The court upheld the validity of ongoing acquisition notifications despite contested claims of possession, establishing that evidence of prior development and forest designations does not nullify acquisition rights under the BDA Act.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner, who asserts the ownership of land measuring 10 acres 07 guntas in Sy.Nos.70 and 71 of Turahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk [the subject property], has filed this petition for declaration that the 'Further Extension of Banashankari VI Stage Scheme' insofar as the subject property stands lapsed, and for quashing the following insofar as the subject property:

[a] the Preliminary Notification dated 07.11.2002 [Annexure-A].

[b] the Final Notification dated 09.09.2003 [Annexure-B].

[c] the Awards dated 10.11.2003 and 10.11.2003 [Annexures-C1 and C2].

The petitioner, while claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-, has also sought for declaration that the Bangalore Development Authority [the second respondent and hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA'] and the persons claiming under BDA cannot have any interest in the subject property.

2. The BDA has published Preliminary Notification dated 07.11.2002 under Section 17 of the BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT , 1976 [for short, 'the BDA Act'] proposing to acquire an extent of 1532 acres 17 guntas [including the subject property] in different villages within Uttarahalli and Kengeri Hobli of Bengaluru South Taluk for the purposes of formation of 'Further Extension of Banashankari VI Stage', but the State Government has ultimately published the Final Notification dated 09.09.2003 under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act acquiring an extent of 750 acres.

3. The petitioner's grievance with the impugned notification insofar as the subject property must be examined in the light of the proceedings under the Karnataka FOREST ACT , 1963 ['the FOREST ACT '], the orders in the different writ/original proceedings and the BDA's case that possession of the subject property is taken and a certain portion thereof is developed with construction of a 80 Feet Road and formation of certain sites. The Assistant Conservator of Forests, Bangalore South Sub-Division [the sixth respondent], asserts that remaining extent in the subject property is Turahalli Gudda Forest.

The writ petition in W.P.No. 44949/2003 and connected writ petitions:

4. The petitioner and the other persons who were the owners of the lands that are notified for acquisition have filed their respective writ petitions in W.P.No. 44949/2003 and connected writ petitions. This Court has disposed of these writ petitions on 06.06.2006 upholding the acquisition proceedings but with certain directions, and insofar as the present petitioner, the relevant directions will be as follows:

B- (i) All the petitioners who are the landowners/converted site owners (duly converted for non-agricultural use of land, in accordance with law), who are seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in so far as their respective lands/sites are concerned, on the ground that: (a) their lands are situated within green belt area (b) they are totally built up; (c) converted for non-agricultural use; (d) garden and recognized nursery lands; (e) who have built hospitals, educational institutions and factories; (f) who have not been served with the notice of acquisition and (g) who are in doubt about the inclusion of their land in the notification are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their contentions within three months from the date of this order........

(C