Bangaiore~560 001. 2. T he Bangalore Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, K.P.West. Ba1'1ga1ore»~560 020. 3. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Rep. by its Commissioner, N.R.Square, 1 Banga1ore»~56O 002. 4. Sri kengal Hanumanthaiahf Hostel Trust (R) ' Rep. by its Secretaryj C.Ra;rn.ar1nagowda,' No.273, 2UdMa1'n R--o_ad_, 2 2nd Stage, West of Chord Road, Banga1ore-86.. 5. Sri B.S,Veerai_ahs'warny_V, _ _ S/0 Basavaiiaiah A Aged laboult 833¥:§Jea1*s,'----_ N014 1, 491' 61?? Main,_' Rajajinagar, ' " _ Banga1ore-- 10.. " " ...RESPONDENTS (Srig K:esh.ava__VReddly", AGA for R1; Sri P.S.Dinesh " _ Adv. for/s.Ranjaswamy 8: Assts., Adv. for V R3; Sri P..S.lf&/ianjunath, Adv. for C/R4) ._ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227201" .the'3-Constitution of India praying to quash the . realiotinentl dated 18.8.2004 and also the renewal of . leasedaied 4.6.2007 Vide AnneXure--Z issued by the R2 ' x on imaginary boundary. 2' This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, .2 the Court made the following: 3 ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the
renewal of lease dated 04.06.2007 executed in
respondent No.4 by the second respondent.–¥V_:l’Eang’alo’:fe’
Development Authority. Petitionerspgare V’
the preliminary and final notifications
and 18.11.1967 and also the
Act under Section 16, VA pg _ _ .. ..
2. It is the case nfthe; ppetitioncrgs that husband of
the first petitione_r, la’te’*B;V granted land
to an ac:re.Vlclon1pri’sed in Block No.1V of
Sy.No.:’1_€314l_ ‘ Village,
Yeshvvanthiapurarn Bangalore North Taluk as per
‘2-;”§–‘«1’=’ November 1960. Petitioners 2, 3
children of late I-3.V.Yellappa. Their
that without issuing notice to late Yellappa
and Witliout providing any opportunity to him, the
.’Ain1p_1;igned acquisition proceedings have been initiated
c ating in the final notification dated 18.11. 1967 .
4
3. It is their further case that late Yellappa having
come to know about the acquisition proceedings,-i’nade
a representation allegediy on 22.01.1969
the Chairman, CITB, Bangalore informing
notice of the said acquisition %Js}*ats”‘ie~su.ed.;«to”‘h_i1fn*~andi
that he was the grantee of the to
acre comprised in He his
address for this
representation ‘did ‘tti’afttdo-urable action,
another seeking
grant of the value of 1 acre
of land Rs.Hao,ooo/–. It is the further
case ottthe “though the possession of the
acquiregd land V_ ‘Was ‘ taken and a notification under
came to be issued, out of the total extent
guntas acquired as per the final
notification published, only an extent of 20 acres 39
it ., gutnasfltwas shown as acquired and taken possession of.
therefore contended by the petitioners that the
Wportion measuring 1 acre belonging to the petitioners
was neither acquired nor taken possession of and it
it
6
enquiry and rejected the application. On appeal, the
Deputy Commissioner having set aside the order has
ordered for resumption of the land and restoratio.n~.._of
the same to the petitioners. In this baCl–;grloun’d .
submits that the land in questionthas cc;ntinu’edll’t’oV4_”be K V’
Vacant land, owned and posses’secll_l
and the Bangalore Development Eithority notch
have allotted the v.sa’n1e of fourth
respondent. Reliance the judgment
in STATE OF
HOUSING AND
BANGALORE
reportelclaipn 295. He has reiterated that
asggon’ date; izoglayout is formed and therefore no third
party has come into continue except that of the
who has been sought to be illegally
way of the impugned allotment and the
2 .. lease deed.
5. Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the Bangalore Development Authority, taking me
through the statement of objections filed submits that
kn
as is clear from the final notification issued as back as
on 18.11.1967, the entire extent of 30 acres 34 guntas
comprised in Sy.No.16i has been acquired. This was
followed by an award passed by the Land
Officer on 18.11.1967. Copy of the awardis ~
along with the statement of objections llsecond if
respondent as Annexure-R3.
compensation is determinedv.,.4inrespect –of”‘v_:the:”lanld in”
question and it is not,’open”‘forp:’the._petitioners at this
distance of time to cliall’en_ge. acquisition
proceedings, }.vh.ic’_l1 have 1: a t.tainled.j_fi.nality.
Sri ‘ learned counsel for the
fourth supported the acquisition
allotment made in favour of the
1’cu_rth:”‘v4respontient by the Bangalore Development
Authority.’ 5
.. , 7′;*’HaVing heard the learned counsel for the parties
careful perusal of the entire materials, I find no
it ‘”legal substance in the challenge made to the acquisition
proceedings. The acquisition proceedings were initiated
«W
8
as back as in the year 1964 by issuing a preliminary
notification dated 02.03.1964. This is followed by the
final notification dated 18.11.1967. Even in
notification, entire extent of 30 acres ‘
mentioned. Thus, on issue of thefinal
total extent of land in sy.No.1é1 been
Award is also passed by the Acqt1_is1’tio”n on it
18.1 1. 1967.
8. A perusal of AnneXure–
R3 along it ilobjections by the
Bangalore-vD’ev5e’1o’p:nent.VpAuthority’£makes it clear that in
respecttof of land, Valuation is made
and the y’a.lue , said portion is arrived at
‘¥V.”‘As”regards the remaining extent of 9
acres_35_’gi§in,ta-s, as the same was occupied by the
inhabitan.tsli:’§–of: the viiiage known as Voddarapalya or
3-e,_”Bovipaiya1- located in the same land therefore possession
p”‘doe.s not seem to have been taken of the said portion of
land which was occupied by the Villagers. However,
“bias regards the land granted to the grantees including
late B.V.Yellappa, there is specific mention in the award
if
9
with regard to the determination of compensation
payable to them. The name of B.V.Ye1lappa is shov-.r_i_1 at
S1.No.6 in paragraph-10 in the award and
to be entitled to compensation to an extent 1 V
is also observed that compensation”of_
Gopal Naidu, Srinivas, B.V.Ye11appa and
w/o B.V.Ye1lappa will be paid”i’to”them’after the
up to date encumbrances It is
thus clear thatthe have been
completed paward} épassedljédetermining the
of 1 acre of land
which .1 ellappa. Though the
notification ;.Section 16(2) of the Land
Aeqyg;is’ition V. 10.12.1998, mentions that the
an extent 20 acres 39 guntas is taken
in any manner, help the petitioner
-V to 1 acre of land belonging to him is neither
ig.,a(:quired nor taken possession of. Such an inference is
– iiiriperxnissible in the wake of the award passed and the
1′ Wcloritents thereof. Therefore, it is not permissible for the
petitioner to contend that entire extent of land was not
%,
.10
acquired or taken possession of and that petitioners
land falls outside the purview of acquisition.
9. The Judgment relied upon by
counsel for the petitioners, has no re1eVa_nce_”to pfaeets ._
and circumstances of the present case; As “is c_1eare_fromp’
the narration of facts m.ade;h,ereinabove, the entire ljjland
is acquired and the award of the
land which is takenI-.._.poss–ess-ion’~._ot'”including that of
B.V.Yellappa.
counsel gpetitioners that the name of
B.V.Yeilappa been mentioned in the
prelipaiiiiaryll and the said Yellappa having
heard in the matter, the entire
lacl’qu_isitio’n.pijoceedings are vitiated, it is to be observed
V -V that had the knowledge of acquisition as back
the year 1969 and admittedly, he had made
— repreisentation to the authorities bringing to their notice
” “the absence of his name in the preliminary notification.
He also sought for payment of compensation asserting
£6”