LEELAVATHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has the grievance that her revenue site measuring 30 x 70 feet is used up for the public purpose of forming Banashankari 3rd Stage Layout by the second respondent-Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short). Sri K. Sreedhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has neither received compensation nor an alternative land in lieu of the revenue site lost by her. He submits that the BDA has come out with a scheme as is evident from its letter, dated 22-11-1976 (Annexure-B1) for allotting the alternative site to the revenue site holders for the loss of their revenue sites. He submits that the petitioner has been giving the affidavits and representations after representations. He submits that the latest representation (Annexure-C3) is submitted on 5-6-2013.

(2.) Sri Sreedhar submits that the issues raised in this petition are fully covered by this Court's order, dated 31-10-2014 passed in W.P. No. 6586 of 2014 connected with W.P. No. 6588 of 2014 (Annexure-F). In the said case the BDA was directed to consider the case of the similarly placed persons by accommodating them elsewhere by allotting the sites within six months.

(3.) Sri C.R. Gopalaswamy, learned Counsel for the respondent 2 submits that this petition is liable to be rejected on the short ground of delay and laches. He submits that the acquisition of the petitioner's revenue site was in the year 1968 and that she filed the writ petition after a number of decades in 2013. He submits that pursuant to the scheme, which is found in the letter, dated 22-11-1976 (Annexure-B1), the individual letters were issued to all the revenue site losers. That one such letter was also sent to the petitioner is not even in dispute. However, for the reasons best known to herself, the petitioner did not file any affidavit to the effect that she owns no sites.