N. NARASIMHAIAH S/O. IATE K. NARASIMHAIAH Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DRDO TOWNSHIP C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST BANGALORE BY ITS ESTATE MANAGER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought for the following reliefs: - i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or direction, directing the respondents, jointly and severally to hand over 32 guntas of land in Sy.Nc.,.,117/1, out of 1 acre 36 guntas of land, situated in B.Narayanapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk; ii) issue a writ the nature of mandamus or any other writ or direction, dircting the respondents jointly and severally to hand over 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.44/3, situated in B.Narayanapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobli,Bangalore South Taluk; iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to notify the entire extent of land at prayers (i) and (ii) and demarcate the same by fixing the boundaries together with its measurements and the approach road, while handing over possession of portions of the property, as mentioned in prayers (i) and (ii) in terms of the order/direction in CA.No.6368/2011 by the Hors'bie Supreme Court of India. Certain other consequential reliefs are also sought for. Certain lands including Sy.Nos.32, 44/3, 117/1, etc., were acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO). The petitioner claims to be the owner of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.32 and 44/3. The acquisition notifications were questioned by various land owners, including the petitioner. Ultimately, the matter has reached Apex Court in CA.Nos.6362, 6363, 6364, 6365, 6366, 6367 and 6368 of 2011. During the pendency of CAs. Before the Apex Court, a joint memo was filed by the parties as per the document at Annexure -D. The relevant clause for the purpose of disposal of this matter, reads thus: - Appellants in CA.No.6368 of 2001 own 1 acre 36 guntas in Sy.No 32 and 12 guntas in Sy.No.44/3, i.e, 2 acreE, GB guntas in all. As per the formula adopted above, they are entitled for,38 guntas in Sy.No.32 and 06 guntas ire Sy.No.44/3, totalling to 1 acre 04 guntas. It is however agreed that appellants ra CA.No.6368 of 2011 will keep the entire 12 guntas in Sy.No.44/3 and receive the balance 32 guntas on northern portion in Sy.No.117/1 from UOI/DRDO in lieu cf 32 guntas in Sy.No.32 and the parties in WP.No.7696 of 2001 before the High Court of Karnataka have no objection to the same. "The Union of India/DRDO shall hand over possession to the appellants in CA.No.6368 of 2001 of the said land of 32 guntas in Sy.No.117/1. Matters were disposed of by the Apex Court, by recording the joint memo filed by the parties. However, the joint memo filed by the parties was not acted upon by respondent No.1. Hence, this writ petition is filed for the aforementioned reliefs,

(2.) THOUGH the petitioner has claimed number of reliefs in this ',wit petition, the concentration was only on prayer No.(ii). Hence, this Court directed Kalyan Basax -raraj, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the first respondent to have his say in the matter.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner agrees for the terms mentioned in the affidavit filed on behalf of DRDO and he is ready to accept the area of 12 guntas in Sy.No.23/1, situated at B.Narayanapura Village, K.R.Pura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. However, Thammaiah, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 as well as Kalyan Basavaraj, bring to the notice of the Court that not only the petitioner, but also certain other appellants in CA.No.6368/2003 are entitled to 12 Qantas of land to be handed over by DRDO. However, the same is disputed by Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Be that as it may, the Land Acquisition Officer as well as respondents shall abide by the order of the Apex Court directing them to hand over 12 guntas of land in favour of the appellants in CA.No.6368/2001.