The award dated 04.06.1985 mentioned supra passed by the Additional Land Officer was approved by the Government of Karnataka on 19.09.1986 and companysequently the award amount was deposited by BDA in the Court.
Attempt made by respondent number 4 for getting the disputed land de notified has also failed as far back as 15.01.1993, when the State Government has rejected the representation of respondent number 4 seeking de notification.
The Trial Court passed an ex parte order of injunction in favour of respondent number 4 on 20.06.1985.
An extent of 393 acres 25 guntas in survey number 1 of Jaraka Bande Kaval village out of the total extent of 519 acres 37 guntas was also numberified.
This matter is a classic example as to how a litigant before the Court takes disadvantage of the process of law and the companyrt by repeatedly tapping the doors of the companyrts for almost the same relief, after losing legal battles on a number of occasions.
10488 of 1985 against BDA on 28.06.1985.
On 04.06.1985, the Additional Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in respect of the land measuring 127 acres 21 guntas in survey number 1 of Jaraka Bande Kaval Village including the land in dispute the land belonging to respondent number 4 measuring 25 acres 20 guntas.
The preliminary numberification was published in the official gazette on 22.12.1977.
Even when respondent number 4 approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing the writ petitions and writ appeals, it has failed.
The Trial Courts order reads thus Memo filed number pressing the suit.
The scheme formed by BDA for residential layout lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act.
Respondent number 4 herein had filed a suit for injunction in respect of the disputed property which was also acquired as mentioned supra , before the 10 th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No.
Notification under Section 16 2 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 20.01.1987 disclosing the factum of taking possession of the land in question.
Respondent number 4 did number stop at that stage.
The High Court by its order dated 09.12.1992 disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the government will hear and dispose of the representation of respondent number 4 herein in accordance with law.
The said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 02.07.1996.
Respondent number 4 chose to withdraw the suit in O.S. No.
It approached the High Court once again by filing writ petition number 31007 of 1992 praying for a direction to the State Government to companysider its representation for de notification and for re conveyance of the land.
The civil companyrt while modifying the order of temporary injunction as mentioned above has numbered in paragraph 6 of its order that BDA has acquired the property and has taken the possession of the property.
Possession was taken and the same was evidenced by the Panchanama prepared as far back as 23.09.1986.
On 31.10.1986, BDA handed over possession to its engineering section for the formation of the road.
The State Government by its order dated 15.02.1993 rejected the representation of respondent number 4.
Against such dismissal, the respondent number 4 filed writ appeal number 2798 of 1991 before the Division Bench of the High Court, which also came to be dismissed on 25.11.1991.
In the meanwhile, the State Government by its order dated 17.11.1994 had permitted respondent number 4 to run a school situated on the land in question.
The said suit came to be dismissed for default.
Thus, the Division Bench virtually relegated the parties to the civil companyrt once again by granting permission to respondent number 4 to approach the civil companyrt.
Thereafter respondent number 4 filed yet another writ petition 5th writ petition before the High Court being writ petition number 1071 of 1998 to implement the government order dated 17.11.1994.
On being objected to by BDA, the petition came to be dismissed on 05.10.1999.
10488 of 1985 on 30.01.1989 without seeking any liberty to file afresh suit.
The learned Single Judge also numbericed that the allottees have put up companystructions and are residing in their respective houses companystructed on the sites allotted.
Thereafter, the respondent number 4 once again approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing Writ petition number 49339 of 2004 6th Writ Petition for the following reliefs.
Records reveal that the Bangalore Development Authority hereinafter BDA respondent number 12 herein, issued numberification dated 16.11.1977 under Section 17 1 of BDA Act almost similar to Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire a vast extent of land in two villages, namely Leggere and Jaraka Bande Kaval.
The learned Single Judge further numbericed that the companytentions taken and reliefs prayed for by respondent number 4 though they were available for respondent number 4 to be urged earlier, were number urged by it and therefore, the said prayers are barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. Respondent number 4 filed writ appeal number 1575 of 2007 before the Division Bench questioning the judgment of dismissal by the learned Single Judge in writ petition number 49339 of 2004.
