Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
WP No. 42777 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.42777 OF 2012(LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
SINCE DECEASED REP BY HER LRS,
PETITIONER NO.2 TO 6 ARE LRS
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 29.06.2015
2. SR. KUMBI NARASIMHAIAH,
S/O LATE L. NARASIMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA,
D/O LATE L. NARASIMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
4. SMT. KEMPALAKSHMAMMA,
D/O LATE L. NARASIMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
5. SRI. MAHALINGAPPA,
S/O LATE L. NARASIMAIAH,
Digitally signed
by CHETAN B AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
C
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
6. SRI. ANANTHARAMAIAH,
S/O LATE L. NARASIMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO.2 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO.24,
1ST MAIN ROAD, AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
-2-
WP No. 42777 of 2012
BANGALORE- 560 072.
7. SMT. MUNIRAMAKKA,
D/O LATE HANUMA NARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
8. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O LATE HANUMA NARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
9. SMT. YASHODAMMA,
S/O LATE HANUMA NARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
10. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI,
D/O LATE HANUMA NARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
PETITIONER NOS.7 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT
NO. 23, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
AMBEDAKR NAGAR,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-72
11. SRI. CHIKKA NARASIMHAIAH,
S/O LATE NINGA @ NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
12. SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O SRI. CHIKKA NARASIMHAIAH
SINCE DECEASED, REP BY HER LRS,
PETITIONER NO.11,13 & 14 ARE LRS
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 30.11.2021
13. SMT. C. SAROJA,
W/O SRI. YOGANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
14. SMT. SHOBHA,
D/O SRI. CHIKKA NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
-3-
WP No. 42777 of 2012
PETITIONER NOS.11 TO 14 ARE R/AT NO.22,
1ST MAIN ROAD, AMBEDAKR NAGAR,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE- 560 072.
NOTE: PETITIONER NO.1,7 & 11 ARE
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. M SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HOUSING AND UBRAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
4. THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
-4-
WP No. 42777 of 2012
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560 021
REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY.
6. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
PODIUM BLOCK, V.V. TOWER,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE- 560 001.
7. THE N.G.E.F. EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE LTD., BYAPPANAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 038.
8. SRI. C.V.L SHASTHRY,
S/O LATE N. VENKATASUBBA SHASTRY,
REP BY HER LRS.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 2.7.2014
8A. SMT.SHARADADHAMMA,
W/O LATE C V L SHASTRY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT NO.13/3A, S.C. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
8B. SRI.L NAGENDRA PRASAD,
S/O LATE C V L SHASTRY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.13/3A, S.C. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1,5 & 6;
SRI.S P SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI.G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI.T S VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
NOTICE TO R8(A) & R8(B) ARE H/S V.C.O DATED
06.09.2014)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.6
-5-
WP No. 42777 of 2012
WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN ISSUING THE
NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-V UNDER SECTION 4[1] OF
L.A. ACT DATED 16.1.1985 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE
DATED 21.1.1985 AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION VIDE
ANNEXURE-W ISSUED UNDER SECTION 6[1] OF THE L.A. ACT
DATED 16.2.1986 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED
27.2.1986 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 AND
CONSEQUENTLY SANCTIONING THE LAYOUT PLAN VIDE
ANNEXURE-Y BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4, VIDE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO.798 DATED 11.12.1987 IN FAVOUR OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.7 SOCIETY IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE
LAND AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-V
UNDER SECTION 4[1] OF LA ACT DATED 16.1.1985 PUBLISHED
IN THE GAZETTE DATED 21.1.1985 AND THE NOTIFICATION
VIDE ANNEXURE-W ISSUED UNDER SECTION 6[1] OF THE L.A.
ACT DATED 27.2.1986 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED
28.2.1986 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 AND
CONSEQUENTLY SANCTIONING THE LAYOUT PLAN VIDE
ANNEXURE-Y BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 VIDE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO.798 DATED 11.12.1987 IN FAVOUR OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.7 SOCIETY IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE
LAND.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners claiming to be the successors-in-interest
of one Mr.L.Narasimhaiah, have filed this petition
17.10.2012 for laying a challenge to the 1985
acquisition of the subject land fairly described in the
schedule.
