AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. - The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 3 acres 3 guntas at Survey No. 49/3 of Gorave Bovi Palya Village, Hongasandra Dakhale, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. His grievance is that after the issuance of the preliminary notification dated 20-6-1991 (Annexure-B), no further proceedings have taken place and that there is no implementation of BTM Layout V Stage for which project the lands in question were notified for acquisition.
Sri K.G. Sadashivaiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issues raised in this petition are fully covered by the decision of this Court dated 27-9-2012 passed in W.P. Nos. 25286 and 25287 of 2012 (Annexure-H).
Sri G.S. Kannur, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 submits that the BDA has already recommended to the Government for the withdrawal of the land from acquisition by passing a resolution on Item No. 230 of 2007 in the meeting of the Board of BDA held on 31-10-2007. He submits that the resolution came to be passed because the permanent structures have come up in the area in question and consequently it is not feasible to form the housing layout.
Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent 2 on being asked as to whether any decision is taken on the BDA''s recommendations, he submits that the decision is yet to be taken.
Admittedly, in the instant case, after the issuance of the preliminary notification, no further proceedings have taken place. The final notification is not issued, award is not passed and the compensation amounts are not disbursed. The beneficiary of acquisition, namely, BDA itself has formed the considered view, on holding the spot-inspection, that it is not feasible to form the layout in the area in question. Considering all these aspects of the matter, this Court has allowed the petition of the similarly placed persons.
As held by the Apex Court in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others through Power-of-Attorney Holder v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others 2012 AIR SCW 6343, even under valid acquisition proceedings, there is a legal obligation on the part of the authorities to complete such acquisition proceedings at the earliest and to make the payment of requisite compensation.
In the result, I dispose of this petition declaring that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands in question have lapsed and the provisions of Section 36 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 have become inoperative.
At this juncture Sri K.G. Sadashivaiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner''s application seeking the approval for the formation of the layout is pending consideration before the respondent 2.
If that be so, the respondent 2 is directed to consider the petitioner''s application, if any pending, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of two months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today''s order.