H. RAVINDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND THE ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B' group is considered for final disposal in the following circumstances:

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing Survey No. 48/3 measuring 1 acre 24 guntas was the ancestral property of the petitioner and at family partition amongst petitioner's father and petitioner's uncles, the said land was said to have fallen to the share of the petitioner's father and katha was made out in his name under mutation proceedings in M.R. No. 1/1986 -87 and his name finds place in Column No. 12 of the RTC for the years 1983 -84 to 1996 -97.

(3.) THE petitioner's father is stated to have filed Writ Petition Nos. 20243 and 20244/1990 along with other connected petitions challenging the acquisition. The petitions were however disposed of with certain observations by an order dated 10.9.1996. The petitioner's family after having obtained a share at a partition, have been in possession of the same and there exists a farm house, apart from labourers' sheds on the property and the same is being remodeled. Pursuant to the acquisition proceedings, other lands in the vicinity were already taken possession of by the respondent and sites were formed over the same. As far as the petitioner's lands were concerned, there were no further proceedings and no award was passed. The petitioner made an application by recourse to the Right to Information Act and had obtained information whereby his possession is affirmed with no further proceedings having been taken in so far as petitioner's land bearing Survey No. 48/3 is concerned. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court on the short ground that in so far as land bearing Survey No. 48/3 measuring 1 acre 24 guntas is concerned, the further acquisition proceedings not having been taken by the respondents and Final Notification being issued in the year 1990, it could be said that the acquisition proceedings have been abandoned by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner should be free to utilize the land in accordance with land as a truthful owner notwithstanding the notification of the proceedings in the above circumstances.