WP No. 42777 of 2012
2. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Shashi Kiran Shetty
falters the acquisition arguing that: the land is not
required for the purpose for which it is acquired because
the earlier proposals for acquisitions have been already
dropped and the Respondent-Society itself has said about
non-requirement; it is a land granted to Scheduled Caste
persons under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of
Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and therefore, cannot be
acquired casually; possession continues with the
Petitioners till date and therefore, acquisition has lapsed
u/s 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013; the 8th Respondent-middlemen
namely C.V.L.Shastry was not their land owners attorney
and he has not handed the compensation received from
the government/society. So arguing, he seeks allowing of
the Petition.
WP No. 42777 of 2012
3. After service of notice, the State and SLAO
have entered appearance through the learned AGA; the
Respondent-BDA & its officials are represented by their
Panel Counsel; the Respondent-Housing Society speaks
through its Panel Advocate; the State and the BDA have
filed their Statement of Objections opposing the Petition
controverting the stand of Petitioners. The Panel Advocate
for the Housing Society has filed a Memo offering to pay
additional sum of compensation with interest for buying
peace. All the advocates make vehement submissions in
justification of the acquisition on merits, on enormous
delay & latches and non-impleadment of allottees of the
sites.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines
indulgence for the following reasons:
(A) AS TO DELAY & LATCHES:
(i) The subject acquisition process was initiated
vide Preliminary Notification dated 16.01.1985 issued u/s
WP No. 42777 of 2012
4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the same
was published in the Official Gazette on 21.01.1985; this
was followed by Section 5 enquiry after due notice to the
then khatedars; the Final Notification u/s 6(1) was issued
on 14.02.1986 and it was gazetted on 28.02.1986; the
award was passed on 12.08.1987; the government
granted approval in December 1987; possession of the
land was taken over by the government by issuing Section
16(2) Notification and later, the same has been delivered
to the Respondent-Housing Society, which got the
approved sanctioned plan and formed the layouts; the
Society has executed & registered a Relinquishment Deed
dated 5.6.1996 comprising the petition land in favour of
BDA; all that would enure to the benefit of allottees of the
sites in the layouts concerned; the petition is filed on
17.10.2012 and thus, there is an inordinate delay of more
than a quarter century in approaching the court with no
plausible explanation therefor.
WP No. 42777 of 2012
(ii) The Apex Court and this Court have time &
again frowned upon the belated challenges to the
acquisition of lands, more particularly when such
acquisitions are for the housing purposes, the population
of the country having enormously bulged and the right to
meaningful life and right to residence being the
constitutional guarantees. In Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development Investment
Company Private Limited (1996) 11 SCC 501, it is
observed:
"29. It is thus well settled law that when
there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition
and when all steps taken in the acquisition
proceedings have become final, the court should
loathe to quash the notifications...
35. ...Such a belated writ petition, therefore,
was rightly rejected by the learned single Judge
on the ground of gross delay and laches. The
respondent-writ petitioners can be said to have
waived their objections to the acquisition on the
ground of extinction of public purpose by their
own inaction, lethargy and indolent conduct."
(iii) There is another finer aspect of the matter: the
land in question under the provisions of the Bangalore
- 10 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
Development Authority Act, 1976, has been relinquished in
favour of BDA as part of the bargain in getting the
approval to the layout plan; the said land along with civic
amenities, etc., has to be retained as it is for the benefit of
the residents of the layout, though such a layout has been
formed in the land adjoining the same. Therefore, the
contention of Mr.Shetty that the petition land has been
retained intact without any development and therefore,
can be restored to his clients, is factually incorrect &
legally untenable. An argument to the contrary would
militate against the statutory norms in accordance with
which the private layouts are approved by the BDA, say to
the extent of about 55% of the land, the remaining 45%
being required to be kept for civic amenities, etc.
