- (1.) THAT the father of respondents No. 4 to 8, one Sri Buddappa @ Budda Reddy had filed a declaration under Section 61 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, henceforth in brief referred to as u. L. C. Act. That the respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commissioner had taken up the declaration filed by the above said Budda Reddy and held that he was holding an extent of 14,879 sq. mts. in Sy. No. 167/4, 172/1, 172/3 of Kothnur Village, Bangalore South Taluk, as an excess land beyond the ceiling limit and he therefore ordered to acquire the same by issue of notification under Section 10 (1) of the U. L. C. Act (Henceforth for convenience referred to as 'subject land' ).
(2.) THAT the Respondent No. 1 - State had issued preliminary notification and final notification for acquisition of the 'subject land' situated in Sy. No. 172/3 of Kothanur Village, Bangalore South taluk for the benefit of Amar Jyothi Housing Soceity. The said notification came to be challenged before this Court in W. P. No. 26693/ 1993 and finally that litigation had gone upto the supreme Court of India in CA No. 3011/1995 ;that arose out of SLP Nos. 11482-90/1991 and in the said SLPs, the Apex Court directed the respondent No. 1 -State to restore all the lands proposed to be acquired to the respective owners irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of the lands or not. It was also directed by the Supreme Court in the slps that the possession of the land to the respective landowners was subject to the condition that they all shall refund the amount that they have received as compensation for the lands proposed to be acquired.
(3.) THAT, upon that, necessary notifications came to be issued by the respondent No. 1 - State on 10-11-1995 directing Amar Jyothi Co-operative Society to restore the subject land to the respondents No. 4 to 8 subject to their paying back the compensation received by their father buddappa Reddy @ Buddappa during his life time, by way of compensation, a sum of rs. 2,69,125/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty nine thousand one hundred and twenty five only) to the respondent No. l - State, represented by the special LAO and accordingly, respondents No. 4 to 8 had paid back the said sum to the respondent No. l - State.;