'1
1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 26TH "DAY 0? MAY 2c::)'03Cf _
BEFORE
THE HGNBLE l\¢£R.JU8T':IAC1i):"E?£!L:'4I;f.II--.i " X J. [ 'T
WRIT P§j§'I'l'ION Nq.518{3 émféoos A'
smrwsmr: V' .' t
1. Madan Lalflothra, j
S / o.Pu;nam Chand B0f1?:ra.,. '
Aged about 52 years, T V j '
R] at C-302, Osizar ()1ft;i3;a:-€163, " .
Sahakar Naga1';««.l3 %'mga§org2. ..
2. Piyush Bcithray --. , ;
S/o.Madar1.VLa13E3Qthra','V *
Aged *a§é'ut yt:Lé=;r'::_. '
R] at'-.C-3_(}2, I
Sahakar Nag-clr, Bas:1ga1o'r-r;,
3. Mantu Agéuwal, V
S/9'.K::sa_r Deon Agazwal,
zx._.g«i.':<3 abeut 52
" A VRVf.:at Miizxm:-:_swa1*a indusuial Estate,
' §§ea,d,--. _Pecx1ya,
gsgggaicrg --we 053. PETITIONERS
(B}rAEvf£_'V/ 3. I11c., Advs.)
_' »_'I'h_t9:"Ba'nga1o1t Qevelopment Authority,
Bygits Cemmissioner,
.4 Dr; Tchowdaiah Roaci,
Kumara Park West,
" Bangalore - 569 020. RESPDHDENT
;-,
_. 3/ _
This Writ Petition is fiieei under Articles 226 85 22?»-ot'.the
Constitution of India praying to direct the Ieepoodeot"to"-a§.iot'=.a
site measuring 40 X 60' each to the petitioners in _
Layout, Bangalore or any other developed Layout 'a:-.=-per the '
resolution 26.06.1984 vide Subject No.384_.~pa.$eed"».by them. i
respondent.
This Petition coming on for
the Court made the fo]1owi:ng:~ V
oaoefi»
3.. Petitioners are in the
nature of mandamus the”.1ivre’e1%oi1deet~Ba11ga1ore
Development oliiot a site measuring
40 X 60′ to eaeh {I Stage, Bangalore or in
any otheriitieeeloiigd peritheiiresolution passes} by the
em on 2£$’..oe…1934VVViei
2. It is the of. theiipetitioners that the EDA acquired vast
iiex£enti:.oii’1:a:1d”for rofmaecn of Layout called ‘Raj Mahal Vilas’ Ii
“2335; the owners of the land obstructed for the
i acq1iieitio11v_ geroeeedings and for carrying out the work of
i”o1fmatioz1Vvo’f Layout on the grounci that the compensation
was totally inadequate. When the BDA found it
to proceed with the formation of Layout, there was a
eetflement arrived at between the BDA and the Government on
the one hand and the owners of the land on the other. The
()5/.»
__:§__
dispute, it is urged, was resolved by passing a reso1uVtio!n._Von
26.05.1984 by the EDA to the effect that the ownersoi’ _
will hand over possession of the Iand to the 2.
the compensation already fixed anci::.A_the:..i3A{T3A’
measuring 40 X 60′ free of cost to t1i€2._if:i.’1d owiiexs ,
representatives for each acne of – . urged by the
petitioners that more jlettem wereiiissued by
the EDA to various the resolution
passed. It is that one
Mr. Krishna of the land owners had
to the respondent-
BDA letters in favour of the
petitioners fwere. hisihominees. A copy of the said
J”1epresieiit2;tio:i.i. is produced at Annexure-A. As this
not cohsidered, the petitioners have
i it appioaiehedi seeking a Writ of mandamus.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in
circumstances several aggrieved persons had
i’ ,..,jiVieippi?oaehed this Court and a Division. Bench of this Court was
ipleased to dismiss their prayer holding that the resolution
passed by the EDA was ineffective. However, the said persons
had approached the Apex Court and the Apex Court by order
….,5§…..
