LAWS(KAR)-2012-3-233

SRI KURILINGAPPA, SRI MUNININGAPPA AND SRI BEERAPPA Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On March 08, 2012
Sri Kurilingappa, Sri Muniningappa And Sri Beerappa Appellant
V/S
The Bangalore Development Authority Represented By Its Commissioner And State Of Karnataka Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a delay of over 1000 days. An application has been filed seeking its condonation. Since we have heard the Appeals on merits, we prefer not to dismiss them on the ground of delay, even though sufficient cause has not been disclosed explaining the delay. These Appeals call into question the legality of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting the Appellants' attack on the acquisition of 520 acres 16 guntas of land for the Nagarabhavi layout. The assault is predicated on the fact that admittedly only 210 acres 3 1/2 guntas have been utilized for the said residential layout. This position obtains despite the passage of three decades, which according to learned counsel for the appellants is sufficient reason by itself to strike down the acquisition in, so far as it relates to the lands not falling within the Nagarabhavi layout.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioners -Appellants has contended before us that the acquisition has not been challenged in the writ petition; on the contrary, the primary prayer is for a direction to the Respondents not to demolish the Petitioners' existing buildings constructed in Survey No. 36 and 53 situated in Malagalu village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. However, we find that there is a further prayer for prohibiting the Respondents from allotting the petitioners' property to any other person. However, we must record the gravamen of the arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioners actually challenges the acquisition itself on the premise that it violates Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 ('BDA Act' for brevity) which prescribes that if the Authority fails to execute the scheme substantially within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under sub -section (1) of Section 19, such scheme shall lapse.

(3.) THE law on this aspect has been elucidated by the Constitution Bench in Offshore Holdings Private Limited Vs. Bangalore Development Authority : (2011) 3 SCC 139. The learned counsel for the Appellants has repeatedly contended that Section 27 of the BDA Act was not within the contemplation of the Constitution Bench. Even a quick perusal of Onshore Holdings would disclose that this argument is devoid of any substance. The Judgment, indeed, reflects on the provisions of Section - 27 of the Act. The Constitution Bench has unequivocally stated that: