AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and the learned Government Advocate. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of land bearing Survey No. 8, which, initially, was sarkari gomal land and it was thereafter renumbered and resurveyed and the petitioner claims to have been cultivating the said land for several decades through his ancestors. It transpires that the BDA had notified various lands including the petitioner''s land for formation of the Banashankari VI Stage, vide Preliminary Notification dated 15.11.2000 which was followed by Final Notification dated 21.8.2001.
It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner''s cultivation of the land is being interfered with and therefore, the petitioner has questioned the acquisition proceedings, on the footing that neither the State Government nor the BDA would have any claim over the land with reference to yet another notification issued on 10.9.2003 wherein the petitioner''s land did not figure and therefore, would submit that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated on account of the petitioner''s land apparently having been deleted from the acquisition proceedings and there being interference with his possession even thereafter.
However, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the BDA that there is misconception insofar as the notification dated 10.9.2003 at Annexure-L, which does not pertain to the acquisition of land for the formation of the Banashankari VI Stage and it is in respect of further extension of the Banashankari VI Stage and therefore, the absence of the petitioner''s land therein is not unusual. It is further stated that insofar as the acquisition proceedings in respect of Banashankari VI Stage is concerned, the same is stopped at the stage of Final Notification as there was objection raised by the forest department of the State Government as to the lands in question being within the Reserve Forest Area and hence no further steps have been taken in respect of the acquisition proceedings.
The petitioner, in any event, had sought for no objection from the BDA insofar as the cultivation of the land is concerned as there were no further proceedings pursuant to the final notification issued. The BDA, in turn, has issued an endorsement to state that the petitioner would have no right to cultivate the same as the same is said to be forest land.
It is that which is in challenge in the present proceedings.
Since the BDA has not proceeded further insofar as the acquisition is concerned, there is no scope for considering the validity or otherwise of those acquisition proceedings. They are premature and redundant at this point of time. Insofar as the petitioner being denied the right to cultivate the land is concerned, it is admitted that there was opposition by the State Government for the petitioner''s cultivation of the land as it was said to be Minor Reserve Forest area. In this regard, the petitioner claims to have filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 2221/2006 before the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, which has been decreed in his favour after contest. Notwithstanding the same, there being further interference by the State Government, according to the petitioner, he has even filed a writ petition which is pending consideration. Notwithstanding the decree of permanent injunction in favour of the petitioner, it is stated that the State Government, through the competent authority has issued an eviction order u/s 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, on the footing that it is forest land and in respect of which, writ proceedings have been initiated in WP 31572/2011 which is pending consideration. There is however, an interim order in favour of the petitioner therein. Hence, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies in the pending writ petition, if any.
The present petition is closed with an observation that the BDA has not chosen to proceed further pursuant to the final notification and hence, there is no cause of action for the petitioner insofar as the acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act is concerned.