COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court appeal is filed by the appellant- Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) under Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dtd. 1/3/2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.991-992/2013 (LA-BDA).

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a writ petition seeking to issue writ in the nature of mandamus to the appellant not to enforce the scheme called "Jayaprakashnarayan Nagar 8th Stage" as against the petitioners land bearing Sy.No.31/8 measuring 2 acre of Kuthnur Village, Uttarahalli Hobil, Bangalore South Taluk, declaring that the acquisition has lapsed. The appellant filed objections to said petition contending that the acquisition proceedings is concluded by passing the award, taking possession of the land in question and the compensation amount is also deposited. The learned Single Judge under the impugned order allowed the writ petition by declaring that the scheme has lapsed insofar the petitioners' land is concerned on the ground that there is enormous delay in drawing the mahazar and passing of the award from the date of final notification. Being aggrieved, the BDA is in appeal along with an application seeking for condonation of delay of 2162 days in filing the appeal.

(3.) Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-BDA submits that the appeal is filed along with an application seeking for condonation of delay of 2162 days in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to the administrative and procedural reasons within the BDA. It is further submitted that the writ petition was allowed on 1/3/2014 and the advocate appearing for the BDA did not inform the BDA about the disposal of the matter and when the law Sec. sought the update of the case from the advocate, it is noticed that the writ petition was allowed and immediately instructions were issued to prefer an appeal, hence, there is delay. It is also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is unintentional and for the bonafide reasons as stated in the affidavit. It is contended that the acquisition proceedings were completed by taking possession and passing of the award; the learned Single Judge has erred in declaring that the acquisition is lapsed insofar as petitioners land is concerned. It is further contended that there cannot be a lapse of acquisition proceedings under Sec. 27 of Bangalore Development Authority, Act, 1976 (for short, 'Act'). The lapse of acquisition referred under the Act is with regard to the scheme and not a particular land and appellant-BDA has good case on merits. He seeks to condone the delay.