G. NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case are stated to be as follows: The land bearing Survey No. 109 of Mathikere village, Bangalore North Taluk was said to measure a total extent of 2 acres 36 guntas. The same was said to have been the subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act', for brevity). The owners of the land are said to have sold about 1 acre and 16 guntas to one Gujjappa under a registered sale deed, dated 2.3.1972. Gujjappa, in turn, is said to have sold 19 guntas out of 1 acre and 16 guntas to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), for the purposes of formation of a road by the said Authority, under a sale deed dated 4.2.1977. He had retained an extent of 37 guntas of the remaining land. Gujjappa is said to have died on 3.12.1978.

(2.) THE State government has, in its pleadings, contended that the notification under Section 48(1) of the L.A. Act had been issued on the wrong notion that possession of the land had not been taken. But as per the report submitted by the BDA, it transpires that a notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act had been issued on 8.9.1983 itself and that the land was in fact, reserved for a park, a road and a civic amenity. And further that there was also a notification dated 26.2.2005 reserving the land, for the benefit of a Prathamesha Apartments Housing Co -operative Society Limited. It is hence contended that as possession had been taken, the land vested in the State and hence the issuance of the notification under Section 48(1) of the L.A. Act was without jurisdiction and a nullity and hence has been cancelled by the impugned notification.

(3.) THE petitioners have by way of rejoinder pointed out that the BDA had, by a letter to the Secretary to the Chief Minister, prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 48(1), intimated that the said extent of 37 guntas of land continued to remain in the possession of the owners and that the land had not been developed. The said letter dated 19.6.2007 had not been disputed by the BDA in a civil suit that was also filed by the petitioners in connection with the very land.