SHARADAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE batches of writ petitions are filed by the owners of agricultural and/or converted lands, house sites, residential/farm houses, companies and builders and others questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the acquisition of vast extent of lands for a development scheme called AEKAVATHI LAYOUT. The main features of the layout, as mentioned in the report of the Engineering Department of the BDA, are: (a)Total extent of land required 2750 acres (b)Proposed residential sites 28600 (c)Civic Amenity sites 50 (d)Commercial sites 150 (e)Total estimation rs. 933. 47 Crores (f)Total amount received rs. 981. 36 Crores (g)Saving rs. 47. 89 Crores (h)No. of villages covered 16 (i)No. of applicants 2,32,000 the details of various dimensions of the residential sites, the extent of land used for various purposes such as residential sites, park and play grounds, civic amenities, roads etc. , the amount that would be realised from the sites, the total expenditure to be incurred for the formation of the layout, in question are furnished by the BDA in its report, which is available in the original files produced before this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts that gave rise to these writ petitions are as under.

(3.) STATEMENT of objections is filed on behalf of the BDA traversing the petition averments in Writ Petition Nos. 26601 to 26604 of 2004 justifying the impugned action and denying the various allegations made against the BDA and learned Counsel for the BDA have sought permission in the course of submission to adopt the same for all the writ petitions which were heard. It is stated in the statement of objections that by implementing the scheme in question, the allottees can live in comfort and peacefully and the planned development of the lands will prevent pollution, unhygienic conditions, etc. It is vehemently asserted that no right of the petitioners are affected, but on the other hand they are benefited as they would get compensation amount and also the sites will be allotted under the incentive scheme, if they are eligible under the scheme. It is further stated that there is no illegality or violation of principles of natural justice as alleged in the writ petitions. It is pleaded that the acquisition of lands being for public purpose and there is huge demand from lakhs of applicants demanding allotment of sites in their favour and that BDA in discharge of its statutory duty which is entrusted to it under the statute it has undertaken the high magnitude project and therefore it is stated that the same does not suffer from any lacuna or illegalities or irregularities as alleged by the petitioners. It is stated that there is neither colorable exercise of power nor any arbitrariness or discrimination or even legal mala fides or legal malice in acquiring the lands for implementation of the scheme as alleged by the petitioners. It is denied by it that the BDA is acting like a real estate agency, which allegation is without any factual foundation. Stating that large number of applicants who are eligible under the Bangalore development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 are awaiting for allotment of sites, it is vehemently contended placing reliance upon the notification published under Section 2 (c) of the BDA Act specifying the bangalore Metropolitan Area in 1984 under Section 4-A of the karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 earmarking the planning area for planned development as per the CDP of 1995 and therefore it is stated that BDA being planning Authority to the planning area, has undertaken the stupendous task of framing the scheme and wanted to implement it. The same is sanctioned by the Government by discharging its statutory duty under the provisions of BDA Act. Therefore, the learned Advocate-General and the learned Counsel for the BDA have prayed for dismissal of the Writ petitions. The BDA has not chosen to file separate Counter-Statement traversing the avennents and allegations made in the writ petitions against the respondents. However, it is stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the BDA that the statement of objections filed to one writ petition may be treated as common to all the writ petitions in respect of the allegations made and the contentions raised barring the difference on facts.