LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-162

M. LEO, SRI M. RAVINDRA KUMAR, SRI M. ANTHONY REDDY AND K.H. MANJAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

Decided On September 30, 2013
M. Leo, Sri M. Ravindra Kumar, Sri M. Anthony Reddy And K.H. Manjappa Appellant
V/S
Government Of Karnataka Rep. By Its Secretary, Urban Development Department And The Bangalore Development Authority Rep. By Its Commissioner Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are before this Court seeking for a declaration that the notification dated 23.02.2004 at Annexure -H to the petition is illegal and to quash the same. The petitioners No. 1 to 3 were initially before this Court seeking for the said relief. However, the respondent No. 4 who had sold the property to the petitioners No. 1 to 3 has been subsequently impleaded as petitioner No. 4.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that the land bearing Sy. No. 21/5 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas (including Kharab of 1 gunta) situate at Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was purchased by the petitioners No. 1 to 3 under a registered sale deed dated 17.01.2004 executed by the petitioner No. 4. The petitioner No. 4 is stated to have purchased the said property from one Sri Anthonappa under a registered sale deed dated 26.04.1993. The names of the petitioners is stated to have been entered in the revenue register in the year 2006 -2007 and thereafter continued. Prior to the same, action was initiated against the petitioner No. 4 under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act alleging violation of Sections 79(A), 79(B) and 80 of the Act. In that regard, an order dated 11.07.1997 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner forfeiting the land to the Government.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that by the order dated 19.08.2002 of KAT, the petitioner No. 4 had succeeded in restoring and retaining rights to the said property and had thereafter sold the property to the petitioners No. 1 to 3. The respondents had not notified the name of either the petitioners No. 1 to 3 or that of petitioner No. 4 in the preliminary or final notification. It is pointed out that the name of the Government was shown as the 'Kathedar' of the property as seen at Sl. No. 8 relating to the properties that were acquired in Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli. It is in that view contended that the very acquisition is vitiated inasmuch as the names of the property owners, namely the petitioners No. 1 to 3 had not been notified and the acquisition was completed in their absence.