(iv) The contention of the Petitioners that twice the
proposal for acquisition earlier has been dropped after
considering the objections of the land owners and this land
that was alienated in violation of 1978 PTCL Act, has been
ordered to be restored and accordingly, it is given back by
- 11 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
the Asst. Commissioner vide order dated 15.10.1999, are
irrelevant in adjudging the delay & latches; so also,
Petitioners injunctive suit in O.S.No.2963/2006 decreed on
24.09.2007; all they are clandestinely structured to defeat
the statutory acquisition and to divest the title of the
Society, to say the least, as rightly argued by learned
AGA. It is more so because in the PTCL proceedings, the
order of restoration specifically mentions about the
proceedings collateral to the acquisition. It is not that the
land owners are naive having no exposure to the outer
world; they have fought umpteen number of court cases
and the proceedings before the authorities. There is no
reason as to why they did not challenge the subject
acquisition within a reasonable time.
(B) AS TO DROPPING OF EARLIER
ACQUISITIONS AND ITS EFFECT ON THE
ACQUISITION IN QUESTION:
(i) Mr.Shetty is right in contending that the land
owner Sri.L.Narasimhaiah had filed W.P.No.24011/1992
laying a challenge to the earlier acquisition. However, the
- 12 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
BDA had stated that the subject land was not put in
acquisition at all and therefore, the learned Single Judge
stated '...hence, this petition cannot survive for
consideration and it is liable to be dismissed' vide
judgment dated 4.2.1997. If the land owner could file such
a petition way back in the year 1992 there being no
Notification for the acquisition at all, it is
un-understandable as to how he could keep quiet without
laying a challenge to the subject acquisition proceeding
made for the benefit of Respondent-Housing Society and
not BDA. Even otherwise, in adjudging an acquisition, the
fact that an earlier proposal has been dropped on
consideration, pales into insignificance. What the court has
to see is whether what is challenged is in accordance with
law or not and not the earlier abortive acquisition.
(ii) Petitioners predecessor Mr.L.Narasimhaiah had
alienated the subject land dated 21.06.1983 by way of a
thirty year lease in favour of a third party, in violation of
the provisions of 1978 PTCL Act and thereafter, he got the
- 13 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
same voided by obtaining the order dated 15.10.1999 in
KSC.ST.3:96-97 at the hands of the Asst. Commissioner.
He somehow secured a so called restoration of the land at
the hands of the Tahasildar vide order dated 8.11.2000 at
Annexure-P. The said order mentions about BDA having
not acquired the land as is reflected in his
W.P.No.24013/1992 disposed off on 4.2.1997. The entries
have been mutated pursuant to restoration order, may be
true. But what bewilders this court is that
Mr.Narasimhaiah has not mentioned about the prior
acquisition that is now put in challenge here though the
same was fully accomplished by taking possession from
the land owner and putting the same at the hands of
Society which has got the approved plan after
relinquishing the said land by a registered instrument.
Why the registered instrument is not acted upon by the
revenue authorities, leaves much to be imagined. The
checkered history of the case only reminds this Court of
'Alice in Wonderland' by Lewis Carroll (1865).
- 14 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
(iii) The vehement submission of Mr.Shetty that the
land owners had filed the civil suit and obtained an
injunctive decree against the BDA by way of compromise,
is not much relevant for adjudging the validity of the
acquisition in question which eventually resulted into
transfer of the subject land to the Society and the same
being subsequently relinquished in favour of the BDA.
There was no title issue and therefore, nothing has been
stated about the title, be it of the Society or of the State
or of the BDA. That being the position, much milk cannot
be derived from the injunctive decree for invalidating the
subject acquisition, as rightly argued by learned counsel
for the Housing Society and the learned Panel Counsel
appearing for the BDA. An argument to the contrary would
result into undesirable consequences of divesting the title
to the subject land in gross repugnance to the effect of
acquisition that has been accomplished decades ago.
(C) AS TO C.V.L.SHASTRY BEING THE
MIDDLEMEN AND NO GPA HAVING BEEN GIVEN TO
HIM:
- 15 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
(i) The vehement submission of Mr.Shetty that the
acquisition proceedings are vitiated because of
involvement of the middlemen Mr.C.V.L.Shastry in the
light of HMT House Building Cooperative Society vs. Syed
Khader AIR 1995 SC 2244, is bit difficult to countenance.
