BHARATHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petitioner claims to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of a land comprised in Sy No. 36, measuring 36 acres 13 guntas, including 13 guntas of putkharab, situated in Vaddarapalya village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore south taluk, in terms of a registered sale deed dated 27-2-2004 [copy at Annexure-A to the writ petition], purchased from one Thimmaiah @ Kariyappa. It is averred in the petition that this particular piece of land was earlier bearing Sy No. 8/D and it was later mutated and given the new number as Sy No. 36 in the year 1944 and in support of this, the Petitioner has produced a copy of the phodi extract as Annexure-B to the writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner's grievance in the present writ petition is that the state government in terms of endorsement dated 13-5-2008 [copy at Annexure-K to the writ petition] directed the Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] for making bulk allotment of different extents of land as indicated below, in favour of fourth Respondent-house building cooperative society.

(3.) Petitioner has sought for quashing of this endorsement/direction made by the government contending that in so far as the subject land in Sy No. 8 of Vadddarapalya village, in which BDA had sough to acquire an extent of 35 acres 26 guntas in terms of preliminary notification dated 6-4-1989 [copy at. Annexure-E to the writ petition] issued under Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 [for short, the Act] and a declaration issued by the state government on 9-5-1994 [copy at Annexure-F to the writ petition], while the interest acquired by the Petitioner under the sale deed dated 27-2-2004 is in Sy No. 36 corresponding to old No. 8D of the village and that old Sy No. 8D or present Sy No. 36 being not subject matter of acquisition proceedings, the order/direction made by the government directing the authority to make bulk allotment in favour of fourth Respondent inclusive of the land not acquired by it is per se bad in law and affects the interest of the Petitioner and therefore deserves to be quashed.