K G PRABHAKAR Vs. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's father, it is said, purchased a site measuring 40' x 90' carved out of Sy.No.79 of Domlur Village during the year 1960, whereafterwards, the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, presently Bangalore Development Authority ­ respondent, acquired large extents of land including Sy.No.79 by issuing acquisition notifications under the Land Acquisition Act and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in LAC No. 176/1960-61 ­ Annex.C, noticing that the petitioner's father along with one K.Narasimhulu and another K.Venkataramana claimed ownership of land measuring 90' x 40', with a request not to acquire the said land, which was not conceded. Though in the award it is stated that it is not possible to identify the location of the 40' x 90' site in the entire extent of land in Sy.No.79, nevertheless the Land Acquisition Officer opined that it is a matter for a reference under Sec.30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court for adjudication of title to property. Petitioner submits that his father addressed an undated letter ­ Annex.D, stating that having come to know of the dropping of acquisition proceeding in Sy.No.79, sought for return of the documents of title, which was responded by a letter dt. 25/9/1985 ­ Annex.E (which is unreadable and it is not known as to wherefrom the petitioner obtained a copy of Annex.E, the custody from where this document was secured is not forthcoming from the petition.) Armed with these documents, petitioner made a representation to the Bangalore Development Authority seeking the status of the schedule property whence, by letter dt. 2/1/2012, the Bangalore Development Authority is said to have directed the Asst. Executive Engineer to furnish details, to which a report dt. 17/5/2012 is said to have been furnished following which the endorsement dt. 11/6/2012 ­ Annex.A was issued, stating that the land in Sy.No.79 is a civic amenity site, as reported by the Engineer and therefore land belongs to the BDA. Hence this petition to quash Annex.A and for a writ of mandamus to the respondent to convey the schedule site in favour of the petitioner. (Though there is no schedule to the memorandum of writ petition.)

(2.) ALTHOUGH learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father had knowledge of the fact of de- notification of land in Sy.No.79 of Domlur during the year 1970, nevertheless there is material wanting in the matter of placing on record the de-notification under Sec.48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1893. In the absence of a relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact, more appropriately the notification issued under Sec.48, it is needless to state that the knowledge of petitioner's father is not true, and cannot be accepted. Moreover a perusal of Annex.B ­ sale deed dt. 29/8/1960 executed jointly by Ramaiah and Muniswamy is in favour of K.Narasimhulu, K.Gopal and K.Venkataraman, the joint purchasers, conveying a site in Sy.No.19 of Domlur Village, while this petition is filed by a person claiming to be the son of K.Gopal. The contention that petitioner's father is the owner of the site and that the site is carved out of Sy.No.79 of Domlur, are far from truth. In addition it is not known as to the fate of the reference made to the Civil Court whence Rs.58,171.79p. was sent to the said court, under the Award ­ Annex.C. In addition, petitioner has furnished the encumbrance certificate ­ Annex.H1, for the period from 12/2/2003 to 31/3/2004 which discloses, nil encumbrance in respect of land in Sy.No.79 of Domlur village and not Sy.No.19, while the boundaries shown therein do not tally with the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed ­ Annex.B, so also is the encumbrance certificate - Annex.H2.