"'9
9'
» ' S E)'
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNAT_==§.KA AT
DATED Tms ml: 16"'-' DAY OF 0cT03ER%_:;303%'A--T.ILj . : " u.
BEFORE
THE HUMBLE .411aJUsr;ctgfs. AEp:rL :3
mmTPET1rgQA*.N0.15§gggg_a g1,{_zi4;'a'.2i4g.
as. Ramamani, V
Wfolate Dr.K.R. Sz;:'yaa1araj§?a11a Iy§:r,.'4 ' "
Aged aboutél ye;-'_irs,f;1;~~' V ' V
ma No.4}6,R}v1'V"'2'fd:$iageg V L
Bangaiore. ' 5__ ' ' .. Petitioner.
(BySri Refiben . '
And: A A H "V
I T'.§:eState of
_i}£>pa1fm1€:g1t of Urban-«fievelopznaexmt,
% % _ M.S."Buil_din.gs,
' 'D1: ' Veedhi,
. '«Bang2lfir¢_ _ 991,
' A its
_» The~~Bai;aga!ore Develepmem Aufl1erity,
_ ' .. Saxflcéy Road, Kunlaza Paxk West,
J " _ Béirgalere M 560 @203
._ Rapid. By its Connnissioxier.
3 The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangaiore Development Authority,
Sankey Road, Kumara Park West,
Bangalore -569 020. it
(By Sri M. Keshav Reddy, AGA for R1 i
Sri Ravi G. Sabhahit, Adv. for R2 atid R3)
omn-
This Writ Petition is 22'7"ot' the
Constitution, praying to quash the 'ordere.de;te'd 3gL4.,;ZQO"?..passed by
R3, etc. V _
This Writ Petitien C§)i2ti23g:'3n_€fdt Prelimixjérgfiearixag in 'B'
Group this day", tlleféieiuft jizeeie tt1eVfeiiewi;:;g:..V '
iiii it
The peti-tiefier purchased 8500 sq. ft.
ef land in Sy.No. .VofvI,ettefige3,tei1einli village from the iegai heirs
Oficne t:31derV.ia'i"r'eg£ete:"ed sale deed dated 6.2.1998. It is
the."t:aseV"uf 1the"f:eti.tixmer that since there was a threat of
{ijgpossessiéfi officials of the second respondent, she filed
C3.v§.’Nes.648/1997 and 715531998 against the second
has ebtained an order of temporary injutiction
V’ the second respondent firom dispessessing her from the
{:3
“K
property in question. It is further contended that
pendeney of the said suits, at the behest of the petitioriei; :Stzite– _ it it
Government has sent 3 letter to the 7;’
7. £01999 suggesting the second respondent to~oomide1{eli~otxnent.w3
of the said site in favour of the seiéond
respondent did not of the State
Government, she filed Court in
W.P.Nos.46I9 and to the second
respondent to by the State
Government question in her favour. This
Court by its the second respondent
to the filed by her. In terms of the
.C’iio4i;1r.t,_’the second respondent has gassed an order
at AnfieXiire«i’A’:’irejeeiinn her application for allotment of the said
wsiiVte_. Petitioner”—iras’ ealled in question the said order in this writ
S’:-n W
Rules made theretznder. Therefore, second respondent is right
rejecting the request: efthe petitioner. . »
5. I have earefixiiy censédered {he arguments made ‘ ‘M
learned Counsel at the Bar and perused the
recerd,
6. It is the ease of the petifiener ‘purchaeed the
property’ in question by a deed ofsafie the legai
heirs of one Patalappei ft«!i9eiz1_the.’materia§ en record that
the leads £11 questienee have V2i.*fea._eiy. acquired by the State
Gm*emrnen’t<;a1i<Ie.hax?e iraneferred to the second respondent
e23;rlierv':te« fizgehase by the pefitioner for development in
a£eerd:i13ee'T'.__3ei{h 'f§r'ai%?isiens of the Act and Rules made
V ;gi§:ei'eunder. "The~.fifiotifieaiien under Sectien 16(2) of the Land
already been issued on 3957,1987. Petitiener
.§_:et gfxrjedsieed any material to Show that the iands have not been
' .._féeete§i''£x?§th the Bangalore velepment Aetherity earfier to the
K1
date of her purchase. The third respondent after examination of the __
acquisition records has rightly come to a conclusion that the lands-~
are vested with the second respondent eariier to the ~£i1:ét"£€V "
purchase by the petitioner. Therefore, the purehase 'oiadeii.
petitioner subsequent to the vesting' is .ti:.ei it
respondents. The State Government, thetefore, eaen.ot–..di1feoit*;it}ie"
second and third respondents Vttnxallot;iteoz1traty"'to"'the
provisioras of the Bangalore Dexzeiopmieiitii and the
Rules made thereunder.' gu3:iiuittedi'iii33? ,i',I_i1§:fieii£!1116d AGA,
a careful peruaal oi' State Government
shows that it eoiziiiiuiiieatioe sent by the Under
Seeretary»»toitiie.Staite and not a direction referable to
of ffhe being a statutory authority having
forzniiiated sc§:ieuteViii§iv'aecerdanee with the provisions of the Act
and obtaiioeziiflie approval of the State eannot deviate from
seheme exeept in the manner provided under the Act. The iand
by the State Governrnent and made over to the BDA
' V .__V T t1:~ua"specifie purpose ofexeeuting the approved scheme and such a
\a
t
land has to be utilised by the BDA strictly in accordance ' vi' -1~ ii
provisions of the Asst and the Rules made thereiinder. It "is V' ii
settled that a pubiie body invested with statutnryipowiere. te i i:"p_ * 'i
care not to exceed or abuse its pewers.'iIt"'m;1st Reef)
limits ofthe authority committed tq it.
7. Learned Counsel _1’fi)r._ti1e éliow any
statutory provision is i Jeiifi;ii0w’ered to
regularisefallet except pointing
out the letter ifinder Secretary to the
State Govermrient. the Act, the Government is
enebiegi to ii)’ th.e__BDA as are necessary or expedient
for vQLii.4Q€t§§§”t}3:¥i}i1″§}GS€S (}f the Act. If the power of the
‘-{3:€}vem;ziienti”iis exrétiieliie to direct the BDA to carry out the
..i§i1r;;eses ef the certainly a –direetien in disregard cf the
pfesgrision cannot be issueri. Such a direction is not
H in law. Therefere, it eamiet be argued that the ietter at
ij3§’:;§}$i:’:§&’§3r€ ‘D’ is in the nature of a directicm ender Section 65 efthe
\x.
as
Act. Since the property is vested with the secend respondegxt; A4
cannot be aiiertted to the petitioner contrary t9 the pravisioazstif ._
Bangaiere Development Authority Act
thereunder.
8. Having considered the dr:*.3i1;~–.I’»r.;15’~nQt find any
merit in this writ petitien. It is acceréifigig! disrnisééd. “chats.