N. NANJAPPA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE reliefs in these petitions are:

(2.) THE submission of Sri S.R. Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16074 -100/2010 and connected petitions by order dated 2nd September 2011, recorded a finding that the scheme for formation of the layout known as 'RMV II Stage' lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976, for short the 'BDA Act', and therefore, the lands in question belonging to the petitioner, subject matter of acquisition for the very scheme, the notifications insofar as the lands in question are concerned, be held illegal, arbitrary and having lapsed/abandoned. The Order of the learned single Judge, supra, does not declare the acquisition proceedings as illegal or arbitrary and therefore, no such declaration can be granted in favour of petitioner in respect of said acquisition notifications. It is no -doubt true that the learned single Judge stating Section 27 of the BDA Act having been attracted deserved thus: - "BDA is not at liberty to pursue further action for acquisition either by taking possession or even for passing an award or any such related action." (para -59) So also at paragraph -61, the learned single Judge observed thus:

(3.) LEARNED counsel points to the order dated 23rd January 2014 in Writ Petition 2206 -2208/2013 in the case of M. Venkatesh and others v. Bangalore Development Authority, in which, the learned single Judge having followed the decision in Srinath Hegde's case allowed the petitions insofar as it relates to the petitioners therein. According to learned counsel, the writ petitioners therein namely M. Venkatesh and M. Srinivas are cousins of the petitioners herein and the properties in question are part and parcel of the same survey number and therefore, this Court pass an order identical to the order dated 23rd January 2014.