AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan Shantahagoudar
Learned Addl. Government Advocate Sri. K Krishna, is directed to take notice for respondent No. 1.
Sri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
The petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the representations vide Annexures-B and D dated 9.1.3005 and 17.1.2012 respectively, keeping in mind the conclusion reached by the Apex Court as well as Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, and connected matters (The Commissioner, Bda and Others vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary & Others) reported in ILR 2006 KAR 318. According to the petitioners, their lands bearing Sy. Nos. 105/10 and 105/4A measuring 1 acre 16.8 guntas situated at Jakkur village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengalore North Taluk are acquired for the purpose of formation of Arkavathy layout Certain of the land losers approached this Court questioning the acquisition notifications. Acquisitions were upheld by this Court by the decision in W.A. No. 2426/2005 reported in ILR 2006 KAR 318. The matter was taken to Supreme Court in C.A. No. 4097/2010 and connected matters, which came to be dismissed on 5.5.2010 with certain observations. Said judgment dated 5.5.2010 is reported in Bondu Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, . While confirming the acquisition notifications, certain directions/observations were made by the Supreme Court in addition to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court Therefore, such directions made by the Apex Court and this Court have to be followed by the respondents. According to the petitioners, they are also covered by such directions of the Apex Court and the Division Bench and therefore representations need to be considered.
The question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of directions issued by the Apex Court as well as Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, and connected matters (The Commissioner, Eda and Others vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary & Others) reported in ILR 2006 KAR 318 or not, is to be decided by the respondents based on the fact situation. Therefore, this Court does not wish to comment anything on merits of the matter.
Suffice it to direct the respondents at this stage to consider the representation filed by the petitioners vide Annexures-B and D dated 9.12.2005 and 17.1.2012 on merits and in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, and connected matters (The Commissioner, Bda and Others vs. State of Karnataka by its Secretary & Others) reported in ILR 2006 KAR 318, as early as possible.
Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of.