MAHADEVAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The petition coming on for preliminary hearing ("B" Group) is considered for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner is said to be a permanent resident of Ganigarapalya, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and is a farmer. He has a large family and were agriculturists holding an extent of 10 acres of land. Their family was entirely dependant on the said land. However, it transpires that the land was notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "BDA Act" for brevity) for the purpose of implementing housing scheme. Consequently, the petitioner was left with 18 guntas of land in the land bearing Survey No. 12/4C(P) situate at Hosahalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. 18 guntas of land was spared from acquisition since the petitioner has a house in the said extent where he resides along with his family and his ancestors are buried in the same area in an extent of 5 guntas of land and there are graves existing. The location of the petitioner's residence as well as the graves in the said extent of 18 guntas of land is indicated in a rough sketch annexed to the petition. The petitioner and his family members were under the belief that the said extent of 5 guntas where graveyard exists would be spared and not covered under the acquisition proceedings. However, the officials of the Bangalore Development Authority are said to have visited the petitioner immediately prior to the filing of this petition and informed him that he would have to vacate the area including the graveyard as the same has been culled out into housing sites and would be allotted to third parties. Aggrieved by this proposed action on the part of the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority, the present petition is filed.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that notwithstanding large extent of land of the petitioner has been acquired the last remnant portion namely where the petitioner's residence and graves of his ancestors are present has to be spared from the acquisition proceedings and the petitioner was led to believe that it was indeed out of the scope of acquisition proceedings. The present action on the part of the respondent therefore has compelled him to approach this Court.