LAWS(KAR)-2000-3-55

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. AKKALLAPPA DEAD

Decided On March 24, 2000
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
V/S
AKKALLAPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri R. A. Kulkarni holding brief for Sri R. S. Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant, and Smt. Hymavathi holding brief for Sri H. R. Ananthakrishna murthy, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THIS is defendant's appeal from the judgment and decree dated 18-2-1997 passed by the iv additional city civil judge, Bangalore, in o. s. No. 10686 of 1987. The plaintiff filed the above suit for the decree directing the defendant to reconvey the suit schedule property namely portions of land bearing sy. No. 50 of doopanahalli village, hal ii stage, hal, Bangalore, measuring (i) 48'+72' x 90'+90' 2 2 (ii) 80'+83' x 3'+30' the plaintiff also sought decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant, its agents and officers, contractors and servants or anyone from selling or allotting the site in the schedule property in favour of any person.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff's case, plaintiff has been the original owner of the suit schedule property which admittedly had even acquired by the defendant/appellant. According to the plaintiff/respondent's case, plaintiff represented to the defendant/appellant for reconveyance of his land and thereafter filed the writ petition in this court which had been dismissed. At the stage of writ appeal, it has been stated that the defendant/appellant had undertaken that it would consider the question of reconveyance of the properties to the plaintiff if the application is made within a particular period. The plaintiff alleged that in pursuance thereof, plaintiff made an application for reconveyance and a resolution was passed on 17-11-1982 to reconvey the same to the plaintiff and others. The plaintiff further alleged that the plaintiffs application for reconveyance has been pending for consideration in view of the amendment of the Bangalore development authorities act. The plaintiff claims that the plaintiff has a vested right in the suit property that it should be reconveyed and the plaintiff is ready and willing to comply with the obligations laid on him under the said resolution. But the defendant has been avoiding to reconvey the same and is trying to sell the sites formed in the suit property by way of public auction. According to the plaintiff, a reference was made to determine the claims of the parties under sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act in l. a. c. No. 43 of 1978 which was renumbered as 984 of 1980. With these allegations, the plaintiff filed the above suit.