AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The facts are that the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in physical possession of property bearing Survey No. 120/4 measuring 24 guntas of Gottigere Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is said to be the ancestral property of the petitioner and that the petitioner has acquired it under a registered partition deed dated 6.2.1990. The revenue records were in the name of the petitioner from the year 1990-91.
It transpires that the BDA had notified various lands, including the land of the petitioner, under a preliminary notification dated 17.3.2001, under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''BDA Act'', for brevity) for the purpose of formation of ''Further Extension of Anjanapura Layout''. Subsequent to the issuance of the preliminary notification, the petitioner is said to have filed objections to the acquisition. The BDA thereafter ignoring the objections raised by the petitioner, had issued a final notification dated 7.2.2002. Though no possession was taken of the land of the petitioner, a notification u/s 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''LA Act'', for brevity) is said to have been issued on 15.10.2004 and it was notified that even the petitioners land had been taken possession of, which is incorrect and misleading as the petitioner had continued in possession.
It is in this background that a representation was made to the second respondent seeking that the acquisition proceedings be withdrawn insofar as the land of the petitioner was concerned, in view of the adjacent lands having been denitrified. There was no action taken on the said representation. It is however pointed out that inspite of the final notification dated 7.2.2002, the land has remained in the occupation of the petitioner and the BDA not chosen to implement the Scheme and therefore it is contended that the Scheme not having been implemented, has lapsed in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act.
It is on this assertion and the further assertion that the possession was never taken, the Counsel for the respondents was called upon to make a submission as to the extent to which the Scheme was implemented, if at all.
The learned Counsel for the respondents would, on instructions, submit that out of total extent of 52 acres, that was subject matter of acquisition, only an extent of 11 acres has been developed and formed into 201 sites and that rest of the land has not been developed. This would endorse the claim of the petitioner that the Scheme has not been implemented at least in respect of the petitioner''s land is concerned.
Further, it is not also established that the possession of the land was taken by producing necessary documents. Though it is indicated that a notification u/s 16(2) of the LA Act has been issued, there is no other document such as mahazar, to demonstrate that physical possession of the land had been taken, except the self serving declaration on the part of the BDA coupled with the circumstance that there has been no further development on the land in question. Consequently, the Scheme would lapse in so far as the petitioner''s land is concerned and the acquisition proceedings stand quashed.