KRISHNA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority.

(2.) The petitioner is said to be the owner of the land bearing No. 41/3 measuring 14 guntas of Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District. The said land was the subject-matter of acquisition under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 by a preliminary notification dated 15-12-1984 and the final notification dated 28-11-1996. It transpires that the petitioner had acquired the land under a registered partition deed dated 25-1-1971. In fact, the property in question had been allotted to his share as well as his brother Ramaswamy Reddy. The petitioner's brother Ramaswamy Reddy had died issueless and the petitioner was his sole successor. The respondents had thereafter issued the notifications for acquisition for the purpose of formation of layout called "Between Hosur Road and Sarjapur Road Layout (HSR Layout)" and the petitioner's land was shown in the final notification at SI. Nos. 216 and 214 respectively. In spite of the land having been acquired, the respondents have not developed the said extent and the petitioner had made a representation seeking issuance of No Objection Certificate to develop the property as the scheme had been abandoned insofar as the petitioner's land was concerned. He had also sought clarification as to whether possession had been taken by the BDA pursuant to the final notification. An endorsement was issued to the effect that no award had been passed and possession was not taken in respect of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in respect of the petitioner's land, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) Sri C.R. Gopalaswamy, the learned Counsel for the BDA has filed statement of objections to contend that the assertion of the petitioner that there is no need of the petitioner's land by the BDA is incorrect. Since there were many pending litigations in respect of the adjacent lands and the same not having been included in the development that had taken place in the rest of the land cannot be a ground to contend that the BDA has lost right over the land in question. Writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 4279 of 2007 (LA-BDA) (B.M. Ramachandra Reddy alias Chandra Reddy v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2014 1 KarLJ 436), in respect of another portion of Survey No. 41/3 and other survey numbers. When that petition was pending, the authorities had conducted a survey and prepared the sketch also in respect of the entire extent of land in Survey No. 41/3 which also includes disputed property. Further, an extent of 41/2 guntas of land in question was already utilised for formation of road. Therefore, the petitioner's assertion that the land is not required as part of the layout that is developed is an incorrect assertion and the delay in utilising the land is only on account of pending litigation and therefore, seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.