SOPHIE SHANTA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The counsel for Respondent No.2 seeks time to file Statement of objections. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this petition stands covered by the earlier decisions of this Court. Therefore, the petition is considered for final disposal, even at this stage.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of land in Sy.No.199/3 of Kodathi village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring about 2 acres 5 guntas. The petitioner has obtained a conversion order permitting change of user for residential use of the lands in question. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for sanction of plan as per the application dated 9.8.2012 with the Bangalore Development Authority, the second respondent herein. An endorsement was issued on 1.9.2012 by the BDA to state that the matter was examined and it is opined that the land in question forms part of a proposed residential layout, namely K.C. Reddy Layout, for which administrative approval has been issued to the first respondent ­ State of Karnataka. In that view of the matter, the application of the petitioner could not be considered, as any development would be a futility, as a proposed layout would be formed over the land, in due course. It is therefore the petitioner's case that notwithstanding the alleged approval of a proposed layout on 28.02.2009 by the first respondent, even as on the date of the petition, as no notification proposing acquisition of the land for the layout was issued, either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act' for brevity), or under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act' for brevity), and more particularly, the land of the petitioners was not subject matter of any such notifications. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner on the basis of a proposal which is yet to take shape, is deprival of the petitioner's right to deal with his properties. It is this limited ground on which the present petition is filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA' for brevity), while seeking time to file his statement of objections, would point out that the formation of the housing layout having received administrative proposal, it is a matter of time before the acquisition itself would take place and the scheme would be implemented. In that, the lands of the petitioner would be utilized for the formation of the layout and any development being permitted at this point of time, would be a futility and would result in loss and injury to the petitioner. Secondly, if the petitioner is enabled to develop the land as proposed in the plans which are placed before the BDA for sanction, the petitioner should not be enabled to claim equity on the ground that such development was permitted notwithstanding the proposal for acquisition and therefore, would submit that the petition be rejected.