A. RUDRAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 8.1.2014 impugned at Annexure -J to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking that mandamus be issued to the respondents for considering the representation for dropping of the acquisition proceedings in respect of the property belonging to the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing Sy. No. 28/1 of Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The total extent therein was 1 acre 8 guntas. The present petition relates to the extent of 20 guntas in the said survey number, Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The land in question had been included in the notification to acquire the said lands for formation of Arkavathi layout. Since the petitioner claims that the property indicated in the schedule to the petition has been developed and has to be excluded from the process of the acquisition, a representation in that regard was made by the petitioner. In response to the said representation, an endorsement dated 8.1.14 is issued by the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) THE details of the several litigations pertaining to Arkavathi layout need not be adverted to, in this petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Bondu Ramaswamy & Ors. v. BDA' reported in : 2010(7) SCC 129 has ultimately laid down the guidelines for consideration of the request of the land owners seeking deletion, on taking note of the nature of the land and the other criteria which is indicated in the said judgment. It is in that light, the petitioner contends that the land of the petitioner indicated in the schedule to the petition also falls within the said guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, is to be deleted from the process of acquisition. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view and the endorsement dated 8.1.2014 is perused, the said endorsement would not disclose that the consideration as made by the respondents is in terms of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. All that the endorsement indicates is that the dates of the preliminary and final notification is referred, to state that the property has been acquired and request cannot be considered. Such endorsement cannot be sustainable. Infact, the respondents, while considering the representation as made by the petitioner dated 17.12.2013 should have taken note of all aspects as has been indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter appropriate conclusion ought to have been reached.