M V LALITHA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:

(2.) It is the petitioner's case that notwithstanding the positive directions issued by the Supreme Court hereinabove and the admitted circumstance that the petitioner's lands have been acquired for the purposes of formation of the Layout as aforesaid, the petitioner is being denied the allotment of a free site as was clearly directed by the Apex Court and since the petitioner is similarly situated as the other land owners notwithstanding the fact that he was not a party to the proceedings before the Apex Court, the petitioner not having received any compensation amount in respect of the land so acquired, would be entitled to a free site in terms of the resolution that was originally passed by the BDA in favour of the land owners, which would certainly include the petitioner and therefore, would submit that though the earlier writ petition W.P. No. 26195/2010 filed by the petitioner in this regard was disposed of on 30.08.2010 with a positive direction to consider the case of the petitioner, the BDA has now issued an endorsement that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the order of the Apex Court or the original resolution of the BDA and is therefore, before this Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the BDA has filed Statement of objections and would point out that the petitioner admittedly was not one of the land owners who had originally entered into a settlement with the BDA. The settlement was specific in respect of those land owners who were even given Possession Certificates in respect of the sites that were agreed to be given as compensation in respect of the land acquired. Notwithstanding the intention of the BDA, since the State Government had not approved the same, the proceedings culminating an the order passed by the Apex Court is restricted to those land owners who were parties to the settlement with the BDA and it is only those land owners who are entitled to the allotment of free sites. The petitioner admittedly was not one of them and even though the petitioner's land has been acquired, he is not in a position to claim the benefit of any settlement arrived at in terms of the order of the Apex Court. The mere direction by the Apex Court that other similarly placed land owners should also be taken into consideration, does not refer to all the land owners generally whose lands have been acquired for the formation of the layout and is restricted to those land owners who had entered into a settlement with the BDA and hence, would submit that the petitioner has not made out a case for allotment of a free site. On the other hand, the compensation payable in respect of the land acquired has been deposited by the BDA well in time and it is for the petitioner to avail the benefit of the same.