IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.4571 OF 2016 (LA-BDA) AND WRIT APPEAL NO.1746 OF 2017 Between:
1. The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority T.Choudaiah Road Kumara Park West Bangalore – 560 020 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore Development Authority T.Choudaiah Road Kumara Park West Bangalore – 560 020 Appellant 1 and 2 being the different sections of the same authority, both are represented by AEE ... Appellants (By Sri.G.S.Kannur, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Urban Development Vidhana Soudha Bangalore – 560 001 2. M/s.Fortune Developers No.D-1, Casa Lavelie Lavelle Road Cross Bangalore – 560 001 Represented by its GPA Holder Mr.Manish Chandk S/o Dr.Girish Chandak Aged about 48 years 3. Anjana Chank W/o Sri.Manish Chandak Aged about 31 years Residing at No.16 Spencer House 82, Coles Road, Frazer Town Bangalore – 560 005 ... Respondents (Sri.V.Sreenidhi, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 Sri.K.Shashikiran Shetty, Senior Advocate for Miss Farah Fathima, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3) ---
These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition Nos.13725-13726/2015 dated 22.2.2016.
These appeals coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Chief Justice delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The appeals are barred by limitation. As the matters involve the Bengaluru Development Authority and as requested by Mr.G.S.Kannur, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, we take up the appeals for consideration.
2. Certain land was sought to be acquired by the Bengaluru Development Authority in the year 1977. Till today, no award was passed nor the possession was taken. The Hon’ble Single Judge, in our view, rightly held that the acquisition stood lapsed.
3. We do not find any merit in the appeals.
4. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals is dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are, also, dismissed.
5. In view of dismissal of the appeals, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.
6. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB