H SUSHEELA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition though listed for further orders, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties is finally heard and disposed of by this order.

(2.) Petitioner states that her vendor-in-title was the owner of property bearing Sy.No.36/1 situate at Krishnainapalya, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore having fallen to her share in a partition, though subject matter of land acquisition by 1st respondent- Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA'), the petitioner's vendor-in-title formed a layout of sites and conveyed site bearing No.90, Khata No.72/1 measuring 1200 sq. ft. under a Conveyance Deed dated 5.9.1991 in favour of the petitioner, who obtained a sanction of building plan and put up construction on the said site. Petitioner states that she filed W.P.No.31558/2011, whence a learned Single Judge by order dated 29.08.2011-Annexure 'N' directed the BDA to consider the petitioner's representation following the notice dated 28.9.2011 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer and to pass orders in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, the Special Land Acquisition Officer having considered the representation, rejected the same by order dated 21.6.2012-Annexure Q. Hence, this petition.

(3.) There is no dispute that the 1st respondent- BDA, by notification dated 28.5.1984, acquired large tracks of land including 5 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.36/1 for the formation of "East of NGEF layout", followed by a final notification dated 23.10.1986 and an award dated 22.2.1989 while possession was taken on 5.12.1991 and a notification issued under Section 16(2) of the BDA Act. The compensation of Rs.6,61,975/-, which cannot be disputed, was deposited before the Civil Court in a proceedings under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's vendor-in-title filed W.P.No.15937/1989 challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings, which though rejected it was observed that the vendor in title may make an application within two months there from, which the BDA may consider. That benefit arising under the order is unavailable to the petitioner for the simple reason that the petitioner's vendor in title did not pursue the remedy. Even otherwise, petitioner purchased the property under a Conveyance Deed dated 5.9.1991 much after the land was acquired and vested in the State. If that is so, petitioner cannot claim any right, title or interest over the acquired land.