V RAMU @ RAMAIAH S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA; V KRISHNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA; BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri. K. Krishna, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.

(2.) It is the petitioners' case that, they are the owners of the land measuring 1 acre 10 guntas of Guddadahalli, Bangalore. The said land alongwith other surrounding lands were acquired for the formation of ring road. It is the petitioners' case that the ring road was formed, but the petitioners land was not utilized and the State has not chosen to delete the petitioners' land from the acquisition proceedings, though the State has deleted other lands, which were not utilized for the purpose of ring road. It is the petitioners' further case that the present petitioners' land cannot be utilized for any other purpose with ease or convenience, it cannot be used as a stand alone park or play ground and it cannot be suitable for the formation of any selfcontained layouts and therefore they sought for deletion of their lands. It is the petitioners' further case that the possession was not taken of the land at all and the same cannot be utilized by the Bangalore Development Authority(for short 'BDA'). It is the petitioners' case that their father Venkataramanappa was cultivating the land measuring 2 acres 6 guntas in Sy.No.9 as a tenant prior to coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964 and with coming into force of the Act, had filed an application for registration as an occupant and the occupancy rights were conferred on him on 1.2.1979 in respect of 1 acre 10 guntas in the said Sy.No.9 of Guddadahalli village, Bangalore North Taluk. It was thereafter, the notification under Section 17(1) of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976(for short 'BDA Act') was published in the gazette on 31.8.1978, proposing to acquire the petitioners' land alongwith other several lands for the formation of Hennur Bellary road III Stage. The petitioners' claim that BDA had issued final notification under Section 19(1) and took possession of the extent of the land required for formation of the road and completed the project. The remaining extent remained with the owners. It is the petitioners' case that after issuance of the final notification, the land owners in respect of the lands under the acquisition filed the writ petitions before this Court and sought for re-allotment of the land in Sy.Nos.12, 14/4 to 7, 17, 18, 19 and 20/2 of Hebbal Amanikere and Sy.Nos.76, 77, 78, 79/1, 79/2, 80/1, 80/2, 91/2, 91/3, 92, 93, 98/1, 100/1, 100/2, 118, 119/1A, 119/1B, 119/2 and 119/3 of Hebbal village, mainly on the ground that the land which were required for formation of the outer ring road was completed and after completion of the formation of the roads, the bits of land in several survey numbers as mentioned above would not be used for formation of road or formation of layouts, as they were isolated small portions of the land. It is the such representation that the BDA had recommended that the lands be kept out of purview of the acquisition proceedings and approved proposal to hand over the land measuring 2 acres 26 guntas in various survey numbers of Hebbal village on the southern side of the outer ring road to the original land owners. The modalities of the transfer was to be examined and worked out in consultation with the concerned to the land owners. It is the case of the petitioners' that their land surrounded by others lands are either de-notified or completely developed and therefore cannot be utilized for any purpose. The petitioners have submitted a representation to the State Government for deletion of their land, as the same was not required by the BDA. However, the State Government has not taken action for the deletion of the land in question. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a resolution dated 4.4.1997, where the BDA has consciously considered the deletion of the land surrounding the petitioners' land and the text of the same is reproduced, which reads as follows:-