MUNINARASAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the final notification issued by the respondent No. 1 bearing no. HVD 49 MNJ 78 dated 14-5-1980 in respect of lands bearing Sy. No. 97/2 situated at Challakere Village, K. R. Puram Hobli, bangalore East, Bangalore.

(2.) THE petitioner contends that he is the owner of the property in question having purchased the same under a deed of sale dated 8-3-1944. It is further contended that he had sold the said property in favour of one Kurian thomas under a deed of sale dated 24-1 -1980. It is further contended that Kurian Thomas has executed a General Power of Attorney as per Annexure 'f' dated 28-1-1995 in respect of the said property in favour of the petitioner and that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property from the date of the said Power of Attorney. It is further contended that since the respondents are trying to demolish the constructions made on the said lands, she has filed this writ petition for quashing the aforesaid final notification and for a declaration that the respondents do not have any power or authority for auctioning of the land in question.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent has filed its statement of objections. It is contended that the 2nd respondent had issued a preliminary notification under Section 17 (1) of the bangalore Development Act, 1976 (for short 'bda' act) proposing to acquire lands for a public purpose, namely, for the formation of a layout called "scheme Between Banaswadi and hennur Road (for short 'hrbr' layout ). It is further contended that the husband of the petitioner namely Galiga alias Galihanumaiah was the notified Khathedar of the said land. The 1st respondent had issued a final notification on 14-5-1980 and award was passed on 7-1-1983 and possession of the land was taken on 24-1-1986 and handed over to the engineering Section of the BDA. It is also contended that in the acquisition proceedings, kurian Thomas had filed an application seeking enhancement of the compensation on 5-10-1983. It is further contended that there is a long delay of 31 years in approaching the court for quashing of the impugned notification and that petitioner has not assigned any reasons for the delay.