei from the pc titioners? Mv answer to thic questio i P J 0 em at4n puJ for f-c foliowiny rt as us, (1 t'he jen J o the n ords intais mat the ti inys in not d n in mnn r 1 u T lnai to a T w, fht &naha,,tr on a ha h r I ra t 1 et i pta' ed is rft ft , n in mote Pan ne respect it c out inn t.
tilt s'gnai'Ire4 (4 live j't r--Cfl. but their flahi)fl. mit' 1. ii s--. thea €tddrt '. ,rt avai'abjc.
h II it 'I I. Jan if 1% litCe 1) th Ii in nrs
tpsi 1
lt
t 1) LI) t (ci
ivr I s i Ii ' r I iii
o 'rthtpc% ssor Ii" ii tUle crc 'X t it ii t
c-xt'ring are retained th•'y are 'fil no'r
apniic'abie portion is not cven %rruek nit The rnahazar I)reparetI is in the C velo%rvled fnrm. Ii .s haiti to çwe ans c recienc e to such a 1 2 n aha az.
c ickr uecjr nsfn irg. i tI )f
ti i•ilz I t C CL
lis F, otfi 's (Di b
I)
11 St
•fL' "k" etd'iii jp I iittitorei 1.
)tiIJ In '- rig 'ly%t 5') it)
' t .'iI' i4
.1t
' r)
•l%
-- 2at (tin. .M1 Saii'..ik..Js:.;' itt 1
.,r L:.t i
liii I jcq • ii
ii '11 1
.4
-23-
the Land Acquisition Act to show that the possession of the lands In question was taken on 06.10.1986. Sri Hoila joins Issue with Sri Shivakumar and submits that many lands are withdrawn from the acquisition even after the Issuance of the 16(2) notificatIon, as admittedly the actual possession of the lands was not taken. Sri Shivakumar submits that the possession of the lands at Sy.Nos.9. 10 and 19 measuring 19 guntas. 21 gunt as and 5 guntas, respectively, was taken over by BDA.
He further submits that the possession of the said lands is handed over to the Central Excise House Building Co operative Society.
29. I take note of the controversy revolving round the possession. As per SectIon 36(1) of the BIlk Act, 1976, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are applicable to the acquisition of lands under BDA Act to the ettent possible. Under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to take the possession of the land but after ASH.
wA -24-
passing the award. No clinching documents are
produced to show that the petitioners are served with Section 12(2) award notice.
30. The award Is stated to have ben passed on 18.09.1986. No explanation Is forthcoming as to why the respondents took four years to pass the award. Although the final notification is issued on 28.12.1982, the award is passed only on 18.09.1986.
31. The sloth does not end at this stage. The respondents took 23 years to deposit the award-amount with the Reference Court. The award-amount is deposited belatedly on 27.08.2009.
32. It is also not in dispute that the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMfl has registered the petitioners as the khathedars in respect of the schedule property after collecting the betterment charges and the property 4ç -
tax In 2006-2007. Further. the T3MP has also sanctiontd 11 lagni 4c fieeeakprpe3 n 180620% Iniexir D
33. The recpondent I3DA Issued the endorsement. dated 13.01.19.43 (Annexure H) to the first petitioner t r tataescncik r c,)ill 1 hr itnal zone. as per the approved c ornprc lici si e 1ev 1o rn it plan. The endorsemeni further states that the BDA has no objection in developing the land for tht. residential uoe b 1kg rat - sad regtilaticns.
