H CHANDRA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001, THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T CHOWDAIAH ROAA, KUMARA PARK WEST, B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus to the respondents to act upon the draft notification (Annexure -H) for the withdrawal of their lands measuring 1 acre 3 guntas standing at Sy.No.79 of Arakere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk from the acquisition. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners' lands along with the other lands were acquired for the formation of the B.T.M. VI Stage layout. The petitioners' adjoining lands measuring 9 guntas at Sy.No.78/1 and 2 acres 1 gunta at 78/2A were withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings vide notification, dated 28.02.2001 (Annexure -B). The petitioners vide their representations, dated 12.11.2002 and 06.07.2004 requested the respondent No.1 to delete their lands also from the acquisition proceedings, as they have their houses and as they are eking their livelihood from the agricultural operations on the lands in question. On the respondents showing inaction in the matter, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.4359 - 4364/2009 which came to be disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioners' said representations in accordance with law and keeping in mind the recommendations/orders issued by the B.D.A. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent has taken. a decision to delete the lands in question from the acquisition proceedings. The draft notification to be issued under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the said Act' for short) is kept ready in September, 2009. It is the petitioners' grievance that the said notification is not being published

(2.) SRI . D.L. Jagadeesh, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the similarly placed lands are already withdrawn from the acquisition. Clinging on to the acquisition of the petitioners' land is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For advancing the contention that the State Government cannot adopt different standards for different people in the matter of withdrawal from the acquisition, he relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hari Ram and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Others, JT (2010) 2 SC 235 . He submits that the actions of the State have to be fair and for legitimate reasons. He asserts that the possession of the lands in question continues to be with the petitioners and that the there is absolutely no impediment in withdrawing the lands from the acquisition.

(3.) ON being specifically questioned as to how the other two lands came to be deleted from the acquisition proceedings on 28.02.2001, Sri K.S.Mallikarjunaiah submits that probably the actual and physical possession of the land may not have been taken place. He is not in a position to make any emphatic submissions without seeing the records.