Smt Vijaya C Bilagi vs Bangalore Development Authority on 30 September, 2022
In this regard, learned Senior Counsel referred to
the judgments in the case of S. JAGANNATH AND OTHERS v.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS AIR 2008
SC 1494; and in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the
case of R. PRAKASH v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER AND OTHERS made in Writ Appeal No.8130 of 2012
and connected appeal decided on 12th March, 2020. Learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Society, further
contended that the possession of the land in question was
handed over to the respondent-Society on 02nd February, 1995,
the respondent-Society has formed a Layout and in furtherance
of the same, Layout plan was approved by the respondent-BDA
and in this regard registered Sale Deeds have been executed in
favour of the allottees and already many constructions have
come up in the schedule land and therefore, writ petition
deserves to be dismissed. Further, Sri G.L. Vishwanath, learned
Senior Counsel, contended that the members of the family of the
petitioners claiming to be owners of the land in Survey No.10/1,
19
12, 13 and 6/1, have challenged the acquisition proceeding in
Writ Petition No.9429 of 1992 and 9554 of 1992, which came to
be dismissed by this Court on 07th September, 2012 and being
aggrieved by the same Writ Appeal was preferred, which also
came to be dismissed on 12th March, 2020 and therefore, the
petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the same. The
learned Senior Counsel further contended that consent award
was made by respondent-authorities pursuant to the General
Power of Attorney executed in respect of the land in question by
uncle of the petitioner as a kartha of the family and therefore, as
the agreement culminated between the Society and the
Developer and thereafter, consent award was passed and
therefore, he argued that the petitioner-land owners are
estopped from raising the said plea. Learned Senior Counsel
further contended that the respondent-Society has formed sites
and sold the same to various allottes by registered Sale Deeds
and they are in possession of the schedule land and therefore,
the petition deserves to be dismissed. Sri G.L. Vishwanath,
learned Senior Counsel further contended that the petitions
deserve to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material
20
facts by the petitioners and also for non-joinder of necessary
parties and further contended that the petitioners are not
entitled for relief under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act and as such,
sought for dismissal of writ petitions preferred by the land
owners.