O V NARASIMHA SETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the owners of certain extent of land in Survey nos. 9, 10 and 11 situate at Vaddarpalya Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, bangalore South Taluk and land in Survey Nos. 85, 86/1 and 86/2 situated at Uttarahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said lands were proposed for acquisition by preliminary notification dated 29-12-1988 under section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1976' ). This notification was followed by a final notification dated 16-9-1997 issued under Section 19 of the Act. These notifications were challenged by the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 37735 to 37743 of 1997 before this Court. This Court dismissed the said writ petitions by order dated 17-6-1998 reserving liberty to the petitioners to work out their rights, if any, under the Government Order No. HUD 341 mmx 95, dated 17-11-1995. The order passed by this Court in the above said writ petitions was affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal no. 3334 of 1998 connected with Writ Appeal Nos. 5244 to 5251 of 1998.

(2.) AFTER the disposal of the writ appeals, the petitioners filed applications on 3-3-1999 before the BDA, in view of the observations made by this Court in W. P. Nos. 37735 to 37743 of 1997, seeking permission to utilise the land for group housing or for formation of sites. Copy of the said representations is produced as Annexures-K1 and K2. Subsequently, the petitioners have made two other representations on 23-3-1999 and 21-4-1999 produced as Annexures-L and Ml respectively. Meanwhile, petitioner 1 had filed W. P. No. 15793 of 1999 before this court seeking for a direction to the BDA, to hear and dispose of the representation dated 3-3-1999. The said writ petition was disposed of on 6-5-1999 with a direction to the BDA to consider the representation dated 3-3-1999.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the BDA submits that the BDA was not aware of the said order till the receipt of notice in these petitions as there was no notice served on BDA in the above said writ petitions. From the order passed by this Court, I find the Government Pleader, one Smt. Prabha Murthy represented the respondents. The Government pleader, in the High Court, normally will not represent the BDA as the bda has got its own panel of Advocates to represent its interest. Therefore, even assuming that the Government Pleader has represented the bda, in my opinion, the BDA having not been served with any notice by this Court was not aware of the order of this Court till the notice has been served in these petitions.