NENA LAL G M Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions by the same person is in the context of as many as three notifications that had been issued at different points of time, namely, notification dated 23.2.1989 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, for the purpose of acquiring 11 guntas of land in Sy. No.57/7, Srigandhadakaval Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, a second notification dated 17.6.2005 by the State Government for the purpose of acquiring the said land to enable formation of a ring road and construction of a bridge by the Government and yet another notification dated 4.4.2009 issued under section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 by the Bangalore Development Authority, for the purpose of formation of outer ring road and the petitioner claiming ownership in all to an extent of 33 guntas of this survey number in terms of a sale deed said to have been executed by Channa Narasimaiah on 19.8.1980.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that his ownership of an extent of 3 guntas of land in the said survey number has been unauthorizedly encroached upon by the officials of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for the purpose of developing a treatment plant to process sewerage flowing in Vrushabhavati river at Bangalore city, but have not either compensated the petitioner for utilization of the petitioner's land, but more importantly have come up with another writ petition No. 15764 of 2009 for like relief in respect of 12 guntas of land in the very survey number and for a good measure has sought for directions to the Bangalore Development Authority to allot alternative land in favour of the petitioner of an extent of 75% of the land in the ownership of the petitioner which has been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority.

(3.) SIMILAR is the stand taken by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in W.P. No. 15764 of 2009 wherein the petitioner has contended that another 12 guntas of land in his ownership has also been so misused by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, but the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in their counter denying such misuse, but asserting that land used by them was in the ownership of the State Government and had been handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike by the officials etc., that the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has not encroached on any part of the land in the ownership if any belonging to the petitioner.