K L RAMESH Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claiming to be the owner of land measuring 3 acres and 9 guntas in Sy. No. 44/2 amongst other extents of land in Sy. Nos. 44/1A, 44/1B and 45 at Yalachenahalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, aggrieved by the notification dated 29.12.1988 gazetted on 6.4.1989 issued under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976, for short 'Act' and the final declaration dated 9.5.1994 gazetted on 18.5.1994, filed W.P. No. 34243/1994 whence, a learned Single Judge by order dated 7.2.1997, quashed the final declaration issued under Section 19(1) of the Act, reserving liberty to the BDA to proceed with the acquisition from that stage. Petitioner filed objections and an application to delete from acquisition the aforesaid lands, following which, the BDA passed a resolution recommending the de-notification of the said lands and forwarded the same by endorsement dated 6.11.1992 Annexure 'B'. However by communication dated 18.2.2003 Annexure 'C' informed the Government to de-notify land in Sy. No. 44/1 and as possession of the land in Sy. No. 44/2 was taken stated that, it cannot be de-notified, while, land in Sy. No. 45 was stated to be classified as a gundu thopu. In addition, the BDA, as a matter of fact, stated that since the lands surrounding Sy. Nos. 44/1 and 44/2 as well as Sy. No. 45 are not acquired, are landlocked, hence unable to form a layout and if it tried to do so, the expenses would be very heavy and enclosed a sketch Annexure 'D'. According to the petitioner, the State Government issued a notification dated 4.10.2007 Annexure 'E' de-notifying the land in Sy. No. 44/1. It is the allegation of the petitioner that physical possession of the land was not taken by the BDA and the lands continued in petitioner's possession as agricultural lands subject to land revenue, as certified in the RTC pahani for 15 years prior to 2009-10 Annexures H1 to H5. It is further allegation of the petitioner that, the final declaration though is of the year 1994, nevertheless, BDA did not substantially complete the scheme by forming the layout known as "Banashankari V stage" and did not do so, despite passage of two decades, leading to failure to implement the scheme within five years, hence the scheme lapsed. In the circumstances, petitioner's representation to the BDA to issue an endorsement over lapsing of the scheme, which when not responded to has presented this petition.

(2.) The petition when filed was to quash the notification dated 18.5.1994 under Section 19(1) of the Act Annexure 'G' in respect of land in Sy. No. 44/2 measuring 3 acres 9 guntas, Misc. W. 2280/2010 for amendment of the writ petition was allowed by order dated 27.8.2010 whence, amended petition dated 31.8.2010 was filed amending the prayer column to include the reliefs: (i) to quash the preliminary notification Annexure 'F' under Section 17(1) of the 'Act' and the final notification Annexure 'G' under Section 19(1) of the Act in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 44/2; (ii) for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings are not complete and the BDA cannot execute the scheme since the scheme has lapsed and; (iii) for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent-BDA from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question.

(3.) I.A. 1/2012 dated 29.8.2012 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner to amend the prayer to include the relief to quash the final declaration dated 17.9.1997 Annexure 'Q' was allowed by order dated 3.9.2012. I.A. 1/2011 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC filed by the petitioner to place on record Annexures J, K and L was allowed by order dated 2.1.2012 where afterwards, the respondent-BDA filed statement of objections dated 30.1.2012 followed by the petitioner's rejoinder dated 6.2.2012 to place on record three documents Annexures P1 to P3.