Reasons for this are not far to seek: firstly, no material is
placed on record as to whether Mr.Shastry acted as the
middlemen in influencing the acquisition process; in fact,
even such a plea is not taken with material particulars.
The ratio in the said decision therefore does not come to
the aid of the Petitioners. Assuming otherwise, such a
contention cannot be countenanced for invalidating an
accomplished acquisition, challenge to which is laid after
decades, more particularly, the third party interest having
been created.
(ii) The contention of Petitioners that their
predecessor Mr.L.Narasimhaiah had not executed any GPA
in favour of Mr.C.V.L.Shastry, does not merit acceptance
- 16 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
when decades have lapsed since the execution of alleged
GPA and the GPA holder himself having executed the
acknowledgement of receipt of the compensation amount.
An offshoot argument that Mr.Shastry having received the
compensation amount has not handed to the land owner,
virtually amounts to admitting that he was the GPA holder
and that he had received the compensation amount. An
agent constituted by virtue of GPA having given consent to
the acquisition in terms of the power reserved under the
instrument, if has not handed the compensation to the
land owner, that is no ground for invalidating the
acquisition. It is a matter between the Agent and the
Principal and it has nothing to do with acquisition
proceedings in question.
(iii) The contention of the Petitioners that they or
their predecessors had never executed any GPA in favour
of anyone much less in favour of C.V.L.Shastry is difficult
to countenance, there being no material particulars in the
pleadings as to fraud & forgery. It has been well settled
- 17 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
that the ground like fraud, fabrication & forgery should
have all material particulars pleaded and in the absence
thereof, the same does not avail.
(D) AS TO LAND BEING NOT REQUIRED FOR
THE SOCIETY:
(i) The vehement submission of Mr.Shetty
appearing for the Petitioners that the proposal for
acquisition having been dropped twice earlier, there is
really no requirement of the subject land for the benefit of
the Society, is too farfetched an argument. Whether the
land is required or not for a public purpose, is essentially a
matter lying in the domain of the executive and a Writ
Court cannot run a race of opinions, subject to all just
exceptions into which argued case of the Petitioners does
not fit. In fact, the contention that the BDA had dropped
the acquisition earlier, runs counter to the observations
made by a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.24011/1992 filed
by Mr.L.Narasimhaiah. What is observed in the judgment
dated 4.2.1997 is that this land was not notified at all and
- 18 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
therefore, the question of dropping acquisition does not
arise.
(ii) The fact that earlier acquisition proposal vide
Preliminary Notification dated 28.03.1978 of the subject
land for the intended benefit of Bangalore University was
dropped vide order dated 12.02.1980 after Section 5A
enquiry, is not much relevant for adjudging the validity of
the subsequent acquisition put in challenge. The Bangalore
University did not need the land, is not a proof that the
Respondent-Housing Society did not need it. What all
factors enter the fray of decision as to requirement of the
land, are not judicially assessable given the constraint
which the courts inherently have. Admittedly,
Mr.C.V.L.Shastry has given consent for acquisition and
accordingly, the consent award has been passed and he
has received the compensation too. It hardly needs to be
stated that acquisition of private land for being allotted to
Housing Society is treated as being for public purpose
since housing problem has to be addressed consistent with
constitutional aspirations.
- 19 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
(iii) The contention of Mr.Shetty that so much land
was not required for the Respondent-Housing Society if
accepted, would amount to the court taking the decision
which under the statutory scheme, the government of the
day has to take. The Society has relinquished the subject
land in favour of the BDA as a matter of statutory
requirement and it is a condition for securing the approval
to the Layout Plan. It does not deviate from the concept of
public purpose merely because no layout as such has been
formed in the said land. What the Apex Court said in
Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 800
as under is a complete answer to such a submission:
"Apart from the fact that a housing colony is a
public necessity, once the original acquisition is
valid and title has vested in the municipality how
it uses the excess land is no concern of the
original owner and cannot be the basis for
invalidating the acquisition. There is no
principle of law by which a valid compulsory
acquisition stands voided because long later
the requiring authority diverts it to a public
purpose other than the one stated in the
declaration..."
