A. RAMAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners claiming to be the owners of subject property, are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the acquisition of the same vide Preliminary Notification dtd. 2/6/1978 issued u/s 17(1) followed by the Final Notification dtd. 30/9/1980 issued u/s 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, essentially on the ground that the acquisition process has lapsed in view of sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They also have sought for voiding of the subject acquisition on the additional ground of lapsing of the scheme in terms of sec. 27 of the 1976 Act.

(2.) After service of notice, the respondent-State is represented by the learned AGA and the respondent-BDA & its Executive Engineer are represented by their Senior Panel Counsel. Similarly, the Slum Clearance Board speaks through its Panel Counsel. The allottees of the sites in question got themselves impleaded as respondents later and their Sr. Advocate also opposes the petition. Statements of Objections have been filed, resisting the Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners vehemently argues that his clients still continue to be in the possession of the subject land and that the scheme that comprised the same having not been substantially executed, the acquisition would statutorily lapse and as a consequence, the land needs to be reverted to his clients consistent with the law declared by the Apex Court in OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (2011) 3 SCC 139. Learned advocates appearing for the respondents controvert the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and oppose the Writ Petition inter alia on the grounds of delay & latches, culpable conduct of the petitioners, the findings recorded in the earlier Writ Petition and the execution of scheme having already been accomplished, the sites have been allotted to the impleaded respondents. All the advocates appearing for the respondents make submission in justification of the impugned acquisition. They seek dismissal of the Writ Petition with exemplary costs.