H. ERAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are said to be owners of lands bearing Survey Nos. 2/1 and 6/2, measuring 24 guntas and 28 guntas, respectively, of Gankallu village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore. The same are said to have been converted for non-agricultural use as per orders of the competent authority, dated 3.8.2001.

(2.) The respondents have entered appearance and have filed objections denying the petition averments and it is asserted that subsequent to issuance of preliminary notification, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had issued final notification on 21.8.2011 and pursuant to issuance of the final notification, the respondents had passed award in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 6/2 on 22.12.2001 and thereafter, the BDA had taken possession of the land bearing Survey Nos. 2/1 and 6/2 on 24.1.2002 and thereafter had transferred possession of the above, said lands to Technical Division on 24.1.2002 itself. That subsequent to taking possession of the land bearing Survey Nos. 2/1 and 6/2, the BDA had issued the notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act. Subsequently, the respondent had deposited the award amount and has referred the matter to Civil Courts under Section 30 and 31(2) of the LA Act.

(3.) However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents sought to be produced by way of a memo unsupported by any affidavit of any officer of the respondent is not maintainable in law and is liable to be rejected. Annexure-R1 is supposed to be a mahazar taking possession of Sy. No. 6/2 measuring 29 guntas of Ganakallu village. On the face of it, Annexure-R1 cannot be acted upon because it is in a printed form and does not record whether the owner was present or not and is drawn mechanically. Four witnesses alleged to have signed cannot be identified, as no details are forthcoming. The names are simply scribbled and appear to be in the handwriting of one person. Such a mahazar cannot be taken as a fact of taking possession and the subsequent notification based on such a mahazar dated 8.5.2003 under Section 16(2) of the LA Act cannot also be accepted. The documents now sought to be produced cannot be believed because in paras 10 and 11 of the Statement of Objections, the respondent asserts to have taken possession of Survey Nos. 2/1 and 6/2 together on the same day and the notification under Section 16(2) also is factually incorrect because admittedly, in respect of Survey No. 2/1, neither an award is passed nor is possession taken. If possession were to be taken as contended, the first respondent could not have written to the second respondent as per Annexure-S dated 8.9.2011, to find out as to who is actually in physical possession of the land. The petitioner believes that the query is not answered by the respondents.