G.S. SACHIDANANDA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, petitioner seeks declaration that the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the preliminary notification dtd. 31/5/1963 issued by the City Improvement Trust Board (for short 'the CITB') and the final notification dtd. 28/10/1971 issued by the State Government in respect of the subject land bearing Sy. No. 79 of Jarakabande Kaval, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North taluk, measuring 4.01 acres have stood lapsed under Sec. 24(2)(ii) and 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the said Act of 2013') have been abandoned and non est and for a direction to the respondents to restore possession of the subject land to the petitioners. Alternatively, petitioners have sought for a direction to pay compensation together with all consequential benefits to the petitioners in accordance with the said Act of 2013.

(2.) Briefly stated, the contentions urged by the petitioners are that the subject land was purchased by the petitioners and their predecessor in title vide registered sale deed dtd. 8/1/1964 and the same was converted for industrial purpose on 7/12/1964. On 7/1/1972, the owners filed an application with the CITB seeking permission to form a layout and the same was approved vide CITB Resolution bearing No. 698 dtd. 12/1/1972, pursuant to which, the predecessors of the petitioners executed an agreement dtd. 1/3/1972 in favour of the CITB. Accordingly, supervision and layout charges levied by the CITB was paid by them and the CITB sanctioned the layout plan on 8/1/1973. It is contended that the petitioners have acquired right over the subject land as detailed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition.

(3.) The petitioners contend that though a preliminary notification dtd. 31/5/1963 was purported to have been issued by the CITB including the subject land, petitioners or the previous owners were not aware of the same till a final notification dtd. 28/10/1971 was issued showing the name of G.B. Sadashivaiah, father of petitioners 1 to 3 against the subject land. It is contended that the aforesaid Resolution dtd. 12/1/1972 passed by the CITB, approval and sanction of the layout plan by the CITB, registered agreement dtd. 1/3/1972 executed between the predecessors of the petitioners and the CITB and other documents indicate that the subject land had been left out/excluded from the acquisition proceedings. It is further contended that no further acquisition proceedings pursuant to the impugned preliminary and final notifications have been taken by the respondents and no notice of the same has been passed; so also, the respondents have not passed any award in respect of the subject land.