.1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT. BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 09'?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE RAM MOHAN A'
WRIT PETITION Nos.12268--76/2o1oIBD--A}' fjj G'
BETWEEN:
1.
SR1 R. SHNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
SR1 RJAYARAM _
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
SR1 RSE .S." A
AGED ABOUT59 YEARS _ j;
SRIZR.' _
AGED A'BOU'"f541 ._ -
SR1 RQSAMPANGTRAMA-----SV»*AMY
AGED ABOUT 51,
..... .. 9
« _AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
. MA}\j§J'{jI;<ATH
' AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
SRL R. .KGDANDARAM
AGED. ABOUT 31 YEARS
." R. GOPALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
" ALL ARE SONS OF
LATE SRLRAMASVVAMY AND
RESEDZNG AT RAGHUVANAPALYA
ANJANAPURA POST
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI.
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
- 2 -
BANGALORE ---- 560 062.
...PETITIONERS
[M/S.SRINIVAS AND BADRI ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)
AND
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TCHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK EAST
BANGALORE - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
(SR1 A.D.VIJAYA, ADV. ]
'A
THESE PETmONs FILED
227 OE CONSTI'I"U'I'ION OF' INDIA PRAY]?-JG TOQIIASH
ENDORSEMENT DATED ' _ '*-3o.o1;:2.o1o_ soj2~.--o2.--'10}- = '
NO.B1:)A/s.L.A.O/A4/P.R/392/O9,lo VIEE "A}iNE2§URE--B,
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT...._
‘I>E’-nT1O’Ns”‘: COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY H:EA_R1NO..jE>…_GR()UP THIS DAY, THE COURT
MALOE -THE 1g’OLLUWING.:u ‘
“ORDER
gjljetgtioneiilelll claim to be the owners of land
-acre each in Sy.No.29, 30 and 31 of
Raiglafuvailapalyla village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South
zacfijuired under notification dated 22.7.1991 by the
A rlxiespoildent — Bangalore Development Authority, for short
formation of J.P.Nagar 9111 Stage layout.
Whereafterwards, BDA secured possession’ of the land on
26.5.1998. The Land Acquisition Oificer having drawn up
an award, referred the matter to the Civil Court for
N
-4-
judgment when carried in W.A.No.3i0O/2003 by the
Bangalore Development Authority, a Division Bench of this
Court by order dated 18.7.2005, Anr1exure–D. dismissed the
appeal on the premise that in the absence of mate1?ial..to
establish that the writ petitioners in response togthej
under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition,_Act.’l’_had*l 9
resisted the act of taking over possession
entitled to a consideration of their application thelisaid V
Scheme. up __
4. There is considerable Vforciev-in”–~the contention of the
petition.ers’evtliat.’the§ye’.too.V> are’. entitled to the benefit of the
order of._th’e. as aflirmed by the Division
Bench.
facts of the instant petitions, there is no
A”inateflai=to._estabiish that the petitioners were put on notice
under sgacuafiis of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. or that
VVp”the.ppetitioners resisted the act of taking over possession by
_ it Even otherwise, the BDA having taken possession
% ..o.f;the land has formed the layout of sites. in that View of the
it matter. it cannot be said that the petitioners had resisted
dispossession from their lands.
xi
– 5-
6. For the very same reasons as assigned by the
learned single judge in the order, Annexure–C, and afiirmed
by the Division Bench, AnneXure–D, these petitions deserve
to be allowed and are accordingly, allowed,’
endorsement dated 30.1.2030 (2.2.2()i0),
rejecting the petitioners’ claim for al1o’iment_o.f.
the Scheme is quashed. Respon(ientb–‘l3p1}_.s’l”‘.ypis:éypdirectédwit
consider the petitioners application in of5theV”Sché§1rie,
as expeditiously as possible, in event”w_itl’1i1?1 aiperiod of
two months.