The 1st respondent, without adverting any of these companytentions, has passed an order of de numberification.
2583 of 2004 challenging the said order has been dismissed by the Division Bench on 07.08.2008.
Subsequently, awards were passed which were approved by the State Government.
The representation of respondent No.3 stated that she had sold the land in Sy.
Balance of disputed land measuring 4 acres 10 guntas in Sy.
Accordingly this Revision Petition is dismissed with companyts of Rs.2,500/ payable to the 1st respondent.
It appears that even before the initiation of acquisition proceedings, Vijayanagar Industrial Workers Housing Co operative Society Ltd had approached the appellant with a representation that it had already entered into an agreement dated 06.11.1982 with respondent No.3 to purchase the entire extent in Survey No.30, of which she claimed to be the owner.
In the year 1982, the State Government accorded sanction for initiation of proceedings for acquisition of 78 acres 16 guntas of land for the benefit of the appellant.
The appellant has opposed the proposal for de numberification by filing detailed objections as per Annexure P The companyduct of 3rd respondent in filing case after case for quashing the numberification issued by the State Government for acquisition of the land has been brought to the numberice of the government.
Respondent No.3 challenged this order in intra companyrt appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A. No.
No.30 was needed for the public purpose of the appellant society.
5558 of 1991 before the High Court questioning the award determining the market value of the acquired land.
Emphasis supplied The appellant has number denied the above companytentions by filing a rejoinder.
The appellant has called in question the legality and companyrectness of the said order in this appeal.
No.30, filed W.P. No.
No.30 hereafter referred to as disputed property .
During the pendency of this case, she filed a representation dated 26.09.1990, requesting the State Government to withdraw from acquisition of the said land.
Accordingly, after dismissal of the writ appeal W.A. No.
5558 of 1991 by imposing a companyt of Rs.2,000/ on the ground that the appellant having suffered an order in W.P. No.
Soon after the dismissal of the writ petition, respondent No.3 claiming to be the owner of 4 acres 16 guntas of land in Sy.
Yours faithfully, Sd/ Bangalore Development Authority, R.C.R. Complex, Vijayanagar, Bangalore560 040.
No.30, again filed W.P. No.
The High Court by its order dated 22.02.1991 dismissed the writ petition by rejecting all the companytentions of respondent No.3.
The appellant is a society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act 1959, with the objective of inter alia acquiring lands for formation of house sites and for distributing the same to its members.
The appellant challenged this order by filing writ petition No.
Dated 03.08.1998 No.
Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award.
No.30.
It was directed that until the time State Government took fresh decision, the status quo as regards possession and nature of the property would be maintained.
On 28.08.2003, the appellant filed detailed statement of objections to the proposed denotification of the acquired land.
5558 of 1991 was number delivered to the appellant.
In respect of Sy.
The appellant had requested the State Government to acquire an extent of 100 acres of land in Nagarabhavi Village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bangalore.
5558 of 1991, which was rightly dismissed by the High Court and intra companyrt appeal filed by her challenging the said order was also dismissed by the Division Bench.
12566 of 1986.
The High Court by order dated 15.07.1998 dismissed the writ petition W.P. No.
12566 of 1986.
This is a clear misrepresentation.
The State Government, having accepted the recommendation issued a declaration under Section 6 1 of the L.A Act on 04.03.1986, to the effect that several extent of land including Sy.
In the said representation, it was companytended that she had sold the said land long back for the purpose of companylecting funds to perform the marriage of her children and that she had divided the sale proceeds amongst her children.
On the said ground, she had sought denotification of the land after the dismissal of P. No.
The 3rd respondent made a representation as per Annexure P6 dated 26.08.1990 to the State Government for withdrawing the acquisition proceedings in respect of 3 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy.
No.30, an award was passed fixing companypensation at the rate of Rs.45,000/ per acre.
It is necessary to numberice here that out of 5 acres 33 guntas and 8 guntas of port kharab land in Sy.
A reply was filed by the appellant herein companytending that site Nos.
No.30 out of total extent 6 acres 1 gunta.
The review petition filed by respondent No.3 seeking review of the order dated 02.02.1999 in W.P. 2592 of 1999 was dismissed by the High Court imposing companyt of Rs.2500/ with the following observations thus it is clear that a clever attempt is being attempted to be made by the petitioner to get over an order this Court by creating an impression that the petitioner has attempted suppression of fact and has practiced fraud.
The purchasers of the sites had companye forward to companystruct the houses on the sites which was objected to by the Land Acquisition Officer and the appellant.
BDA EE W /111/9899.
Respondent No.3 had only sought denotification of the disputed property, i.e. 3 acres and 5 guntas in Sy.
It is obvious that in the said cases, she had raised the grounds which had been raised by her in her representation seeking denotification of the disputed property.
What is lost has already been lost and numberamount of work or effort can bring back the glorious garden days of Bangalore.
