B. A. Basavaiah vs Bangalore Development Authority

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2000 Supreme(SC) 39

2000(5) Supreme 108
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
K.T. Thomas & M.B. Shah, JJ.
B.A. Basavaiah & Ors. -Petitioners
versus
Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. -Respondents
SLP (C) ..... CC 7182-7184 of 1999
Decided on 7-1-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : Mr. S.B. Sanyal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. E.C. Vidya Sagar, Advocate.

Important Points

A stranger to land acquisition proceedings cannot challenge a de-acquisition notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act by claiming possession was taken, if both the government and the actual land owner agree that possession was not taken.

Subject

Land Law - Land Acquisition

Act Referred

Land Acquisition Act: S.48

Headnote

Land Acquisition Act-Section 48-Deacquisition-Notification deacquisitioning part of land-Third party s challenge on ground possession had been taken-Government s and land owner s stand that possession not taken-Stranger cannot contend possession had been taken-SLP dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

ORDER

The challenge made by the petitioners is against the Notification issued by the Government under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act for de-acquisition of a particular area of the land covered in a larger area in Survey Nos. 126 and 139. The entire focus of the petitioners for challenging the said Notification is that possession has been taken by the Government pursuant to the acquisition proceedings and therefore Section 48 of the Act cannot be invoked. Petitioners are not the persons to contend that possession has been taken, for, the person from whom possession is alleged to have been taken has denied it. He is respondent No. 5 in this SLP. The Government stand as is discerned from paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed in answer to the writ petition, is that possession of this particular area has not been taken on the ground that the area is a built up area. Thus, as between the persons concerned (namely; Government and the land owner) there is no dispute that possession of this area has not been taken. It is impermissible for a stranger to contend that the possession has been taken. We, therefore, find no substance in this SLP. It is accordingly dismissed.

(C.R.) SLP dismissed.

*************