H.M.KRISHNA REDDY Vs. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the legality of the Notifications dtd. 15/12/1984 and 28/11/1986 (Annexure-M and N) respectively, inter alia seeking cancellation of the sale deed dtd. 10/9/2018 and further, seeking appropriate direction to the respondents with regard to illegal demolition of the existing building on 'A' schedule property by the respondent No.1-BDA and such other reliefs.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner claims to be owner of the residential property bearing No.76/1, House No.15, situate at Agara village, Bengaluru South Taluk, presently situate within the limits of Agara Ward of Bruhat Bengaluru Manahagara Palike. The grievance of the petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition is that the respondent No.1- Bangalore Development Authority (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "BDA"), illegally renamed the petitioners 'A' schedule property by assigning new number as BDA Site No.964/A and allotted the same in favour of respondent No.3 herein by letter of allotment dtd. 7/8/2018 and the said allotment is contrary to the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites Rules), 1984 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "BDA Rules"). It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner has been illegally dispossessed by demolishing the existing building and further, the impugned notifications at Annexure-M and N are contrary to Sec. 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "BDA Act') and therefore, the petitioner has presented this petition.

(3.) On service of notice, respondent No.1-BDA filed detailed statement of objection contending that the BDA has framed development scheme for formation of Layout called as "Between Hosur Road and Sarjapur Road (BHSR Layout)". It is further averred that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, so also, on the ground that, petitioner being a subsequent purchaser, cannot maintain petition challenging the impugned notifications. It is further contended that the respondent-authorities have taken possession of the land in question, consequently notified under Sec. 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.