\J g 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009
BEFORE " '
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN SHANTAj$lAt$OVObkQ§
WRIT PETITION NO.13o56"OE 2008 .(A«!k;.fi'.\jOE~f?&V>{fl< A
BETWEEN:
J ayaprasad Shetty
S/0 Thimappa Shetty P.S.
Aged about 68 years .
Prasad Residency. 13/.'__1.'Z'r
Income Tax Layout ' VA E _
Vijayanagar. BavngaIrOe;4_1VO_V._ V __ EV 1 ..;."Pet.itioner
[By Sn' KN. '&%y'a:isfia1:: I§1'egd.é. Advs.,)
AND
1.
The’A_d”d1_%. Lana’1OAcq’u–:§it;5n
Off)’ Cer;-. _VBangalore_ De,»-‘e1()pn1ent.
_Au1,hori1y.v-.BEmga10re.
‘V ” .2;”” The’OC(iVi11n1issione1*
‘ ” .. Barggaioré V Development Authority
CE1(5wgi’aia~hV.R()ad, Bar1ga1orew20.
Ka’i§hj’:1Eippa
R./O.)/alaggerahalli Village
Age__1’vIaj()r
A’ ‘*~._Kenge1″i Hobh’
* _I;3ar1ga1ore~56O 060. ..Respor1dents
I J
x
{By Sri L. Umakanthan. AdV.. for R1 & R2;
Sri Tayaz Khan. Adv. for R3)
This Writ Petition is filed Lmder Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constii.ui,ion of India praying to (tail for the_..records
pertaining to LAC No.28/2000 from the Court of II Ad_d’iiional
City Civii & Sessions Judge, Bangaiore and after-‘:e>;a’ini’i1ing
the same. ” C” C’ is
This Writ Petiiioh COf}1iI1–‘” on for )1’elin’1ih’a Vhearih ‘in
£3 I _ W ._ C ._
‘B’ group this day. the Court made the 4foll:)\ving~:f~
03bEaCS
The judgment ‘
LAC.No.28/2000 b;§f~:.he Cityllcivil and
Sessions Judge, ::lCa–‘1’l~e.lcil~’,:’i1_:i._C-lquestion in this
writ ”
2.”Petitioher’.iVa2s}n;iient’*of 11″ guntas. situated at Valagerahalli
‘ ;lViIlag;§,§?’,’~Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. He has
property from one Sriram through. a
registerehd sale deed dated 9.12.1981. After the said
,purchase, the name of the petitioner is mutated in the
lgrevenue records in respect ofthe property in question to
V
an exterit; of 1 acre 33 guntas. The encumbrance
certificate also stood in the name of the petitioner till
207.2003.
4. Petitioner questioned the .
proceedings before this Court ,
the final notification was ‘qéuaslied ‘won. ll”19’.:’iie;._l9’T-34.
Thereafter, the BDA on_c’e._aga’iI1 isslt1ed{.’v«-t.he–wi firial”
notification on 6.10.1997__..aiC:quirir1g.lt’he_larid of the
petitioner. Orice } petitioner filed
wP.No.727/199$ beforeifthis._flCVonV»rt.:land by the order
n
dated ‘ Court quashed the final
r1ot,ificat’io_n the writ petition reserving the
1ibe§rt:yl”to fresh declaration and thereafter
‘ ;a’r1,oL1»1eriioliification dated 11.10.1999 is issued by the
‘V issued public notice and the lands are
acouiredand the possession is taken on 25.5.2000 for
A_format:ior1 of Jnanabharathi Layout. According to the
lgpetitioner, in the final notification dated I 1.10.1999. the
M
land of the petitioner was not found and consequently,
he did not Challenge the said final notification.
However, BWSSB started interfering with the possession
of the petitioner over the property
Consequently, the petitioner filed
before this Court. The said of C
by recording the undertalring of i,
enter upon the land of th_eHClpeVt1t.1xone’r”ziiitihout following
due process of law; filed a suit in
O.S.No.6251/2003 a-gai.ri:stthe__pe’tvition’er for permanent.
injur1Vetio’n..i:n resipeet’*of the _”prope1*ty in question. In the
meanwhile. reVenue*–ent.ries are changed and the name
of the pet’it’,i_oner deleted. Thus, the petitioner filed
pV\tl5,N»os.33’75-t5;3v76/2004 before this Court. In the said
this Court directed the revenue
a’u,__thori’t.ie.s to redo the matter after hearing the parties
,,eonee1-‘tied by setting aside the changed entries.
C KCVS-uiisequentiy, the Tahasildar as per AnneXure–B, dated
wt
_ 7 ,
have been made a party in LAC.No.28/2000. The
petitioner ciaims that he is the owner to an extent of 1
acre 33-guntas out of the extent of 2 acres 10p*’g.untas.
There cannot be any dispute that the
should get the compensation. In”
compensation is disbursed ghasddépeh the in I
LAC.No.28/2000 to the third ddiesdpoiideni.:a’nd ‘odthefap
then the petitioner will bé=,§’ut_to viiiredparahiie loss, so
also the BDA, iirasmucih :«._Vit.:'”c.annot recover the
compensation from thVe:d’o.28/2000, if
ultiniatdelyatheddipetitioner succeeds to show that he has
got the ..–the compensation. In View of
the_ above; »t.his’*. Court under an extraordinary
pju-risd’icti’o.i1 to quash the impugned award
City Civil. Court, Bangalore, in
As the petitioner was not a party
Apbefodrelthe LAC.No.28/2000, he cannot even file an
‘ gddappeal questioning the award. In View of the same, the
‘R,/’\