AJAY S/O SUKUMAR Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to be the owner in actual possession of lands bearing Sy.Nos.21/2, 21/3, 20/2 and 20/1 of Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, totally measuring 5 acres 6 guntas. In these writ petitions, petitioner, apart from challenging the notifications acquiring these lands, has sought for a declaration that the acquisition in so far as petitioner's lands are concerned, have stood lapsed as per law.

(2.) Facts briefly stated disclose that preliminary notification was issued on 03.02003 under Section 17(1) of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, 'BDA Act'), notifying the lands for acquisition for formation of Arkavathi Layout. Final notification under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act was issued on 23.3.2004. These notifications were challenged in W.P.No.20235/2004. This court passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo. It was urged in the writ petition that petitioner was discriminated against, in as much as, lands of his immediate neighbours who were similarly placed had been excluded or dropped from the acquisition proceedings. As per judgment dated 15.4.2005 in the case of SHARADAMMA & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, (2005) ILR(Kar) 3710, this Court quashed the notification. This Court found that there was arbitrary inclusion and deletion of lands and the discrimination was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Writ appeal filed against the said order was disposed of on 25.11.2005 in the reported case viz., COMMISSIONER, BDA & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY & OTHERS, (2006) ILR(Kar) 318. The Division Bench, concurring with the finding of widespread discrimination in acquiring the lands, granted liberty to the land owners including the writ petitioners to file application before the BDA within 30 days seeking withdrawal from acquisition on the ground of discrimination and certain other criteria. BDA was directed to consider the said application within three months from the date of receipt of the application.

(3.) As per the direction issued by the Division Bench, petitioner filed an application on 212.2005 before the BDA seeking exclusion of his lands from acquisition. Petitioner urged that his lands were similarly placed as that of his neighbours which had been excluded or deleted from the acquisition proceedings. He gave the examples of Sy.No.19/1, 19/2, 20/3, 18/3, 17/1A, 17/1B, 24/2, 25/3, 25/4 & 33/2A which were the adjacent lands or lands situated in immediate vicinity of petitioner's lands, but had been excluded or deleted from the acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, a request was made by the petitioner for deleting his lands from acquisition. In the meanwhile, petitioner filed SLP(C) No.5415/2006 before the Apex Court. This was clubbed along with SLP(C) No.4318/2006.