IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1 1*" DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A A 1
WP. No.27523 0fi?%00$:A4('1;A;1§31*jA}.h: * 'A
BETWEEN:
Sri. Hfiurumurthy,
S / 0. late Hanumappa,
Aged about 65 yrs.,=._ _ ._
R/at. Gururathna Bricks 1~"'-ai:t0ry,"'-
Near Srinidhi».Lay0uAt*,'--~..f= A A ~
Kothanur viiiage, V_ __
Doddakani1aséi_1_dra:p0st, :13
Bangalore
V """ SA:':::V- V' ._ HPETITIQNER
(Ey V' Adv. for petr.]
AND', A A A A
' ".ABan.g"a1;)re I)eve1opme:1t Authority,
_ Rep. by its--.C0mmissi0ner,
._Kumar_a' West,
\. - = RESPONDENT
n (By s£%;:.v.Y.Kumar, Adv. for respondent.)
K)
This WP. is filed praying to issue suitable writ,
order or direction to denotify the schedule property under
Sec. 48 of the Land Acqn. Act as the petitioner, is in
possession of the property which is fully built up Zieaying
no scope for any further proceedings in the rnatter””.,of
acquisition, etc. L” 5 i~
This Writ Petition coming on _for»..
hearing, this day. the Court, passed the foilovvingz V
oRDERaT”l’eie
In this writ petition, petitioiier is Vseeking ayidirection
to the Bangalore Dey_eloprLien.tianthority ‘(therein after
referred to as SBA for the schedule
proper;tyas’ contained in Section 48 of
the as the land in question
continues to be’~in possession of the petitioner and the
is”ff1iliy_ leaving no scope for any further
rproceediéngs acquisition. A direction is also sought
aga’jnst..__cthe«:”BDA to drop the proposed demolition of the
iresidential buildings, labour quarters and the factory
‘ bniiding built on the schedule property.
Petitioner claims that himself and the members of his
family including his brothers have continued to be in
possession and enjoyment of the land Sy.No. 157/’5, In
this writ petition, subject matter is
measuring 1 acre 4 guntas, as described .in”the?Vpetition_._p
with specific boundaries.
4. Learned Counsel for 4the”‘Vpetitioii.er’
that, as the petitioner has coliistruvctioin in this
portion and as he is there, and further,
as the BDA hasnot demolition of
the re:sidentia1″”‘ii’ou’se’s’xand’ the factory will not in any
manner further of the BDA and that it will only
upetitio.n_e_r,and his family into deep crisis.
Cionnselplftirther submits that under the provisions of the
is competent to examine the grievance
‘aupmade the petitioner and to allot such of the portion of
‘~:lf’thel’p_roperty where construction is put, in favour of the
petitioner himself. He draws the attention of the Court to
%E/
Sec.38~C in this regard. He further contends that since
the possession is not taken over, the BDA.__ can
recommend the Government for clenotifying the
5. From the petition averments it
such application is filed by thevpietitiorier-:
the BDA or before the Governrnent. _’T;h:e” ‘Co'”t.inse1*i.p
appearing for the BDA, that
there is no immediate Aithreatnof ‘videijn_o’iition of the existing
premises in the petition”s_c1ieeia1e’Vproperty as no such
steps are
the above, the appropriate
course. for u”the=petit’ione1’ is to move the authorities
. it “”seeking7’either denotiiication of the land or for allotment
A of the’ticvo’iistrn’ct.ed portion in accordance with law.
Féesewing such Iiberty, this writ petition is
:”disVpos.e’d of. In case the petitioner files an application in
–7i:egard before the competent authorities, the
authorities, I am sure will take expeditious action to take
note of the grievance made by the petitioner.
IU93E
mgn/~