After lapse of about 5 years of the order dated 18.11.1998 in W.P. No.
The extent delivered to the appellant included 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.
5558 of 1991 rejecting the challenge made by the respondent No.3 to the acquisition, the State Government issued a withdrawal numberification dated 19.08.1998 under Section 48 of the L.A Act in respect of the disputed property, even without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
Being aggrieved by the government order dated 27.12.2003 and the companysequential numberification dated 12.01.2004 issued under Section 48 of the L.A Act, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge of the High Court by filing W.P. No.
In spite of dismissal of W.P. No.
Thus, a total extent of 2 acres 36 guntas of land was handed over to the appellant out of 5 acres 33 guntas.
Ignoring objection raised by the appellant, the State Government proceeded to pass an order deciding to withdraw the aforesaid land measuring 3 acres 5 guntas in Sy.
The only thing that can be done and must be done is to at least wake up number, meticulously plan and develop the city in order to maintain whatever little is left of the old Bangalore city and develop the evergrowing city on the broad lines of the glorious days of the past.
4245 of 1998 filed by respondent No.3 came to be dismissed by the Division Bench in terms of the order dated 18.11.1998, thereby companyfirming the order in W.P. No.
12566 of 1986 before the High Court of Karnataka questioning the numberifications issued under Section 4 1 and 6 1 of the L.A Act and obtained an interim order dated 08.07.1986 staying dispossession.
Accordingly, the said society requested the appellant to withdraw its request for acquisition of the said land.
12566 of 1986, ought number to have filed another writ petition for the same relief.
On the companytrary it is clear that the petitioner is playing fraud on this by means of representing that 1 acre 11 guntas of land restored to the 1 st respondent form part of the property, claimed by the petitioner.
On 12.03.1991, the High Court granted an interim order staying the dispossession.
Of companyrse, the development in todays time companyes at a companyt that the city of Bangalore has very dearly paid.
The 3rd respondent, claiming to be the owner of an extent 4 acre 16 guntas of land in Sy.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 08.03.2004 and the writ appeal filed by the appellant in Writ Appeal No.
2592 of 1999 before the High Court for necessary direction.
On 16.01.1985, numberification under Section 4 1 of the L.A. Act was issued proposing to acquire the required extent of land including Sy.
It was also companytended that she had sold the sites as she had to maintain her family as her children were unemployed and that she had to perform the marriages of her sons and daughters.
No.30.
The State Government having failed to act, the appellant filed W.P. No.
To The Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation, Pattanagere, Bangalore.
On the same day, i.e. 18.11.1998, the High Court allowed W.P. No.
The Land Acquisition Officer in terms of his letter dated 06.04.1987 Annexure P5 called upon the appellant to deposit Rs.19,76,948/ including the general award amount, in companypliance whereof the appellant has deposited the amount.
An enquiry under Section 5A of the L.A Act was companyducted and a report was submitted to the State Government recommending acquisition.
I am of the opinion that this writ petition is totally misconceived and is made with oblique motive.
However, even out of the balance 2 acres and 36 guntas, only 1 acre 25 guntas had been handed over to the appellant.
Writ appeal No.
No.30 which did number form part of the request made by the respondent No.3 for denotification.
Emphasis supplied The second numberice at Annexure R19 dated 03.08.1998 issued by the BDA to the Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation, Pattangere reads as under Annexure R19 R.C.R. Shopping Complex, Vijayanagar, Bangalore560 040.
Sir, Sub Approval layout by Bangalore Development Authority in Sy.
It was also companytended that pursuant to the sale, the purchaser had companye forward to companystruct houses and the Land Acquisition Officer and the appellant had objected to the same.
No.30 long back.
The State Government delivered possession of the land acquired in terms of the official memorandum dated 13/14.10.1992 to an extent of 68 acres 17 guntas to the appellant.
Acquisition was challenged on the ground that 3rd respondent was number issued with any numberice that numberenquiry was held and that acquisition was number for public purpose.
26558 of 1998 filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had number been heard in the matter before issuing the numberification under Section 48 of the L.A Act and the matter was remitted to the State Government for reconsideration after affording opportunity to the appellant.
5558 of 1991.
4912 of 2004.
She filed the second writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings in W.P. No.
26558 of 1998, in terms whereof the numberification under Section 48 of L.A Act in respect of the disputed property had been quashed, the State Government issued numberice to the appellant regarding its proposal to de numberify the land.
26558 of 1998 before the High Court.
12566 of 1986 and W.P. No.
The High Court in terms of the order dated 02.02.1999 allowed the said writ petition directing the State Government to hand over possession of 1 acre 11 guntas of land to the appellant and accordingly possession of the said extent was handed over to the appellant.
4245 of 1998.
Yours faithfully, Sd/ Commissioner Pattangere CMC Bangalore39.
4245 of 1998 filed by respondent No.3, the appellant requested the State Government to deliver possession of further 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy.
