LAWS(KAR)-2017-7-161

M.P. GUNDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On July 19, 2017
M.P. Gundappa Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sl. No. 124/2 measuring 2 acres situated at Nagadevanahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The said land was notified for acquisition for the purpose of formation of Jnanabharati Layout. Preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of Bangalore Development Authority Act (for short, 'the B.D.A. Act' ) was published in the Official Gazette on 19.01.1989, followed by final declaration issued under Section 19(1) of the B.D.A. Act on 19.01.1994. Copies of the notifications are produced at Annexures-B and C respectively. Though in respect of adjoining lands award was passed, in respect of land in question, no award was passed.

(2.) Petitioner's contention is that during the year 2005, officials of respondent-BDA wanted to take over possession of the land without passing any award and without paying any compensation. Noticing the interference, petitioner filed O.S. No. 9227/2005 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru City. The suit was contested by the BDA. The Civil Court passed a judgment and decree dated 01.10.2010 decreeing the suit for injunction thereby restraining respondents 1 and 2 herein from interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession of the suit schedule property till he was dispossessed by adopting due process of law. Copy of the said judgment and decree is produced at Annexure-D. Name of the petitioner is found in the revenue records. Copy of RTC for the year 2013-14, which is produced at Annexure-A2 discloses that both in Column No. 9 and Column No. 12 of RTC extract, name of the petitioner is recorded as khatedar and anubavdar.

(3.) It is urged by petitioner that as the respondents have not taken steps to complete the acquisition proceedings by passing an award and taking over possession, the acquisition proceedings stood abandoned insofar as the land in question. It is further urged that petitioner has not received any notice as contemplated under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') till the date of filing of writ petition. It is also contended that without following the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, respondent-BDA appears to have passed an award antedating the same making it to appear that award had been passed on 20.12.2013 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre for dry land.