IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NOS.54307-54308/2017 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN SRI. B. MOHAN RAO S/O SRI ADAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, INDIRA NILAYA DR.KUVEMPU ROAD R.S.PALYA POST M.S.NAGAR BANGALORE-560033 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.SHIVA REDDY, GP FOR R1 SRI K.KRISHNA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 AND R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 TO ISSUE A NOTIFICATION DELETING THE SCHEDULE LAND FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER Though these writ petitions are listed for Preliminary Hearing, with the consent of learned Counsel on both sides they are heard finally.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in substance is with regard to the respondent-BDA (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bangalore Development Authority’ for the sake of brevity) not taking further steps pursuant to report dated 11.11.2014 (Annexure ‘E’) submitted by Additional Land Acquisition Officer of that Authority. In other words, the Authority has not taken further action on the said report.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.9 measuring 1 acre 16 guntas and a portion in the same survey number measuring 24 guntas, totally 2 acres of Amani Byrathi Khane Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore; that he had purchased the said bits of land under two registered sale deeds dated 22.09.1995 and 23.07.1996, copies of which are annexed as Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said extents of land were notified for acquisition. Thereafter certain legal proceedings have occurred, inasmuch as the petitioner had filed W.P.No.24000/2014 and W.P.No.24053/2014 before this Court seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider his representation for deletion of the said extent of land from acquisition. The writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 10.06.2014 by this Court. Thereafter, survey of the land has been made and report has been submitted as per Annexure ‘E’. But subsequently, no further steps have been taken by the respondent-Authority. In the circumstances, petitioner has sought a direction to respondent No.1 to issue a notification deleting the schedule land from acquisition.
5. In my view, such a direction cannot be issued by this Court. In the circumstances, the only direction that could be issued by this Court is to consider the representations made by the petitioner and to take further steps pursuant to the report dated 11.11.2014 (Annexure ‘E’) and to comply with the directions issued by this Court on 10.06.2014 in W.P.Nos.24000/2014 and 24053/2014.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Authority would submit that if a direction is to be issued by this Court, further action would be taken in accordance with law.
6. In the circumstances, the respondent-Authority is directed to consider Annexure ‘E’ report dated 11.11.2014 in light of the direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions and in accordance with law and to pass a speaking order thereon. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions are disposed.
Sd/- JUDGE JT/-