B.A. Basavaiah & Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)…. CC.7182-7184/1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.1999 & 2.7.99 in WP25747/95 & 25199. 98, 384/99 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.1999 & 2.7.99 in WP25747/95 & 25199. 98, 384/99 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
Petitioner: B.A. Basavaiah & Ors.
Respondent: Bangalore Development Authority & Ors.
Apeal: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)…. CC.7182-7184/1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.1999 & 2.7.99 in WP25747/95 & 25199. 98, 384/99 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.1999 & 2.7.99 in WP25747/95 & 25199. 98, 384/99 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 07, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. S.B. Sanyal, Senior Advocate,
Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Advocate for the Petitioner(s).
Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Advocate for the Petitioner(s).
Mr. E.C. Vidya Sagar, Advocate for the Respondent(s).
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION LAW
Land Acquisition Act,1894
Section 48 – Acquisition – Notification for de-acquisition-Challenge by stranger on the ground that possession has been taken – As between the connected persons namely the Government and land owner, no dispute that possession has not been taken. Held that it is impermissible for stranger to contend that possession has been taken. SLP accordingly dismissed.
Land Acquisition Act,1894
Section 48 – Acquisition – Notification for de-acquisition-Challenge by stranger on the ground that possession has been taken – As between the connected persons namely the Government and land owner, no dispute that possession has not been taken. Held that it is impermissible for stranger to contend that possession has been taken. SLP accordingly dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The challenge made by the petitioners is against the Notifica-tion issued by the Government under Section 48 of the Land Acqui-sition Act for de-acquisition of a particular area of the land covered in a larger area in Survey Nos. 126 and 139. The entire focus of the petitioners for challenging the said Notification is that possession has been taken by the Government pursuant to the acquisition proceedings and therefore Section 48 of the Act cannot be invoked. Petitioners are not the persons to contend that possession has been taken, for, the person from whom posses-sion is alleged to have been taken has denied it. He is respond-ent No. 5 in this SLP. The Government stand as is discerned from paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed in answer to the writ petition, is that possession of this particular area has not been taken on the ground that the area is a built up area. Thus, as between the persons concerned (namely; Government and the land owner) there is no dispute that possession of this area has not been taken. It is impermissible for a stranger to contend that the possession has been taken. We, therefore, find no substance in this SLP. It is accordingly dismissed.
1. The challenge made by the petitioners is against the Notifica-tion issued by the Government under Section 48 of the Land Acqui-sition Act for de-acquisition of a particular area of the land covered in a larger area in Survey Nos. 126 and 139. The entire focus of the petitioners for challenging the said Notification is that possession has been taken by the Government pursuant to the acquisition proceedings and therefore Section 48 of the Act cannot be invoked. Petitioners are not the persons to contend that possession has been taken, for, the person from whom posses-sion is alleged to have been taken has denied it. He is respond-ent No. 5 in this SLP. The Government stand as is discerned from paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed in answer to the writ petition, is that possession of this particular area has not been taken on the ground that the area is a built up area. Thus, as between the persons concerned (namely; Government and the land owner) there is no dispute that possession of this area has not been taken. It is impermissible for a stranger to contend that the possession has been taken. We, therefore, find no substance in this SLP. It is accordingly dismissed.
