P. ANANDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioners claim as owners of land bearing Survey No.1/2 measuring about 4 1/2 guntas of Lottegollahalli village, Bangalore North Taluk. It is claimed that it belonged to one Patalappa, who died in the year 1995, leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs to succeed to the same. It is claimed that Patalappa was married to one Nagarathnamma and the petitioners are her children. After the demise of Patalappa, Nagarathnamma as Class -I heir, has managed the affairs of the estate and she died on 20.8.2011. And apart from land bearing Survey No.1/2 of Lottegollahalli of an extent of 4 1/2 guntas, the family did not own any other land. Patalappa had however, constructed six small dwelling units in the year 1977 in the said extent and the said premises have been provided with electricity and water supply by the electricity and water supply agencies.

(3.) IN the above facts and circumstances, it is to be seen that the award having been passed in the year 1986 pursuant to the final notification in the year 1978, the claim of the BDA is that the Scheme has been substantially implemented within a period of five years and thereafter has been successfully completed. However, it is not denied that the petitioners are even today in possession of the land in question. Though it is contended that the occupation is illegal, if indeed the BDA had implemented the Scheme fully and finally, it is inexplicable that the land occupied by the petitioner has remained untouched. If the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of the same and the BDA seeking to contend that the Scheme has been fully implemented, would have required the petitioners being evicted from the land in question in accordance with law. There is no claim by the BDA that any such steps were taken or are intended to be taken and there was no impediment at any point of time for the BDA to take action against the petitioners or any other unauthorized occupants of the land in question. In any event, if the final notification was of the year 1978, the law requires that the Scheme, in respect of which, the acquisition proceedings were initiated, ought to have been implemented, within a period of five years. Even if there was substantial implementation at the end of 5 years, namely, by 1983, the Scheme ought to have been fully and finally implemented within a reasonable time. However, for reasons best known, and as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Scheme not having been implemented, over the extent of land in several villages, apparently, the land in question were left out of the Scheme or were never intended to be integrated with the Scheme and to that extent, by operation of law, would have the effect of Scheme having lapsed.