A. GOPAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought for declaration that the entire proceedings initiated by the second respondent under Sections 17 and 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 are null and void in respect of the petitioner's land bearing Sy. No. 55/6 of Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore measuring 120 feet x 480 feet. He has also sought for direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for denotification of the land bearing Sy. No. 55/6 of Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore. The records reveal that Sy. No. 55/6 of Hennur Village measures about 2 acres 18 guntas. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the said property. The entire Sy. No. 55/6 along with various other properties came to be acquired by the respondents for formation of H.B.R. Layout by issuing preliminary notification dated 27-6-1978 and the final notification dated 8-1-1985. After about 10 to 12 years, it seems Karnataka Dalith Action Committee gave a representation for denotifying the aforementioned property measuring 2 acres 18 guntas. The BDA passed a resolution as per Annexure-D on 26-4-1997 deciding to drop the acquisition proceedings insofar as it relates to the area occupied by the temple and two residential sites abutting the temple. However, the State Government has not taken any decision in the matter thereafter, which clearly goes to show that the resolution of BDA is not approved by the State Government till this date. Subsequently also it seems the representations are made by the office-bearers of the Karnataka Dalith Action Committee. Since no action is taken based on such representation, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) According to the petitioner, a temple is situated over the property in question and that he is residing in the house situated adjoining the temple. During the course of arguments, Sri Bhagwath, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the area comprised of the temple and the house of the petitioner are denotified.

(3.) Since the petitioner has approached this Court after about more than 23 years and as the possession is said to have been taken in respect of the property in question, there cannot be any specific order relating to denotification. It is well-settled that if the possession of the acquired land is taken, there is no question of denotifying the same.