B. VENKATESH Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) -respondents 1 and 2, as well as the learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 3. The Petitioners claim that originally land bearing Sy. No. 14/1 measuring 3 acres 1 gunta, Sy. No. 14/2 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas and Sy. No. 15/2 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas of Kothanur Village, Bangalore South Taluk belonged to one Sri. Y.L. Basappa Reddy and Sri. Y.L. Rama Reddy. Sri. Y.L. Basappa Reddy is said to have died on 24.11.94 and Sri. Y.L. Rama Reddy died in the year 1996. There was a partition between Sri. Y.L. Basappa Reddy and Sri. Rama Reddy in the year 1975 and their family consisted of 60 persons and therefore further partition having taken place after the death of Sri. Y.L. Basappa Reddy in the year 1994, there were residential sites culled out of the lands detailed above and were allotted to various family members. It is claimed that the present petitioners claiming in different parcels of land had been allotted sites which are described in the body of the petition.

(2.) IT is also stated that the very lands referred to above were notified under section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BDA Act) for formation of a layout called Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar VIII Stage, vide Notification dated 10.03.1989, and under final notification issued under section 19(1) on 19.10.1994. It is also stated that Sri. Y.L. Basappa Reddy and Sri. Y.L. Rama Reddy had challenged acquisition proceedings in writ proceedings before this court in W.P. No. 4938/95 which was allowed and the final notification was quashed on the ground that there was no scheme framed as required under section 18(3) of the BDA Act. Thereafter a final notification was yet again issued on 12.09.1997. Since no award followed after the said notification, the petitioners had made representations to the second respondent to regularize their occupation of sites. The Second respondent is said to have regularized the sites of petitioners on collection of the requisite fee. However, the second respondent thereafter had passed an award without notice to the petitioners, without considering the fact that the lands had been fully developed by them; as per awards dated 15.02.2010 in LAC No. 9/97 -98 and LAC No. 12/97 -98. The Petitioners claim that they are in possession and enjoyment of their property and in continuous enjoyment of the same. It is, however, stated that other members of the family had approached this court in earlier writ proceedings in W.P. 40202 -214/2010 and the writ petition was decided on contest on merits by an order dated 27.09.2012. The present petition is brought on identical grounds as were urged in the earlier writ petitions by other members of the family namely that having regard to the sequence of events it is undisputed that though there were no orders of restraint by any court of law, the competent authority has proceeded to pass the awards more than five years after the final notification and therefore it is evident and it cannot be disputed that the scheme has not been implemented within five years as mandated under section 27 of the BDA Act and therefore the scheme lapsed. It is on this short ground that the present petition is filed and reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt. Nagu Bai and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in, ILR 2001 Kar. 1169 which has been followed in the earlier decision of this court pertaining to other lands of the very family members of the petitioners and therefore the learned counsel would seek that there be a declaration as to the scheme having lapsed and to quash the acquisition proceedings consequently.

(3.) INSOFAR as the contention that the scheme has lapsed by virtue of section 27 it is pointed out that in the light of the view expressed in the aforesaid decision in M.B. Ramachandran's case the computation of five years ought to be from the date of taking possession and it is canvassed that the possession had been taken in the year 2010 and therefore the present petition having been filed in the year 2013 seeking to quash the acquisition proceedings of the year 1988 is barred by delay and laches apart from the fact that the petition is brought by a subsequent purchaser and therefore the petition ought to be dismissed.