K KEMPARAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 21-2-1998 where by the competent authority/assistant Commissioner (Land Acquisition), after considering the matter on merits, rejected petitioner's application for regularisation of unauthorised construction on the land in question. The competent authority has mentioned that as per the report of the Land Acquisition Officer of the Bangalore Development Authority that the land bearing No. 3/1 of Saneguruvanahally had been acquired for extension of West of Chord Road, III Stage as per award dated 3-2-1978. The authority has taken the view that notice had been issued to the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 29-1-1998 and the same was served on him. He attended the enquiry. Documents have been examined and in view of Section 4 (viii) of the Regularisation of Unauthorised constructions Act, 1991, there is no power and provision for regularisation of unauthorised construction on the land acquired by any authority or local authority. With these observations, the authority had rejected the application. Petitioner contended that the order dated 21-2-1998 is illegal as the unauthorised constructions were covered by Section 3, and his case was not covered by Section 4 (viii) of the Act No. 29 of 1991. Section 3 of the Act No. 29 of 1991 reads as under:

(3.) THUS, considered in my opinion, the petitioner's contention placing reliance on Section 3 is without merits. As far as Section 4 (viii) is concerned, Section 3 has excluded the unauthorised constructions which are covered by Section 4 (viii) or those covered by Section 4 shall not be regularised. Section 3 will not apply to those which may be said to be covered by Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 mandates that "following unauthorised constructions shall not be regularised" namely unauthorised constructions made on the land belonging to or vested in any local authority. In the present case, the land is one vested in the local authority. Therefore, the unauthorised construction that has been made cannot be regularised in view of provisions of Section 4 (viii ). The order has been passed on 21-2-1998 and that had become final. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this order impugned dated 21-2-1998 passed in case No. BDA (LA) 721 of 1997-98 (Annexure-K) may be quashed in view of the notice Annexure-L dated 23-2-1998 to which my attention has been invited by the learned Counsel on the basis of which the learned Counsel contended that the authority issued a notice to the petitioner to prove his right on Sy. No. 3/1, to which petitioner filed his reply. Once the authority had considered and passed the order rejecting the application holding that regularisation cannot be done in view of section 4 (viii) of the Act, authority ceased to have jurisdiction to entertain any fresh application and to pass any order issuing notice unless it could be shown that there is any specific provision authorising review. No such provision has been shown by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No benefit can be acquired by the petitioner on the basis of this notice dated 23-2-1998.