KEMPAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Advocate Shri K.M.Nataraj appearing for the respondent Bangalore Development Authority.

(2.) The facts, as stated by the petitioners, are that the petitioners claim that one Chinnappa, who is no more, was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of land bearing Survey No.102/1, measuring 2 acres 25 guntas of Valagerehalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South taluk and had acquired the same under three registered sale deeds of the year 1951. The property was divided amongst his two wives and their children under a registered partition deed dated 16.10.1980. Chinnappa is said to have died on 27.3.2003, leaving behind the petitioners, who have succeeded to his estate. The petitioners claim that Chinnappa had developed the land in question and had also constructed on the property and their family members were in possession and enjoyment of the same. It transpires that the State Government notified the above land for the formation of the 'Gnanabharathi Layout' under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act', for brevity), vide preliminary notification dated 19.1.1989, to which the petitioners had filed their objections.

(3.) It is further contended that the respondents not having implemented the Scheme within the prescribed period in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act, the Scheme would lapse insofar as those lands including the land of the petitioners, of which possession has not been taken, though it is sought to be demonstrated by reference to the aforesaid mahazar that possession has been taken. It is in this vein that the petitioners seek to question the acquisition proceedings as no longer being relevant insofar as the petitioners' land is concerned, as the respondent BDA has failed to implement the Scheme insofar as the said land and possession of the same has never been taken even to this day. Though there was an attempt to cut and remove the trees on the property in question, the timely intervention of this court, by virtue of these writ petitions, had prevented the respondents from doing further damage to the property.