JOHN B JAMES Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AURHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions involving common questions of facts and law are heard together by consent and disposed of by this common order. For convenience, the following abbreviations are used in this order: 'bda' for Bangalore Development Authority; 'bda Act' for the bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976; 'amendment Act' for the Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Karnataka Act No. 1 of 2000); and 'repealing Ordinance' for The bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) (Repealing)Ordinance, 2000 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 4 of 2000)'; 'kmc Act' for Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976; 'planning Act' for karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961; 'public Premises act' for Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1974; and 'regularisation Act' for Karnataka regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions in Urban Areas Act, 1991.

(2.) PETITIONERS in these petitions claim that they are owners of sites in a private layout known as Eranna Layout, formed in Sy No 73 of Banaswadi-Channasandra Village, KR Puram Hobli, Bangalore south Taluk. Petitioners in seventy petitions, that is, WP No. 11779, 11785, 11786, 11790, 11793-95, 11797-98, 11800 to 11822/2000 (in wp No. 11779-822 of 2000) and petitioners in WP No. 20548 to 20557, 20559 to 20562, 20564 to 20567, 20569 to 20573, 20575 and 20576, 20578 to 20590/2000 (in 20547-91 of 2000), state that they own vacant sites in the said survey number. The petitioners in twenty petitions, that is WP No. 11055 to 11059 of 2000, petitioners in WP nos. 11780 to 11784, 11787 to 11789, 11791-11792 and 11799/2000 (in WP No. 11779-11822 of 2000) and petitioners in WP Nos. 20558, 20568, 20574, and 20577/2000 (in WP No. 20547-91 of 2000) have stated that they have put up structures in their sites. The petitioner in WP No. 20547/2000 claims that there is only a compound wall but no building in this site. Petitioners in three petitions, that is WP nos. 11796, 20563 and 20591/2000 have stated that there is existing foundation, but no building, in their sites.

(3.) PETITIONER in WP Nos. 11055 to 11059/2000 claim to be the holders of site No. 4, 1, 75 and 76 and 53 respectively of Eranna Layout formed in Sy. No. 73. Each site, according to them measures 30' x 4. Petitioner in WP Nos. 11779 to 11822/2000 claim to be the owners of site No. 65 and 66 (45' x 40'), 39, 38, 91, 81, 37, 21, 83, 15, 43 and 45 (measuring 40' x 60'), 79, 35, 61, 12, 56, 58, 33, 96 and 97 (measuring 49' x 54'), 98 (30'x54'), 27, 89,31, 29 and 30 (40' x 63'), 70, 71, 10 and 11 (40'x60')f 63, 20, 67 and part of 66 (45'x40'), 72, 64 and 73a {45'x40'), 50, 51, 34 (15'x40'), 73b (15'x40') 12a (15'x32), 3, 32, 55, 54, 68, 77 (59'x60'), 6 and 7 respectively of Eranna Layout formed in Sy. No. 73. The measurements of each site is 30'x40' except those whose the measurements are given in brackets. Petitioners in WP Nos. 20547 to 20591/2000 claim to be the owners of site No. 25, 92 (46'x46') 101-102 (35'x47'), 34b (40'x15'), 93b (44x15'), 22a (40'x15'), 52 (20'x30'), 69, 103 (22'x33') 82, 93a (44'x15'), 88, 5 (35'x30'),. 26, 19, 60 (20'x41), 99 (30'x49'), 107 (20'x40'), 22b (40'x15'), 87, 74, 62, 2, 23, 86,28, 24, 9, 41, 78, 59, 13, 14, 17, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 36, 95 (30'x52'), 57 and 8 respectively of Eranna Layout formed in Sy. No. 73. The measurements of each site is 30'x40' except those whose measurements are given in brackets.