ANATHA SHISHU SEVASHRAMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs : -

(2.) The petitioner having lost many of the battles either in the Civil Court or before this Court has filed this present petition seeking the above reliefs. The acquisition is questioned on the ground that the scheme has lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act and further the award which is passed by the LAO is not in conformity with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act inasmuch as after the approval of the State Government, no fresh award has been passed. To appreciate the controversy in question it is necessary to go back in time. -

(3.) The petitioner, Anatha Sisu Sevashrama was established during the year 1943-44 as a public charitable society and was accordingly registered under the Mysore Societies Registration Act. The main object of the Society, according to the petitioner, is for providing boarding and residential accommodation besides educational facilities to the destitute children, orphans and women belonging to the weaker section. Having regard to the nature and work of the Society, the then Government of Mysore, granted a land measuring 25 acres 20 guntas at Sy. No. 1 of Jarakabande Kaval, Yeshwanthapura Hubli. The said grant of land is on 25th March 1957. The petitioner society claims to be in possession of the entire land admeasuring 25 acres as on today. Suffice it to say that pursuant to a preliminary notification dated 16-11-1977 an extent of 1505 acres and 26 guntas and final notification dated 30th August 1979, reduced extent of 786 acres and 10 guntas was sought to be acquired for the purpose.of formation of housing layout which is popularly known as Nandini Layout. Objections were invited, some of the land owners filed their objections and they were overruled and a final notification was issued on 30th August 1979. Thereafter, an award is also passed on 4-6-1985. The petitioner's land was also notified for acquisition. Since possession of the land was sought to be taken, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 3551/1989. It appears, the said suit was for bare injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application for ad interim injunction in respect of the entire extent of 25 acres 20 guntas of land. The Trial Court initially granted an interim order in respect of the entire land. An application was maintained by the Bangalore Development Authority, respondents 2 and 3 for vacation of the same. In the said application, a specific contention was taken that the land in question was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority and possession has already been taken. This factual aspect was supported by the documents for having acquired the land and for having taken possession. Having regard to this fact, the interim order of injunction stood modified and it was confined insofar as the structure on the disputed land but however, insofar as the vacant land was concerned, the temporary injunction stood vacated. This order was the subject-matter of appeal in MFA No. 149/91. This Court having regard to the contentions urged was of the opinion that the order of the learned trial Judge does not call for interference and summarily dismissed the appeal. The petitioner before the institution of the present suit, O.S. No. 3551/89, he had filed another suit in O.S. No. 10488/85. In the said suit, the petitioner had maintained an application for ad interim injunction but however, the said injunction order stood modified holding that it is open for the respondents 2 and 3 to form roads. This is one set of facts on the civil side.