1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. WRIT APPEAL NO.1702 OF 2016 (BDA) BETWEEN 1.

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOUDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER & REP. BY ITS S.L.A.O

2.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOUDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020 & REP. BY ITS S.L.A.O ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI KANNUR G S, ADVOCATE) AND SRI MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O LATE CHANNA PILLAPPA R/AT GIDADAKONENAHALLI VILLAGE YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK REPRESENTED BY HIS G.P.A.HOLDER SMT. LATHA HANUMANTHE GOWDA W/O A.M.HANUMANTHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT SY.NO.164/1 SRI LAKSHMI NURSERY FARM ULLALU BASTHI VILLAGE ULLALU POST, 100FT ROAD 4TH BLOCK

2 SIR.M.VISHVESWARAIAH LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 056

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI H S SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.46599/2013 DATED 11/01/2016. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The appeal is barred by limitation. The delay is of 134 days.

As the Bengaluru Development Authority (‘BDA’, for

short) is the appellant and at the instance of Mr.G.S.Kannur, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, we take up the appeal for preliminary hearing on merits.

2. It appears to us that the Hon’ble Single Judge followed a decision of an earlier Division Bench and granted liberty to the writ petitioner to file detailed representation indicating the extent and nature of land that was utilised by the BDA without following due process of law. The BDA was, thereafter, directed to work out, taking into consideration as to whether the details as furnished by the writ petitioner if appropriate or in the alternative, consider the nature of land that had been utilised by the respondents and take a decision in the matter in the manner as indicated in the order and in accordance with law.

3

3. We do not find that the Hon’ble Single Judge erred in law in following the earlier decision of this Court and passing the impugned direction. Moreover,

the

BDA

utilised

certain

following the due process of law.

lands

without

The land of the writ

petitioner was utilised without initiating any proceeding for acquisition. The writ petitioner / land owner is entitled to be compensated in the matter as indicated by the Hon’ble Single Judge.

4. We do not find any merit in the appeal.

Therefore,

the application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is, also, dismissed.

5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2 of 2016 does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE bkv