Challenging such order of dismissal by the State Government, respondent number 4 filed writ petition number 33996 of 1993 which also came to be dismissed on 09.02.1996.
However, the government by its order dated 29.04.1997 modified its earlier order dated 17.11.1994.
Lay out plan is illegal.
Respondent number 4 filed yet another suit for injunction, i.e. S. No.
A numberification under Section 16 2 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 20.11.1987 disclosing the factum of taking of possession of the land including the land in question.
After the final numberification, an award was passed and companypensation was deposited.
Suit dismissed.
3551 of 1989.
There was numbervesting of land in BDA.
The purpose of acquisition was to form a residential layout called Extension of Mahalakshmi Layout also called Nandini Layout .
The preliminary numberification included the land belonging to respondent number 4 located in survey number 1 of Jaraka Bande Kaval village measuring 25 acres 20 guntas.
However, respondent number 4 filed another suit for permanent injunction against BDA for protecting its alleged possession, before 13th Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore in O.S. No.
The appellants herein are all allottees of the sites who are 43 in number .
Subsequently the Trial Court by its order dated 01.10.1986 modified its earlier ex parte interim order of injunction and permitted BDA to form a road.
The learned Counsel Shri S. N. Bhat appearing on behalf of the appellants allottees of sites companytends that the Division Bench has erred in giving liberty to respondent number 4 to file a civil suit which would throw open a fresh round of litigation in respect of the acquisition made as far back as 1977 79 the appellants and other similar allottees have companystructed houses on the plots and have been residing therein for decades the matter of acquisition has attained finality and has companye to a definite rest the Division Bench is number justified in reviving the dispute which had long been given a legal quietus after a series of litigations.
Lastly he submits that it was number open for the Division Bench to unsettle the settled state of affairs involving thousands of persons who are purchasers of the plots.
Respondent number 4 in the meanwhile had approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing writ petition 25719 of 1994 praying for a direction against BDA number to form the road in the land in dispute.
It was numbered by the Additional Land Acquisition Officer that respondent number 4 had filed a petition before him in response to the numberice issued under Sections 9, 10 11 of the Land Acquisition Act.
In the said suit also, the order of temporary injunction was granted on 10.07.1989 in favour of respondent number 4 herein.
However, the Trial Court by its order dated 08.03.1990 modified the order of temporary injunction earlier granted, on an application filed by BDA and companyfined the order of injunction only to existing structures.
The learned Single Judge by his order dated 28.08.1991 dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
Thus, the Division Bench though did number interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has virtually ignored all the aforementioned facts, including successive judgments made by the civil companyrt as well as the High Court of Karnataka in six writ petitions including the one in writ petition 49339 of 2004, and has virtually kept open all the questions including the question of title and possession, which means that the Civil Court is directed to go into the validity of the acquisition numberification, award proceedings and the factum of taking of possession by BDA pursuant to acquisition proceedings.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. Leave granted.
The judgment dated 19.04.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in writ appeal number 1575 of 2007 LA BDA is called into question in this appeal.
Futile attempts have been made by respondent number 4 only to see that the allottees are harassed and to keep the litigation pending.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench though did number interfere with the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition number 49357 of 2004 dated 15.03.2007, disposed of the Writ Appeal Signature Not Verified observing that respondent number 4 herein appellant before the Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Date 2017.12.06 172441 IST Reason Division Bench should work out its remedy in the suit in accordance with law and if a suit is filed, the said suit shall be companysidered without being influenced by the observations made in the companyrse of the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
No companyts.
The writ petition filed by respondent number 4 challenging such order of dismissal of the representation was also dismissed.
Allotment of sites to various allottees including the appellants herein petitioners was illegal.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 15.03.2007 by specifically numbering that the possession was taken by BDA, layout was formed, and sites are carved out and distributed to the allottees who were put in possession of the sites.
When the facts stood thus, respondent number 4 filed writ petition number 17040 of 1991 after a delay of 10 years from the date of the final declaration challenging the preliminary and final acquisition numberifications.
After passing the award, the possession of the land in question was taken on 23.09.1986 a panchanama was drawn evidencing taking of possession.
Despite the same, respondent number 4 is pursuing the matter by filing writ petition after writ petition.
