TARACHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF BDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition coming for preliminary hearing 'B' group is considered for final disposal. It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased the land under a sale deed dated 24/1/2012 bearing Survey No. 97, measuring 3 acres 18 guntas of Hullalu Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The respondent-authority had acquired the said property as per final notification dated 31/10/2012 issued under Section 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, which was for the formation of Sir. M. Visweswaraiah Layout. The petitioner had challenged the award passed by the Bangalore Development Authority and Reference under Sections 30 and 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference was allowed in part. The petitioner however had already questioned the acquisition proceedings by way of writ petition in W.P. 3367-3369/03 which was disposed of holding that the petitioners who had lost their land would make applications to the authority for consideration of their respective cases and if they met certain criteria prescribed by the court in, what is popularly known as, Junjamma's case, the petitioner's case could be considered. It is thereafter that the petitioner made a representation, but however sought allotment of site under an incentive scheme floated by the respondent-authority. The respondent has summarily rejected the said representation on the basis that since the petitioner had initially challenged the acquisition proceedings, he was disentitled to claim benefit of the incentive scheme and has summarily rejected the representation. It is that which is challenged in the present petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent has entered appearance and would point out that the petitioner has never made a representation seeking benefit of the direction issued by this court as regards the petitioner's option to seek allotment of a site if the petitioner met the criteria prescribed in Junjamma's case and therefore if the petitioner should make a representation, it would be appropriately considered in accordance with the direction issued by this court, earlier.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that apart from the fact that he met all the criteria that were laid down by this court in Junjamma's case, it is also his further submission that notwithstanding that he had filed a writ petition earlier, the petitioner had not really resisted handing over the possession of the land in question and therefore seeks that there be a positive direction to the respondent to allot a site in terms of Junjamma's case.