D.M.JAGADISH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of 2 acres 20 guntas of land comprised in of Dasarahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. Out of the same, an extent of 2 acres was notified for acquisition for formation of Arkavathi Layout by the B.D.A. as per final declaration published on 23.02.2004. This acquisition was challenged by the father of petitioner in W.P.Nos.45695- 97/2004. The writ petitions were allowed quashing the acquisition. On appeal in W.A.No.2624/2005 and connected cases disposed of on 25.11.2005 (reported in ILR 2006 Kar.318), while upholding the acquisition, several directions were issued to the B.D.A. with regard to the need for excluding the sites of owners from the acquisition. In paragraph 106 (1)(D) the Division Bench held that the landowners were entitled to the following reliefs:

(2.) It is clear that if the extent of land acquired consists of total built up area as per (i)(b) above and/or the lands of the land-losers are similar to the lands adjoining their lands which are not notified for acquisition at all are permitted to make application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and produce documents to substantiate their contentions within one month from the date of its order, whereupon the B.D.A. shall consider such request keeping in mind the status of the land and in the event B.D.A. comes to the conclusion that lands of those persons are similarly placed, then the B.D.A. shall exclude those lands from acquisition.

(3.) Pursuant to this direction, petitioner has made an application within the time prescribed, that is to say, within 30 days urging that lands abutting the lands had been excluded from acquisition and the petitioner was also entitled for exclusion of his land from the acquisition, B.D.A. rejected this application by issuing an endorsement, dated 17.06.2006. This was challenged by filing W.P.No.13198/2006. The said writ petition was allowed quashing the endorsement issued by the B.D.A. with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to conduct spot inspection and redo the exercise. Admittedly, B.D.A. has not reconsidered the application and has not passed any order. Though spot inspection was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer, he did not pass any order in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench which was reinforced by specific direction issued by the learned Single Judge later. Eventually without complying with the directions issued by this Court, final notification was issued including this land from the acquisition. This is how the petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the omissions and commissions of the B.D.A.