SRI P MANOHAR REDDY Vs. THE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1 acre 5 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No.68 of Banasavadi village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, belonging to the petitioner has been illegally and unauthorizedly utilized by the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, 'BDA') for the purpose of formation of outer ring road of Banasavadi. Petitioner and his brothers have been representing to the BDA requesting them to allot equivalent alternate land, but the respondent has not responded to the request. Annexure-A is the copy of the representation dated 20.07.2007. Petitioner followed it up by other representations.

(2.) BDA has acknowledged the fact that 1 acre 5 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner was utilized for formation of outer ring road without any acquisition. Indeed, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, vide his note dated 20.06.2015, after conducting joint spot inspection clearly noticed the factum of utilization of the land by the BDA and recommended the case of petitioner for allotment of alternate land/sites. This is evident from Annexures-B & B1 - note sheet and the proceedings maintained by the BDA.

(3.) Indeed, based on the recommendation of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the matter was considered and in similar cases decision has been taken by the BDA to grant 50% to 100% equivalent land/sites in favour of land loosers. In para 136 of the note/proceedings of the BDA, reference is made to the decision taken on 04.07.2006 in the meeting of the authority in Subject No.2/2006 for allotment of 75% of land utilized. This is found at Annexure-C. The same was not given effect to subsequently. Though this decision was taken on 21.07.2015, petitioner was not allotted the alternate land. But as regards similarly situated persons, BDA had allotted 100% alternate land. Some such instances have been narrated by the petitioner in paragraphs 5 to 8. However, as regards petitioner, though there was recommendation and indeed approval for allotment of 100% alternate land, respondents have not taken any steps in that connection. Indeed, petitioner wants to rely on the opinion of the Law Officer of the BDA dated 27.02.2016 in support of his contention that a decision had been taken to allot 100% developed land. In the above circumstances, aggrieved by the inaction of the BDA in not allotting the alternate land, petitioner has approached this Court.