B.V.NAGARATHNA
H. A. BALAJI, S/O K. M. CHETTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT – Respondent
1. Since common and identical prayers have been sought in these writ petitions, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought a declaration that the Notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter, referred to as the “BDA Act”) dated 15/12/1984 and the Notification issued under Section 19 of the said Act, dated 28/11/1986, stand vitiated due to the inordinate delay in completing the acquisition proceedings, in so far as the petitioners’ lands are concerned. The petitioners have also sought a declaration to the effect that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed on account of the abandonment of the scheme in respect of the petitioners lands.
3. The petitioner in W.P.No.32652/2010 claims to be the owner of the land bearing House List Khata No.79/1 (Old) and New Khata No.80/1 carved out of Sy.No.53/3A, measuring 6300 sq. ft. situated at Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
4. The petitioner in W.P. No.26849/2010 claims to be the owner and original khatedar of the land bearing Sy.No.52/3A. measuring 2 Acres
Munithimmaiah V Bangalore Development Authority (AIR 2002 SC 1574)
Ramchand V Union of India (1994(1) SCC 44
Pratap V State of Rajasthan (AIR 1996 SC 1296)
Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. & Anr. AIR 1989 SC 973
Munithimmaiah v State of Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 326]
Bondu Ramaswamy v Bangalore Development Authority [(2010) 7 SCC 129]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.