Sri Parushappa and Others vs The State of Karnataka and M/s. Vijaya Bank Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Though 3rd respondent is served, it has remained unrepresented. The subject matter of these writ petitions is 31 guntas of land in Sy. No. 109 situated at Billekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is contended that though acquisition proceedings have been initiated by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for acquisition of the said land for the benefit of the 3rd respondent, possession of the said land has not been taken so far. R. Aswathanarayan, the predecessor in title of the petitioners had made an application to the 1st respondent seeking de-notification of the land u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act''). On the basis of the said application, the 2nd respondent has sent a report to the 1st respondent as per Annexure-C dated 17.8.2005 stating that though possession of the land has been taken, the 3rd respondent has not developed a layout in the said land.

The contention of the petitioners is that possession has not been taken so far u/s 16(1) of the Act. Therefore, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the application seeking de-notification of the said land.

The learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the 1st respondent has already issued notification u/s 16(2) of the Act. It is further contended that petitioners have not produced copy of the application said to have been filed seeking de-notification of the land.

I have carefully considered the arguments made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties at the Bar and perused the material placed on record. As rightly submitted by the learned HCGP, petitioners have not produced copy of the application said to have been filed before the 1st respondent seeking de-notification of the land. Whether possession has been taken or not is a disputed question of fact. The 1st respondent has to consider this aspect after verification of the records. Therefore, petitioners are permitted to make an application before the 1st respondent for appropriate reliefs. If such an application is filed, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the same in accordance with law after verification of the records and after due notice to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.