VARADACHARI S/O. LATE KRISHNAMACHARI Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY ROAD BANGALORE-20 BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY ROAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought for quashing the endorsement at Annexure -L, dated 6.1.2011 issued by the third respondent. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to hand over site No.12, measuring 40'x60' in RMV II Stage, adjoining to HIG Scheme, BDA as per Annexure -B, dated 30.9.1985 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, BDA. The records reveal that the BDA acquired 1134 acres and 12 guntas of lands ire various survey numbers for the purpose of Rajamahal Vilas II Stage Layout. Because of the low compensation offered for the said acquisition, the land owners agitated and filed representations before the BDA for payment of higher compensation and for allotment of sites. Ultimately, an amicable settlement was arrived at between the BDA and the land losers and consequently, Resolution No.384, dated 266_1984 was passed by the BDA to the effect that the BDA shall give a site of 40'x60' with free of cost to the land owners or their representatives. Copy of the said resolution is produced at Annexure -A to the writ petition. In terms of the said resolution, the petitioner was allotted site No.12, measuring 40'x60' in RMV Stage, adjoining HIG Scheme as per Annexure -B, dated 30.9.1985. But the said resolution as well as the allotment letter at Annexure -B were not implemented on the ground that the State Government had not approved the same. Some of the land losers approached this Court for appropriate reliefs. Ultimately, the order has reached the Apex Court in CA.Nos.14037 -14056/1996. The said appeals were disposed of by the Apex Court on 23.9.1996 by observing thus: - Even otherwise we are of the view that the resolution of the BDA did substantial justice to the appellants. A situation was created where it may not have been possible for the BDA to implement the scheme. The BDA entered into a settlement with the farmers and took a conscious decision to allot plots to them. It was neither fair nor just on the part of the BDA and the State Government to have gone back on their decision which was taken with an open? mind and after discussion with the farmers. The BDA by passing the resolution, in a way, accepted the demand of the farmers for enhanced compensation. The allotment of plots to them was to further compensate them for acquiring their land for the development scheme. We, therefore, allow the appeals; set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct the BDA to deliver the possession of the sites to the appellants and all others who are similarly situated. The Learned Counsel for the BDA has informed us that pursuant to this Court's interim order, 90 sites have been kept reserved. We, therefore, direct the BDA to hand over possession of the sites to the appellants within two months. Although the sites are to be given to the appellants free of cost, if any development and other incidental charges are payable, the appellants shall pay the same. No costs.

(2.) IN spite of the submissions made before the Supreme Court on behalf of the BDA that 90 sites have been kept reserved for allotment to the similar persons including the petitioner, only 57 persons were allotted the sites_ The petitioner and certain others are not allotted sites as on this day. Representations came to be made by the petitioner in that regard. After considering the representations, the endorsement came to be issued on 13.10,2003 as per Annexure -D to the effect that Sri C.V.L.Shastry who was representing the land owners, has not handed over 75 acres of land to BDA, but has handed over 57 acres of land and therefore only 57 persons are allotted the sites; if the said Sri C.V.L.Shastry produces records to show that he has handed over 75 acres of land in favour of BDA, then tree BDA allot sites to all 75 persons. In answer to such endorsement, Sri C.V.L.Shastry has explained in his letter dated on 17th of October 2003 clarifying that he has already submitted list of survey numbers for which he was the Power of Attorney Holder. According to him, as per the list, he has handed over 75 acres of land to the BDA. The list is also enclosed along with the said letter by said Sri C.V.L.Shastry. Since no action was taken, petitioner had approached this Court in WP.No.13153/2007. this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 30.11.2009, with a direction to the BDA to reconsider the matter. After reconsideration, similar endorsement came to be issued once again by the BDA as per Annexure L on 1.1,2011, which is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) BE that as it may, the Supreme Court in its order dated 23.9.1996 has directed the BDA to hand over the sites to the petitioner within two months, which means the petitioner is also entitled to one site as he was also claiming under one the appellants in CA.Nos.14037 -14056/1996.The order of the Apex Court is not reviewed. The BDA has accepted the said order dated 23.9.1996. If it is so, the BDA is bound to abide the said order and consequently, the BDA has to comply with the same. Accordingly, the BDA is directed to comply with the order or the Apex Court dated 23.9.1996, passed in CA.Nos.14037 -14056/1996 by handing over possession of the site in favour of the petitioner as directed by the Apex Court, as early as possible, but not later than the outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of this order.