IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF APRIL, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2017 (LA-BDA) AND WRIT APPEAL NOS. 2270-2271/2017 Between:
1. Bangalore Development Authority Represented by its Commissioner T. Chowdaiah Road Bangalore - 560 020 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore Development Authority T. Choudaiah Road Bangalore – 560 020 ... Appellants Appellant 1 and 2 being different sections of the Authority both are represented by LAO (By Sri. Kannur G.S. and M.R. Charati, Advocates) And:
1. State of Karnataka By its Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha Bangalore – 560 001 2. Dr. K. Balaraman S/o V.L. Krishnaswamy Aged about 67 years R/at No.559 Scientific Nursery Complex RMV 2nd Stage, Dollars Colony New BEL Road Bangalore – 560 094 ... Respondents (Sri.V.Sreenidhi, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1) ---
These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition Nos.12908 and 15947-948/2015 dated 2/9/2015.
These appeals coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Chief Justice delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The appeals are barred by limitation. The delay is of 445 days.
2. As prayed for by Mr.G.S.Kannur, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, the appeals are taken up for preliminary hearing.
3. The writ petitioner assailed a notification dated December 30, 2008, proposing to acquire the land for formation of a layout. The preliminary notification was issued on December 30, 2008. Thereafter, neither the final notification was issued nor possession was taken. Consequently, the Hon’ble Single Judge held that as within the reasonable time, no further action was taken, the proposal for acquisition got lapsed.
4. We do not find any merit in the appeals.
5. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals is dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are, also dismissed.
6. In view of the dismissal of the appeals, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.
7. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB