R. P. SETHI, C. J.

( 1 ) DESPITE judgments of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7239 of 1983 decided on 30-7-1986, Writ appeal No. 2159 of 1986, decided on 27-8-1986 and Special Leave Petition No. 12870 of 1985 on 29-4-1987, the appellants herein succeeded in getting the matter re-opened by filing a revision petition under Section 63 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') which was accepted and disposed of vide Annexure-P dated 27-12-1990. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Government of Karnataka the respondent Writ petitioners preferred Writ Petition Nos. 5490 to 5494 of 1991 and 27338 of 1991 (Thore Salappa and Others v State of Karnataka and Others) in this Court which were allowed vide the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal. Writ Petition Nos. 6446 to 6456 of 1989 filed by the appellants were however dismissed. The action initiated, taken and completed by the authorities with respect to the lands and buildings comprised in Survey Nos. 174 and 175 of kethamaranahalli Village, was upheld and the impugned order Annexure-P was set aside.

( 2 ) THE present appeals have been filed with the object of reviving the order Annexure-P allegedly procured and manipulated by the appellants in connivance with the respondents-appellants/state. It is alleged that the order of the learned Single Judge is without jurisdiction, contrary to law and in ignorance of the facts of the case. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge had wrongly relied upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Writ petition No. 7239 of 1983. The Government is stated to have exercised the powers in accordance with the law while in passing the impugned order in Annexure-P. It is contended that as the appellants had all along been in possession of the property, the learned Single Judge was not justified in returning a finding to the contrary. The learned Single Judge has also not taken notice of the memo filed along with resolution of the B. D. A. , which had allegedly been approved by the government and according to which alternative sites were offered to the writ petitioners. It is contended that the power of revision vested in the Government under Section 63 of the Act could be exercised at any time. The acquisition proceedings were stated to have lapsed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, of which the learned Single Judge is stated to have not taken note of. According to the appellants in W. A. No. 2159 of 1986 arising out of W. P. No. 7239 of 1983 the question of possession had been left open. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge did not properly appreciate the ratio of the Court in the aforesaid writ appeal and writ petitions. It is contended that as all the pleas raised by the appellants were not considered and decided by the learned Single Judge, his judgment impugned in this appeal is liable to be set aside.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it is necessary to have a brief resume of the facts. The dispute pertains to Survey Nos. 174 and 175 of Kethamaranahalli Village, which was later on known as "further extension of Mahalaxmi Layout". The land comprising of aforesaid two Survey Numbers measuring 26 acres 25 guntas was notified for acquisition under notification dated 25-3-1975 issued under Section 16 (1) of the City of Bangalore Improvement act, 1945 for the purpose of extension of Mahalaxmi Layout. Final notification is stated to have been issued on 15-7-1977 which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 4-8-1977. Out of the aforesaid acquired land measuring 26 acres, 25 guntas, appellant 1 owned 8 acres and 16 guntas of land. The appellant 2 owned 3 acres. Besides appellants there were other owners of the land which was acquired vide notification noted hereinabove. Writ Petition No. 7239 of 1983 was filed by the other co-owners with prayer for quashing the acquisition notification which was dismissed vide order of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document