dated 23.09.1996 allowed the appeals and the
EDA shall deliver the possession of sites to
therein and to those simflaxly situated persons…
order passed by the Apex Court is ptfodueed at 2b!’L3C.1′}’CtC’)'(‘i3tVI’f3__”-V(‘;,:: o it i
is also further submitted thatswrheri ‘t’*oe”‘BDA
with the directions issued, a which
came to be dismissed after fleiiegséry affidavit
stating that the order was’ case of the
petitioners is VGPA holder of the
land owners.’ after his death the
nominees nominated by
the saidiolia allotment from the em have
pusued _tl:1e ti.zatterpV§3efo_re”~’fl1e EDA and when {to action was
V’ apptoaels-ed their Advocate in the month. of
for legal advice, whereupon, they were
similar matters were disposed of by this Court
lvxgsihereixz diteefions were issued to the respoI1dent~BDA to aiiot
A ~._Henee, they contend that they have taken steps to fiie
this vsrit petition. £11 support of the said plea, they have
u”,pi”oduced the copy of the order passed by this Court in Writ
on Nos.6763-6?65/ 2002 disposed ofon 16.09.2084.
*5-
43». Upon hearing the learned counsel for the
on careful peruse} of the materiais placed on reco1§;§,”itA_
that the petitioners have approached this so “tee
enforce their rights, if any, which ate ‘at
dated 26.06.1984 and on the ;ass_ertio1ii._ttIat
holder from the original owners _V1a11t’i’-1:::s_Vii’ii1oii2;inated the
Fetifioners herein to sec1ife.. under
the said resolutiori. No fV:vpro1iiie§e;ii.Vbefore this Couxt
to show that iGPA holder of the
original to get the benefit
under traeiiigflihis right under such GPA,
he had the BDA seeking allotzeent
of sites._ his Iifetiiitie, Mniitishna had not taken any
;”to:_—asseArt Petition avennents disclose that
‘ifa the year 2005. Though it is urged that a
m.15re’éents:iofi_ teas given on 21.01.2003 by Mr. Krishna, Why he
“did not take any steps to pursue the said representation or
A his right, if any, dunlng his fife time by approaching this
Within a reasonable time is not expiajned in the writ
it petition. The petitioners who claim that they were nominated by
deceased Mr. Krishna to secure the benefit otherwise available
under the resolution gassed in the year 1984, to have also not
tr
….6….
approached this Court Within a reasonable time
nomination. Though it is urged that the petitio_iie1*e.V_’vu§etn; “so
nominated as back as in the year 2003, the petition b
is filed only on 10.04.2008 seeking dieeoiioe …a0A ”
to consider the xepresentation sites;”V’i- l
5. No such direction can be at of time to
the BDA. The judgment—-tfende;ted.V– “Court in Writ Petition
Nos.6763~6765/2902 diepoe_e–d on””’15’.’09;20o4 produced in
Annexure-F petitioners who are’
not diligent 1:e,;ici:_:”i;iieioieei:”iei_e rights. Petitioners
therein in the year 2002 and the
Writ petieoe’–iteee,eeis_lloie§oeeo of 013. 26.09.2004. Petitioners
are appmactiing decades after the alleged fight
‘*accr*i1ed its their nreiieoessors for allotment of sites. If any
eoiigigt is issued, it will certainiy have a far reaching
efi”eC:__t’li11a*».Vr:in.gl: to the long lapse of time, as the BDA may
. “not be in la position to allot any such sites having regard to the
of the sites soaring sky high during this period.
Tfierefore, this writ petition is Iiable to be dismissed solely on
it the ground of delay and latches on the part of the petitioners.
There is absolutely no acceptable expianation for such delay in
0*
“2
approaching this Court. Hence, the mfief sought be
granted. Writ ?sti%;ioI1 is therefore dismissed.