R. Sridhar vs The Bangalore Development Authority

K.L. Manjunath, J.—These appeals are filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petitions in WP 24394-96 of 2012 dated 13-6-2013.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

According to the appellant, he is the son-in-law of one Jayanathan, who was said to be the owner of revenue site bearing No. 28 formed in Sy No. 40/1 of Gavipura village. He had purchased the said site from one Mariyappa under a registered sale deed dated 9-9-1960. Sy No. 40/1 of Gavipura village was acquired for formation of a residential layout by the then City Improvement Trust Board [CITB] in the year 1964. In all, 214 acres 21 guntas of land situated in Sunkenahalli, Nagasandra, Gavipura and adjoining villages were acquired and the final notification came to be issued on 22-4-1964.

According to the appellant, the aforesaid lands were acquired under a re-conveyance scheme and that the revenue site holders were entitled for allotment of same sites or alternative sites. It is his case that his father-in-law Jayanathan died on 3-7-2003. From 1964 till the death of Jayanathan, nearly 39 years, he did not make any application for re-conveyance. After the death of Jayanathan, the appellant obtained a power of attorney from the legal heirs of Jayanathan and made an application in the year 2007 before the Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] to re-convey the site which was standing in the name of his father-in-law, which application has been rejected by the BDA. Challenging the legality and correctness of the endorsement dated 26-6-2012, issued by BDA vide Annexure-A to the writ petitions, the writ petitions came to be filed.

The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the land in question was acquired in the year 1964 by the then CITB for formation of a residential layout and the owner of revenue site Jayanathan lost the ownership over the same and from 1964 till his death, Jayanathan did not make any application for re-conveyance and even thereafter his legal heirs did not make any application for re-conveyance. After four decades of the acquisition of the site, the appellant has filed an application in the year 2007 and therefore the learned Single Judge declined to consider the case of the appellant-writ petitioner. Accordingly, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not see any error committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches, for the following reasons. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the final notification came to be issued in the year 1964 and the appellant, for the reasons best known to him, has not produced a copy of the scheme said to have been framed by the then CITB to know under what circumstances re-conveyance can be granted to persons who lost their land or revenue site. Admittedly, the father-in-law of the appellant Jayanathan till his death did not apply for re-conveyance of the site in his favour. He died in the 2003 i.e. 39 years after the acquisition of the property. Even nine years after the death of Jayanathan, his legal heirs have not filed any application for reconveyance. Now, in the 2007, the appellant is trying to get the site re-conveyed, 43 years after the acquisition proceedings were over. In such circumstances, if the writ court declined to exercise its discretionary power only on the ground of delay and laches and in the absence of a copy of the scheme made available to this court, this court, even unable to examine the case of the appellant in order to find out whether the legal heirs of Jayanathan or the appellant herein can make an application for re-conveyance after 43 years of completion of acquisition proceedings.

Thus, viewed from any angle, there is no merit in these appeals. Appeals are dismissed accordingly.