CHANDRAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 34102-34103/2011 and W.P. Nos. 23283-23304/2012 are assailing the order dated 20.07.2011 (Annexure-W) whereby the State Government has cancelled the earlier notification dated 07.04.2010 under which the property bearing Sy. No. 14/3 measuring 03 acres 09 guntas had been de-notified under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (the 'L.A. Act' for short). The petitioners have alternatively sought for issue of mandamus and direct first and second respondents to allot sites to the petitioners in terms of the directions issued in the case of Junjamma & Others v. Bangalore Development Authority & Others, 2005 ILR(Kar) 608at the earliest. The petitioners herein are the purchasers of sites in the private layout formed in the said land by its erstwhile owners. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11046-11047/2013 who claim to have acquired right to the property bearing Sy. No. 14/3 measuring 03 acres 09 guntas under a WILL from their grandfather also claim to be aggrieved by the same order dated 20.07.2011 (Annexure-H to their petitions) are assailing the same. They are also praying that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the right of the petitioners.

(2.) Since in both these sets of petitions the same order dated 20.07.2011 is called in question and the consequential relief would depend on the consideration of the contention of that aspect, the petitions are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The brief facts are that the land bearing Sy. No. 14/3 measuring 03 acres 09 guntas of Gidadakonenahalli was acquired along with several other lands by the Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short) for formation of the Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout. The preliminary notification dated 08.04.2003 was issued. Thereafter, the final notification dated 09.09.2003 was also issued. The award was passed on 06.12.2003. Though, the BDA claims to have taken possession on 22.01.2004, the same is being disputed by the petitioners in an attempt to contend that the de-notification dated 07.04.2010 was in accordance with law and the subsequent order dated 20.07.2011 is not justified.