- 20 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
(iv) The contention of Mr.Shetty that the Secretary
of the Housing Society himself has given a letter dated
30.05.1994 addressed to Mr.Narasimhaiah that the
possession of the land has not been taken over and the
Society has no objection for leaving the land in favour of
the owner, is bit difficult to accept. In fact, the very
Society happens to be the contesting Respondent to the
Petition which has filed an elaborate Statement of
Objections more than justifying acquisition. The
compensation for the acquired land has already been
received by Mr.C.V.L.Shastry as admitted in the Petition
itself. This apart, the Society's Resolution mentioned in the
subject letter has not been placed on record nor any
explanation is offered for not producing it, either.
Therefore, much credence cannot be given to the letter
allegedly issued by the Secretary. It is open to the Society
and the Petitioners to prosecute the author of the letter if
they so desire.
(E) AS TO 'LAND GRANTED TO SC/ST CANNOT
BE ACQUIRED:
- 21 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
(i) A plea has been loosely taken up in the Petition
that the subject land has been granted by the government
to the members of Scheduled Caste and that the same
having been alienated in favour of the grantee vide
agreement dated 21.06.1983, has been restored to him by
the Asst. Commissioner vide order dated 5.10.1997 and
therefore, the same cannot be notified for acquisition,
appears to be too farfetched an argument. The acquisition
of private property for public purpose is recognized in all
civilized jurisdictions. The fundamental Right to Property
guaranteed u/a 19(1)(f) no longer avails as such after the
42nd Amendment to the Constitution. Article 300A although
guarantees Right to Property, provides for acquisition in
accordance with law. The erstwhile 1894 Act falls within
the expression 'in accordance with law'. The compensation
admittedly has been paid.
(ii) After all, the Petition land is a 'granted land'
and not the land earned by Mr.L.Narasimhaiah by his toil.
The instrument of grant or the law under which the grant
- 22 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
is made, does not prohibit compulsory purchase of the
granted land in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. Even private lands belonging to temples, churches &
mosques are not exempt from acquisition. If earned
property can be acquired, it sounds illogical that the
property granted by the State cannot be acquired. Added,
the acquisition of the land in question is made with the
consent of the GPA holder of the land owner and the
compensation has been paid. It is not that the State has
snatched away the subject land without giving any money
or for a song. The law relating to acquisition does not
differentiate between the land owners on the basis of the
caste/religion to which they belong, when it comes
acquisition of their property for public purpose.
(F) AS TO FAIR STAND OF THE HOUSING
SOCIETY IN OFFERING SOME MORE
COMPENSATION:
(i) During the course of the argument, learned
Panel Advocate appearing for the Respondent-Housing
Society submitted that for buying peace, his client is ready
- 23 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
& willing to pay to the Petitioners collectively the award
amount with interest, once again, notwithstanding the
receipt of compensation by Mr.C.V.L.Shastry, who happen
to be the GPA holder of the land owner Mr.L.Narasimhaiah.
He hastens to enter a caveat that this gesture on the part
of his client should not be construed as an admission that
the compensation amount has not been paid or that
possession of the land has not been taken. This is
absolutely fair & appreciable. At times, such a bargain
becomes advisable so that the peace is bought and dispute
is buried.
(ii) The counsel for the Housing Society on
instruction from his client has filed the Memo dated
20.1.2023 to the above effect, which reads as under:
"The undersigned submits that though the
Relinquishment Deed is executed in favour of
BDA, respectfully heeding to the suggestions that
came up in the course of Arguments, the 7th
Respondent is willing to pay the amount awarded
by LAO for acquisition of Two Acres of land from
Petitioners, together with Bank's rate of interest,
in the interest of justice & equity. This submission
is made on instruction of party on Phone."
- 24 -
WP No. 42777 of 2012
However, learned counsel on record appearing for the
Petitioners submits that his clients are not ready & willing
to accept this offer. Be that as it may.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being
devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed, costs reluctantly
having been made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
