THIMMARAYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER the provisions of the then City Improvement Trust Board Act, land belonging the petitioners measuring 1.20 acres in Sy. No. 53 situate at Madiwala Village was notified for acquisition during October, 1971 under a preliminary notification. The BDA Rules were framed during 1989 under S. 69 of the BDA Act. The BDA by its resolution -442/1992 has provided for an incentive scheme on 31.10.1992. It is stated, in between 1.7.1992 and 24.11.1992, about 71 cases have been filed for consideration and by an order dated 2.8.1993, a decision has been taken by the BDA and also a sub -committee has been formed on 29.9.1993. The petitioners approached the respondent BDA under the RTI Act, and obtained an endorsement by which it is clear, till now the resolution was not communicated to the petitioners.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is, that their land has been acquired to the extent of 33 acres by the then CITB. They have also given several representations and also have sought condonation of delay by filing a writ petition. Referring to S. 8(2) of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, it is stated, whenever the government modifies or rescinds the resolution, the beneficiary is entitled for a notice. Stating that government has not passed any order under S. 65(B) of the BDA Act, even while the matter is pending consideration, final notification came to be issued in respect of 33 1/2 acres in the year 1978. Possession was not taken even after thirty five years of final notification as is evident from the resolution dated 31.10.1992. Now the petitioners are before this Court seeking re -conveyance or release of the property in their favour as constructions have come up in the 33 guntas of land.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, annexure R9 clearly indicates that the owners/petitioners are still in possession and the petitioners request has been approved. Despite that, respondent authority never made its mind to re -convey the property or to take a decision to leave out the extent of 33 guntas as incentive. A memo is filed by the petitioners indicating that out of 69 cases put up for consideration including the case of the petitioners, lands of nearly 28 persons have been denotified. According to the petitioner, it is not a question of delay and not even the question of disposal by this Court on the representation, but there is non consideration of the case of the petitioners on part with other 28 persons to whom benefit has been extended by way of denotification.