Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Development vs Mr Paul Francis on 8 June, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JUNE, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NOS.2823 TO 2824 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SANKEY ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 003
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BANGALORE - 560 020 ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR.C.R.GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR.PAUL FRANCIS
S/O BOBBY PINTO
AGE: 36 YEARS
R/A NO.14, KSRTC LAYOUT
2
J.P.NAGAR 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 078
2. MR.JAGADISH
S/O SRI.GURUMURTHAPPA
AGE: 60 YEARS
R/A NO.647,
BANDEPPA STREET
YESHWANTHPURA
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
3. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY REVENUE
SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(MR.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
MR.A.V.NISHANTH AND MR.G.GIRISH, ADVOCATES FOR R1
MR.M.O.GURUBASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2
MR.VIVEK HOLLA, HCGP FOR R3)
---
These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed
in W.P.Nos.19311 of 2012 and 12608 of 2014 dated 3.4.2014.
These appeals coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the following:
3
JUDGMENT
These are appeals against the judgment and order dated April 3, 2014, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions holding that as the physical possession of the land remained with the writ petitioners, the acquisition stood lapsed.
2. Insofar as the land of the writ petitioners, the property was sought to be acquired for formation of the Jayaprakash Narayan Nagar 8th Stage Layout and the final notification was published on October 19, 1994.
3. The Hon'ble Single Judge found that the possession was with the writ petitioners and the documents produced by the Bengaluru Development Authority in support of their claim that the possession was taken, could not be accepted inasmuch as there was no date in the said document, blanks were filled in by the Revenue Inspector and there was no indication that the writ petitioners were notified.
4
4. Having regard to such finding of fact, we are of the opinion that the Bengaluru Development Authority failed to establish that the possession of the property was taken by them. We do not, therefore, find any error in the order declaring the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed insofar as it relates to the land of the writ petitioners.
5. The writ appeals stand dismissed.
6. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeals, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE RV