V R IYER S/O LT R V RAMAN AND ORS; BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER Vs. D NARAYANAPPA S/O LT DODDAIAH (SINCE DECEASED AND ORS ; D NARAYANAPPA S/O LT DODDAIAH (SINCE DECEASED, REP BY HIS L RS SMT MANGAMMA @ KAMALAMMA W/O LATE D NARAYANAPPA AND ORS ) AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants in both these appeals were the Respondents in W.P. No. 3317/2004 (LA-BDA). The Appellant in WA No. 473/2005 is the beneficiary of the acquisition viz., the Bangalore Development Authority ('the BDA' for short) having succeeded to the City Improvement Trust Board ('CTTB' for short). The said Appellant was the second Respondent in the writ petition. The Appellants in WA No. 271/2005 are the persons who had purchased the sites in a public auction conducted by the BDA. The said sites were formed in the major portion of the land which is the subject matter of these appeals. The said Appellants had got themselves impleaded in the writ petition. Since the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the first Respondent herein, the BDA as well as the site purchasers are before this Court in these intra-Court appeals. As common contentions arise for consideration, they are taken up together for disposal.

(2.) The land in question measures 1 acre 15 guntas situate in Sy. No. 137, Thippasandra village, K.R. Puram Hobli. Bangalore South Taluk. The said land along with vast extent of other lands, in all measuring 428.01 acres was acquired by the predecessors of the BDA viz., the CITB for formation of a residential layout known as HAL II Stage layout. The preliminary notification is dated 28.11.1959 which was published in the gazette on 21.01.1960. The final notification dated 19.08.1964 was published in the gazette on 27.08.1964. The award is stated to have been passed on 13.05.1969 and a supplementary award is also stated to have been passed on 17.01.1977. According to Appellants, the possession of the land and structures were taken on 28.12.1976, but, the same is disputed by the contesting Respondent. It is to be noted that the first Respondent herein, who was the Petitioner in the writ petition is referred as the contesting Respondent. He has died during the pendency of this appeal and his legal representatives who are brought on record are collectively referred as contesting Respondent for the purpose of convenience and clarity. The contesting Respondent and his brother are stated to have conveyed the property in question in favour of Sri A. Nanjundachar, S/o Nirmalanand Annaiahachar in the year 1952 itself. The khatha of the property however stood in the name of Doddaiah i.e., the father of the contesting Respondent and as such the acquisition was notified in his name. It is in that context, the said Sri A. Nanjundachar filed an application on 02.11.1964 claiming compensation in respect of the acquired property at the rate of Rs. 15,000.00 per acre. The contesting Respondent also filed application dated 13.12.1967 claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000.00 per acre. In view of the rival claim made for disbursement of compensation in respect of the acquired property, the acquiring authority is stated to have deposited the compensation before the Civil Court on 28.02.1977 i.e. after passing of the supplementary award, so that the entitlement for compensation could be decided in terms of Sections 30 & 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act' for short).

(3.) According to the Appellants, the BDA has formed sites in the land in question, except the portion where the temple building and RCC house building is situate. Though the contesting Respondent had earlier instituted several suits from the year 1969 onwards in an attempt to protect his alleged possession of the property, the acquisition in itself has been questioned for the first time in the instant writ petition filed on 19.01 2004. Thus, the petition no doubt is after a long lapse of 45 years from the date of the preliminary notification, but the earlier litigations cannot be ignored. The prayer made in the writ petition is to declare the acquisition in respect of the land in question as null and void and also to declare the same as having lapsed in terms of Sec. 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, has held the acquisition in respect of the land in question as lapsed and declared the demolition and formation of sites as illegal and arbitraiy and also directed the auction purchasers to claim refund of the amount with interest. Therefore, the BDA as well as the auction purchasers claim to be aggrieved, by the order passed by the learned Single Judge.