S4. As the circunistances discussed hereinabove re refi setife of lie possession if the sc'h...dnlc' property 'z1 edt tcqsnI iss what relief c n be '4' en to the pet iti niers 33 Wh.iteiei benefit has act ned to th inii1arl p1-i ed e ti . i cc ft Ix #xwndel ts Ui. pr srt etc h tr 1 A ' r )tq me in in 1k m,c Sube Sinqh vs State of flaryana rep 'i-ted in (20(L) 7 SCL 545. T i I ki 1 .. i tIn.. i 'I S 'ir lu 'Ic ua i' n c. ri 'd I ii ii ai'qiiicition the lands f othicr% were not ncluded Iruii at qili%11 loll Oil ilw grcaiiid that th" construction mci-co 1 cl I c • c Ia s leicas th 'oil tnic't on.. (II tlit xi (ad ci' t. i isfi t tin xistlu' on ir in or s 1 tic •V 1" ii 'a 'c a' held b rhc Hon'bk Supreme ('nun to be unreasonable arbitrary and dis"i immaton.-.
'% pe the sithry iss on mid I hu lean ed
I i lib. t )ilt'%C
tilL pinhi li--ar r )iik' 1
c
4 w i 1 c 1 j
a• ic'--. ', %'lPt ar'i 'hr nfl'l o.;uf'calon Xr'LiCkil
db 2:3 w rts Uj çn'na. i'k HM cv tt' Ii tl!iIcl%
1' 1 •
1. ' lY -- n 'ific.iu.i F' , .
..f
1 - . L 1 '1
t
i ) (LI
..j , ,w r 1.1 .
. I
. • t
- 27 -
only 13 acres. 34 guntas are utilised for the formation of the road. The details furnished are as follows:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUThORITY BANGALORE DETAILS OF FURTHER EXTN. OF RMV 2N1) STAGE SCHEME.
Name of Layout Further Extn. RMV 2M Stage. Date of RN. 19.01. 1978 Date of F.N. 28.12.1982 Extent as per P.N. 131 Acre 33 Gunta Extent as per F.N. lO8Acre l7Gunta Name of the Vifiage in the Layout : Bhoopasandra. Kasaba HoWl Possession taken including Govt. land and handed over to Engineering Section 69 Acre 28 Gunta Total Extent Denotified: 35 Acre 36 Gunta Total Extent which Court cases pending: 20 Acre 23 Gunta Total Extent which Layout formed: 13 Acre 34 Gunta Total Site formed 234 Nos.
A&H. S Li )1t I 1 2. )S. F 'ci Hive rinrn('c ), t \ a B;tniaiore .SnO fl32. \%,tstaIst E'ieruth e Enoiw'er ) i Ii i ) I 8w igaloi c In'' sopi'ieii. Atahortv Bajigaloit 560 032.
3? ilK i)t-nisa1 ol the atore exti acted fa t and q sir ica we g ils me th . (.. ie itt it n f ti ' 1 id w ed by lit fual north 110 Is n1r ib a 1 2.
Ii g I a r I t s 1982 the eheme appear to have bei: inj'.lcnentcd truii aU dir *iid subs jut fli k it ixars to .aI r N ', j r r 31 p S 1 2 )f ic ai c. ii T,ft at1% to € e''t( ijit' sUi)'tjI'tIcIlh niIiin ' ii I ii - a ft i a • it a' n •it )I i'l•t't-t & i1fli( ,ti a1--
1 tti&' l•it •' I '-i IQ Cd 1 "I • i) 'ru'lI I L ' '1III' :,tn_r.a3 Li 6 0 r Ti C -29- (supra), has taken the considered view that the situation becomes Irredeemable and Irretrievable for the authorities, if they have, by their own Inaction and lethargy, allowed the acquisition proceedings to lapse.
39. If large chunks of the similarly placed lands are withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings as is evident from the denotifications, dated 30.10.1984 and 30.08.20 10 (Annexures F and Q, respectively), there is no reason for the respondent BDA to continue with the acquisition of the petitioners' land. The note submitted by the respondent No.1, the contents of which are extracted hereinabove, Is reflective of the fragmented Implementation of the scheme - 12% of the lands for which the final notification Is Issued. The Apex Court has held In the case of BEML House Building Society Ltd., (supra) that there cannot be any discrimination In the matter of dropping and continuing with the acquisition.
