Commissioner v. Bangalore

2. Shri Munihanumaiah Aged about 65 years Son of Late Munishamappa Both residing at “Sri Vinayaka Nilaya”, Lakshminarayanaswamy Temple Street, Amuruthahalli, Sahakaranagar Post, Bangalore – 92. (By Shri. R.Nataraj, Advocate ) AND:

Bangalore Development Authority Kumarpark West, Bangalore by its Commissioner. …PETITIONERS 2

The Additional Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore Development Authority Bangalore. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri.A.M.Vijay, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2) ***** These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned endorsement issued by the Respondent No.2 dated 03.01.12 vide Annexure-C. These petitions coming on for hearing, this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they are the owners of land measuring 1 acre, in Survey No.27/2 of Amruthahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, of which, 20 guntas was notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BDA Act’, for brevity), for the 3 formation of Arkavathy Layout, by a notification dated

23.2.2004. It is the claim of the petitioners that out of land in Survey No.27/2, an extent of 20 guntas was left out of acquisition since there was a house and other structures standing thereon and what was sought to be acquired was the land adjoining the house and the structures. The land proposed to be acquired under the notifications was not suitable for formation of the layout by the respondents. It is also pointed out that the surrounding lands, namely, land in Survey no.37/5 on the eastern side, has already been deleted from the acquisition proceedings. And further, a residential colony for the under-privileged was on the western side while the northern side is an area of land in Survey no.37/2, which is deleted from the acquisition proceedings and the land on the southern side, according to the petitioners, is under active consideration by the respondents for deletion from the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the land sought to be acquired of the petitioners is an island, which cannot be integrated in the layout, 4 even if the same is acquired and hence had sought for deletion in line with those lands, which were directed by the apex court, to be deleted from the acquisition proceedings in similar circumstances in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy vs. Bangalore Development Authority,(2010)7 SCC 129 and therefore, the petitioners having made a representation to the authority, to consider their case for deletion of the land in question, the respondents have issued an endorsement to merely state that the petitioners’ land having been included in the final notification for acquisition, could not be considered for exclusion from the acquisition proceedings. It is that endorsement, which is sought to be challenged in the present proceedings.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that there is no indication that the respondents have applied their mind to the circumstances of the case and unless there is consideration of the petitioners’ case, the petitioners would be subjected to arbitrary treatment, as similarly placed persons have 5 obtained the relief at the hands of this court and therefore, would seek similar relief being conferred on the petitioners and appropriate direction being issued to the respondents.