1. Petitioners are challenging the order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the 1st respondent – Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru.

2. By the impugned order, 1st respondent has allowed the appeal filed by respondents 3 to 14 under Section 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the Act’) and has directed resumption of the land to the Government and for restoration of the same in favour of the original grantees or their legal heirs.

3. All the 74 petitioners who have joined together to file this joint writ petition claim to be in possession and enjoyment of different sites formed in Sy. No.62 measuring 7 acres 23 guntas of Naganathapura village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Petitioners 1 to 57 were parties in the appeal filed before the 1st respondent, whereas the other petitioners were not parties in the said proceedings before the 1st respondent, but they also feel aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent, therefore, they have joined the other petitioners in challenging the impugned order.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that in the land in question layout of sites by name Vinayakanagar Layout had been formed which falls within the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. It is urged that the layout was formed by the original owners of revenue land after obtaining approval for the same from the jurisdictional panchayat. It is further urged by the petitioners that they have purchased the sites formed in the layout and have constructed residential houses. They claim that majority of them have been residing in the houses constructed in the sites. In support of their contention that several houses have been constructed over the sites and the land has become fully developed and the petitioners have occupied the same, they have produced photographs at Annexures-F1 to F7.

5. The land in question originally belonged to Naganateshwara Temple. Smt. Chinnamma, Muniyappa and Narayanappa had claimed occupancy rights. According to the petitioners, they were granted occupancy rights in respect of different bits of land. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, ‘KIADB’) proposed to acquire the said lands for industrial purpose and in this regard preliminary notification was issued on 21.11.1986. This was followed by final notification dated 26.06.1987. An award was passed on 24.01.1997. Thus, the lands stood acquired by the State Government for the benefit of KIADB.

6. Petitioners have urged that when the acquisition proceedings were underway, the original grantees entered into joint development of the land with one Jayaram Reddy by executing General Power of Attorney in his favour in respect of a portion of the land measuring 3 acres 5 guntas. The said Jayaram Reddy formed private layout on behalf of the original grantees. The remaining area was developed by one of the grantees himself. Thus the entire land was converted into a private layout and sale deeds were executed in respect of the sites in favour of various persons including petitioners herein. The purchasers of sites constructed dwelling houses wherein they continued to reside. Petitioners urge that roads were formed, street lights were laid, water supply and other basic amenities including drainage and sewage system was provided to the entire area making it a purely residential locality.

7. It is contended by the petitioners that as the lands were under acquisition, they moved the Government for denotifying the land comprised in Sy. No.62. In fact, respondents 5 to 14 herein had filed W.P.No.355/2007 before this Court seeking a direction to the Government and KIADB to restore the land and to put them in vacant possession of the same. These petitioners were not made parties in the said writ petition. Later on, some of the petitioners came on record and after noticing the developments that had taken place in the interregnum, this Court dismissed the