S NALINI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 27 guntas of land in Sy. No. 23/2 of Kodigehalli village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, claiming to belong to the petitioner, having purchased the same under a deed of conveyance dated 7.2.2002 Annexure 'A', when subject matter of acquisition amongst other large tracks of land, by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority under the notification dated 21.5.2008 issued invoking Sections 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, for formation of "Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout" followed by the final notification dated 18.2.2010 Annexure 'F1', led to the petitioner making a representation dated 28.6.2012 Annexure 'K' addressed to the respondents to delete from acquisition her property, since lands in Sy. No. 23/3 and Sy. No. 23/4 surrounding the petitioners land are excluded from acquisition and that certain areas surrounding the petitioner's land are built up hence would not form a compact block to implement the scheme. Petitioner alleging no response to the representation Annexure 'K', has presented this petition, for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider petitioner's representation Annexure 'K' and a further direction to delete/de-notify land in Sy. No. 23/2 from the final gazette notification, on the premise that the land is situate in the middle of Sy. Nos. 23/3 and 23/4, which are deleted/ de-notified in the final notification. Petition is opposed by filing statement of objections inter alia contending that, the statement in the writ petition that the petitioner had no notice of the preliminary notification is false, since notice dated 14.8.2008 was issued to the petitioner calling upon her to exercise one of the two options, namely, either receive 40% of the developed land or, monetary compensation, for the acquired land, though such options are set out in the preliminary notification itself. It is stated that at paragraph 8 of the memorandum of writ petition, there is a clear admission on the part of the petitioner opting for 40% of the developed land, on filing an affidavit and therefore, petitioner is disentitled to the relief of deletion/de-notification of the acquired land. Lands in Sy. No. 23/3 and 23/4, it is submitted, have certain inherent title disputes and are not found in the final notification while an additional preliminary notification dated 27.11.2009 Annexure 'R3' is issued in respect of the said two properties while final notification is proposed. The allegation that the lands in Sy. No. 23/3 and Sy. No. 23/4 surrounds the petitioner's property and not in the best interest of the BDA to acquire the land is specifically denied. In addition it is stated that the rough sketch prepared by the petitioner does not depict the true state of facts. The respondent has denied the further allegation of the petitioner that the lands are not developed since 2008-2012.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

(3.) There can be no more dispute that the petitioner having exercised the option to receive 40% of developed property, in lieu of monetary compensation, on the acquisition of her immovable property in Sy. No. 23/2 measuring 27 guntas, the relief for deleting the said property from acquisition does not arise.