IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.3340 of 2018 (LA-BDA) and WRIT APPEAL No.1703 of 2019 BETWEEN:
SMT. SHARADA RAGHU W/O. LATE RAGHU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/A. HVR COMPOUND, GOLLARAHATTI VISHWANEEDAM POST, MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU – 560091 (BY SRI. M. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DR. T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE – 560020 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DR. T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE – 560020 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WEST DIVISION, M.R.C.R. Shopping complex VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU – 560040 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. L. KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 SRI. C. R. GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NOS.1129/2018 AND 2280/2016 DATED 05.11.2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN W.P.NOS.1129/2016 AND 2280/2016.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 05.11.2018, dismissing the writ petitions, writ petitioner has filed these appeals.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the land in question was acquired by virtue of a preliminary notification in the year 1946, followed by a final notification in the year 1947 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award was passed on 12.10.1947. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have purchased the land on 12.06.1969. It is her case that a resolution was passed on 17.05.1961 by the BDA proposing to re-convey the lands, based on certain conditions. Since the same was not done, the instant petitions were filed seeking for a writ of mandamus to declare the acquisition in the year 1946 as lapsed and for other consequential reliefs.
3. The respondents entered appearance and contested the matter on delay. It was pleaded that the alleged resolution sought to be relied upon by the petitioners, does not relate to the survey number relatable to the petition schedule property. In view of the inordinate delay and the fact that the vendor did not have any title to convey the lands, the writ petitions were dismissed. They were also dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had since filed a civil suit in O.S.No.998 of 2001 seeking for the very same relief which was dismissed, and a Regular First Appeal filed before the High Court was also rejected.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Every fact in this case is against the appellant. Firstly, she has purchased the property from a person who did not have any right, title or interest over the land in question. The acquisition is sought to be challenged after 70 years. The civil suit filed by her seeking the very same relief has been rejected. The alleged resolution of the respondents to re- convey the land to the vendor or to the appellant, is not relatable to the land in question. Hence, for all these grounds, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeals, being devoid of merit, are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE RD