Rant
It Ic sbi %SM L4( ib '
rt'Ivnlc1vt1T T3Pa fiat ii e irlier rtolulicn1,
I r'cflTflTfltIltIIIit br Tilt' drnppiii& t I' thu .tnit"IC' .11
t
P C .Ii us it IC Sf ('1 0. (1 Mi U t1fl, 1%
c I it d K 'C iriar it ' tc ic L I S I ii
65 R(3) of the BDA \er. If BD: t.u1t to rednd its
carlier re%nlutbon It ha' Lu seiid firsti propais/
t crun ( 'cs 'rn t' stie it
Gc'ezinntir nsc ath F C k ii' arer
order or restj1lpn pa'd by the BIfl. In Tile instant
U4%E', 3
t 1' 1101 III cL%puEt that tnt- 13DA ha' pa''--c'I I in'
shic F i l •a a' 1 r c
)'
us U i 10 tc hr )' n t " e )It V r '
'irc"Ikcb 1. liii Gflvet;inirnt It 1'. Ij%Pf11: nTt-, ti
:i- tion ',. 14 fl 1
.g I . S tj
.
1 . %aI't h' I. iLt j'l''. ,%i' 'iS •i
I t at
b us ii fl'
,• •'fl i..: . .• (1: ,1
It I i 1
É1-
-- --
xis on I rc car
'cc c om wilt and J sit
i(I(jldflI ns Ii 11th l. II, GnLE.nImeni i•.at vass
(flclei S ccinn_-lliiiq thu ;csa'uucnz or ;pj'r or
reperilirvj the regitkitioii or bt,e--laiv wid
'omr lie 0, HC Ic zuthc J
xc a mc
repre. E 1 Uion ij he rnd uj or ru'isc.
revise. 'nod (ty. or revoke an order passed
wider .zth sec lion (Hi
1. uds ustic ild icr
r firs pot ic sld C
rcspoIklenT's resolution daH ci 24 9. i 992 IAniirxurt Li) 1 tin Isna' •n 'fi the :v ,tnlraticn tinder Section 4if 1) o Ear jitisi tt e 'al t it ii. ii 1 ni %'Ij 1(1' !;Ltlt._. ItLtli J-- .ll 44 1tLat!J] 1 .II' .) t'Kiii ;aito ;flj! ta_f I ; j.i1 Q '--. is
i) . n U1 Li 1' S a_I lit I. '--ri .• t• • • 1% I -
%llaii aniinc whether thr nrinded 1uids and the I inn" uiveret! h' 'hest petitions havt th batlI. t--•ai un ineliidint tIle ifle1ill(" -I J i,. ii idiacent land'. an' delet C 1 oceedhiit&s. lilt It C liii goIng r I cpies -I t 1 r r urffi%e si 'henw.
(c No. I shall n
a as o hethtr 4
htre 1% til
flt'( ci fn r Ltzitua' o. .he oeul'oij°r' land '
ri-ic --. Lu"lt!.)II piot'ee'i.i.it II. ' lc--' it ilir 1-i I
q--rt sn"--'' 1!)ri j. c e. FIZii1r
1 • l.ipsrj 1Ifl
ii.. 1--. .)t
h
1 hi' ii j
I.'j
i
t Cftfl. 1
lb
ir 1
r -- tn iil. t ;J. tfiIJ. .1 ,cj. r p
a ".2s ii' 1' '' I'c• . a1 • ' ;r !' 1fl 11
1
,J I. ; I
•1
- Ii-
ii ) ' rid ilit
S
) I--
( 1 1' i. 3 1 ' S 1 i i1 Ii
1' C' I ii 1 1 1 ' 1 ) 1 -C I: it 1
Ii 'iau I F crllfr 310
nt L tI t Ii ti K t t e C )' ii
ale a d 'i ii i tie ii t t al ii at
liii n Irtan Ii sta u ciuc 42 Fhes pet i rinu' are ac c 1)1 dli iIy allnwed No otder as t) i)%ts.
-- I
-0