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. 5098 OF 2016 (LA-BDA) Between:
1. The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority Palace Road Bangalore - 560 002 2. The Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore Development Authority T. Choudaiah Road Kumara Park West Bangalore – 560 002 Appellants 1 & 2 are being the different sections of the same authority both are represented by LAO.
... Appellants (By Sri.M.V.Charati and Sri.G.S.Kannur, Advocates) And:
1. State of Karnataka By its Principal Secretary Urban Development Department Vikasa Soudha Bangalore – 560 001 2. T. Ashwath Narayana S/o K. Thirumalappa Aged about 63 years R/at Veerasagara Village Yalahanka Hobli Bangalore North Taluk Bangalore – 560 064 ... Respondents (Sri.V.Sreenidhi, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1) ---
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No. 9640/2014 dated 26/11/2014.
This appeal coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Chief Justice delivered the following:
days.
JUDGMENT The appeal is barred by limitation. The delay is of 720 2. As prayed for by Mr.G.S.Kannur, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, the appeal is 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 appeal.
5. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is, also dismissed.
6. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, 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