K C RAJU REDDY Vs. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY BANGALORE KARNATAKA REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims that he is the owner of Survey No. 52 of Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 1 acre S3 guntas; that he had put up six structures in the said property during the year 1980; that the Village Panchayat had assessed the structures to property tax by assigning the No. 235/A (1 to 6) in the Assessment Register for the period 1989-90 and had received tax from him for 1990-91; that petitioner applied to B.D.A. (Respondent) for regularisation of the constructions on 10-11-1992 (vide Annexures-E1 and E2) and the said application is not yet disposed of; that though the property was acquired by B.D.A., as he has already put up constructions prior to 31-3-1990, the petitioner was entitled to regularisation having regard to the provisions of the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions in Urban Areas Act, 1991 ('Act' for short); and that in spite of it, B.D.A. was attempting to demolish the structures in his property. On these averments, the petitioner has filed these petitions on 12-2-1993 seeking a direction to B.D.A. to regularise the constructions made in Survey No. 52 described in the schedule to the petition, under the provisions of the said Act. The learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not made any application for regularisation to the Screening Committee constituted under the Act, as no such Committee had been constituted at the time of filing the petition.

(2.) The B.D.A. contends that Survey No. 52 of Hennur village measuring 2 acres 7 guntas was notified for acquisition under preliminary notification dated 27-6-1978 (published in the Gazette dated 20-7-1978) and final Notification dated 9-1-1984 (published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 14-3-1985), for the purpose of formation of Hennur-Bellary Road, I Stage Layout; that wide publicity was given in respect of the acquisition by publication in Deccan Herald dated 17-5-1985 and Kannada Prabha dated 16-5-1985, and by other means; that petitioner filed his objections to the acquisition on 1-6-1985 contending that the land was being used for agricultural purposes; and that ultimately an Award was passed on 6-3-1987, and approved by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 9-3-1987 (Annexure-R2); that B.D.A. took possession of the said Survey No. 52 on 9-1-1987 (Annexure-R2) and formed a layout in Survey Nos. 51 and 52 on 13-4-1987; and allotted sites to several applicants; and some of the allottees have also constructed houses; and thus the land has vested in B.D.A. and thereafter disposed of by B.D.A. to the members of public and therefore petitioner has no manner of right, title or interest in the acquired land after 1987.

(3.) The petitioner and his brother who was the owner of the remaining portion of Survey No. 52 filed W.P. Nos 9365 and 9366 of 1989 challenging the said acquisition and the said writ petitions were rejected by this Court by order dated 25-10-1990 (Annexure-R3) on account of delay and laches holding that the petitions have been filed four years after the acquisition, even though they were fully aware of the acquisition proceedings. This Court also held that as the objections filed by the petitioners had been fully considered by the respondents, there was no basis for petitioner's grievance. The petitioner and his brother filed W.A. Nos. 475 and 476 of 1991 challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 16-4-1991 (Annexure-R4) rejected the appeals on the ground that the petitioner and his brother had participated in the land acquisition proceedings and on the ground that there was delay of four years in challenging the acquisition; thereafter the petitioner filed O.S. No. 5228 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore and sought an injunction against B.D.A. from demolishing the houses existing in the suit schedule property. In that suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed. The Civil Court considered the matter and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to the temporary injunction sought and rejected the application on 3-2-1993 (Annexure-R5). Thereafter, the suit itself was withdrawn by the plaintiff. Nine days after the Civil Court rejected the application for injunction, the petitioner has filed these petitions without even disclosing the earlier writ proceedings and the original suit, making it to appear as if there were no earlier proceedings. Be that as it may.