SMT VIMALA v. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

(BY SRI. B VACHAN.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IMPUGNED FROM THE RESPONDENTS. QUASH THE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7026 WP No. 708 of 2022 NOTICE PROVISIONAL DATED.12.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE R-2 ANENXURE-A AND ETC. ORDER/SNOW CAUSE THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the provisional order /show-cause notice dated 12.01.2022 as per Annexure-A that was issued by the respondent No.2 in excise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, (for short 'BDA Act') calling upon the petitioner to show cause on or before

14.01.2022 as to why an order of demolition of structure put up by the petitioner on the petition schedule property should not be made.

Case of the petitioner is that; (a) one A. Munireddy was tenant of the land forming part of Sy.No.256 measuring 3 acres 3 guntas along with 3 guntas of kharab land. Tenancy rights in respect of the said land was conferred in favour of said A.Munireddy who had formed the residential layout consisting of various sites of different - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7026 WP No. 708 of 2022 dimensions. That petitioner had purchased one such site bearing New Municipal No.19, PID No. 88-141-19, 9th 'B' Main road, forming part of said land in Sy.No.256, Munireddy Layout, HRBR 1st block, Banaswadi, Bengaluru. (b) The aforesaid land in Sy.No.256 was subject matter of acquisition by the respondent- BDA in terms of notification dated 21.03.1977 for the purpose of formation of a residential layout known as "Banaswadi Road and Hennur Road". That a declaration has been issued under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act and award had been passed. It is contented, however the compensation has not been paid to the owners of the land. (c) When things thus on 05.03.2015 representatives respondent- BDA came near the property of the petitioner and threatened forceful eviction of the petitioner, constraining her to approach this court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.10716-10779/2015 which writ petition was allowed holding the acquisition have been lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent-BDA has preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.3487/2021 which was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7026 WP No. 708 of 2022 allowed by the Division Bench of this Court. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approach the Apex Court by filing a Civil Appeal No.22529/2021 which resulted in dismissal

01.04.2022. Amidst this respondent-BDA has issued the impugned provisional order in excise of its powers under sub- section(1) of Section 33 of the BDA Act.

2. Sri. Prithveesh M.K, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issuance of notice /provisional order as above is one without jurisdiction in view of the consistent orders passed by this Court in the case of Sri. Periyandavan vs. The Bangalore Development Authority W.P.Nos.38306-308/2011

12.10.2012 W.P.No.1315/2012 disposed on 19.02.2013. He submits if at all the respondent-BDA intends to take any action it has to be under the provisions of The Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

Sri. B.Vachan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-BDA does not dispute the aforesaid factual and legal aspect of the matter with regard to the tenability of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7026 WP No. 708 of 2022 provisional order passed under sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the BDA Act. He submits that the respondent-BDA has already initiated action under the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 and an order of eviction has already been passed. In view of the above, the question raised by the petitioner in this petition would not survive for consideration.

At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has questioned the proceedings initiated by the respondent- BDA under the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974. However, he submits that the present provisional order may be formally set aside for the limited extent by keeping open the contentions to be urged by the parties before the appropriate forum with regard to proceedings which have already been initiated and concluded by the respondent-BDA.