B KRISHNAPPA BANGALORE Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) If at all failures, inability, incompetence, illegalities, steps for inaction, non-implementation of the scheme or a project are all to be found in any given case, the present writ petition combines all such qualities or events exhibited in abundance not only by the delegate of the state government - special land acquisition officer -nominated exclusively to take care of the land acquisition proceedings on behalf of the state government for the benefit of Bangalore Development Authority BDA., but with all that and even after a sworn affidavit is placed before this Court conceding not a simple failure but a gross failure on the party of BDA in implementing the original proposed scheme to implement a development activity in respect of an extent of 514 acres of land in terms of the preliminary notification dated 19-11-1977 caused by the state government and this preliminary notification also being followed up by issue of a declaration under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 for short, BDA Act. as per notification dated 21-6-1979, for a little larger extent of 517 acres 1 gunta, as per the orders of the state government indicating its satisfaction that the subject lands are required for a public purpose viz., for the formation of what was known as Kamakshi layout in terms of a scheme propounded by the BDA and even after its claim that in spite of taking possession of this extent of land, the special land acquisition officer in fact passed awards only to an extent of 94 acres 34 guntas and further claim of the BDA also being that possession in respect of this extent of land was handed over by the special land acquisition officer in favour of engineering section of BDA, though date of handing over is not indicated as per the additional statement of objections dated 9-11-2010 filed on behalf of BDA, and reading as under:

(2.) Perhaps, such an argument could have been made good at the stage before the writ petition was admitted for examination by issue of rule, but this writ petition having been admitted by issue of Rule as on 6-10-2010 and the matter being heard at some length, as is indicated by the earlier Orders passed by this Court on 6-10-2010, 3-11-2010, 9-11-2010 and further on 18-1-2011, but thereafter, the matter having gone into hibernation due to various reasons and in the interregnum, the Respondents, particularly BDA having come up with an additional statement of objections, as noticed by this Court as per order dated 29-6-2011, reading as under:

(3.) Facts as noticed above indicating the scheme envisaged by BDA covered an extent of 500 and odd acres of land and now BDA evinced great interest to implement the scheme in respect of a meager extent of 4 acres of land, in which Petitioner claims he has some right or interest, and having admitted the failure of BDA to implement the scheme in respect of the entire remaining extent of land and the BDA having allowed not merely development of all around of this extent of 4 acres, but even haphazard development all around and having very miserably failed in its duty and function to act not only as a development authority but also as a planning authority to instruct its counsel to oppose the writ petition on technical grounds and to seek for dismissal of the writ petition on the premise that the BDA can implement the scheme at least in respect of 4 acres of land, is nothing but a fraud on the exercise of power, a farce on the implementation of the scheme and a blatant brazen attempt to pull wool over the eyes of this Court and calling in aid the legal submission bolstered by the learned AGA in the case of Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority, 2011 3 SCC 139, is only to compound the weird action hitherto exhibited and conceded by BDA before this Court.