Land acquired in 1977 finally goes to BDA

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka paved the way for the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to take possession of 2 acres and 30 guntas of land which it had first notified in 1977 and taken over in 1982 at Subbayyana Palya for the formation of the HRBR Layout.

The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the children of one SM Venkatapathi who was claimed to be the original owner.

The Division Bench of the HC comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice MGS Kamal in their recent judgement upheld the order of the single-judge bench which had ruled in favour of the BDA and granted two years and three months to the petitioners; BL Ramadevi, Pramod Gowda SV and Rajiv Venkatpathi Gowda to vacate the place.

The time was granted considering that a school was put up by these petitioners on the said land.

No clean hands

It directed that BDA could consider it as per law.

“Without expressing any view on this aspect of the matter it is made clear that notwithstanding the dismissal of this writ appeal, the appellant/petitioner is at liberty to approach respondent-BDA to seek redressal of their grievance and respondent-BDA may consider the same if permissible in accordance with law,” the HC said.

The single-judge bench had noted that the petitioners had created documents showing that the land was in another survey number. Their earlier petitions had been rejected and therefore they had approached the court with new documents.

The Division Bench said that “this Court is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has to come to the just conclusion by dismissing the writ petition primarily on the ground of appellants not approaching the Court with clean hand and clean head and clean heart.”

As regards the claim for construction of the building was concerned, the Court said they have “not produced any piece of evidence/documents regarding they having obtained any sanction plan, permission or licence from the competent authority for construction and change of land usage. So much so, the appellants have not even given the date on which the construction was commenced and completed.”

The petitioners sought compensation from the BDA for removing the school. The HC said that BDA could consider it as per law.

“It is necessary in this regard to note that the appellants who claimed to have put up the construction of the building to accommodate the school and have contended that they have not received any compensation and that they would forego their claim for compensation if the respondent-BDA considers their representation,” the HC noted . (WA 301/2023)