BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYKAR Vs. KUMARAN CHILDRENS HOME
LAWS(KAR)-2017-10-152
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on October 17,2017

Bangalore Development Authoritykar Appellant
VERSUS
Kumaran Childrens Home Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SURYAPRAKASH V. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MEGH SINGH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. KUSHAM JAIN AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
NAZIR AHMAD V. KING EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT VS. SUBHASH SINDHI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY [REFERRED TO]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [REFERRED TO]
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS. MANAV DHARAM TRUST AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B. S. Patil, J. - (1.)These appeals are directed against the order dated 07/06/2016, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.20193-20194/2016.
(2.)Learned single Judge has held that the acquisition proceedings have become inoperative and have stood lapsed insofar as the land bearing Sy.Nos.28/6 and 28/7, measuring 1 acre 13 guntas and 13 guntas respectively, situated at Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli. These lands among other lands were notified for acquisition vide Preliminary Notification dated 17/11/1988 for the purpose of formation of J.P.Nagar 9th Stage Layout. This was followed by Final Notification dated 22/07/1991.
(3.)The main contention urged in the writ petition was based on the judgment rendered in similar case vide W.P.Nos.11022-24/2011 and other connected matters [Gautam Kamat Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bangalore Development Authority] disposed of on 08/08/2011, wherein the learned single Judge held that possession of the lands in question was indeed not taken over by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The assertion made by the BDA in the said case, to the contrary had been negatived on the ground that the mahazar drawn was not in accordance with law and that there was total inconsistency regarding the date of taking over possession as stated in the mahazar as "30/05/1998" and the one mentioned in Section 16(2) Notification as 10/05/1998. In addition, the learned single Judge has found that identity of the mahazar was not ascertainable because, the mahazar contained only signatures and not any particulars of the mahazar witnesses. Learned single Judge has also pointed out that the scheme had not been substantially implemented inasmuch as out of total extent of 241 acres 20 guntas of land acquired in Doddakallasandra Village, only 12 acres had been utilized and that at all stages, BDA was negligent and lethargic in implementing the scheme.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.