Smt. B. L. Ramadevi vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 6836 Kant

                         -1-
                                                      R
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                      PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.PRASANNA B.VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                        AND

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

       WRIT APPEAL No.301 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

1.   SMT. B. L. RAMADEVI
     W/O. LATE S.M. VENKATPATHI,
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
     R/AT No. 9, 80 FEET ROAD,
     HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,
     BENGALURU-560 043.

2.   SRI. PRAMOD GOWDA. S.V.
     S/O. LATE S.M. VENKATPATHI,
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
     R/AT NO. 9, 80 FEET ROAD,
     HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,
     BENGALURU-560 043.

3.   SRI. RAJIV VENKATPATHI GOWDA
     S/O. LATE S.M. VENKATPATHI,
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
     R/AT NO. 9, 80 FEET ROAD,
     HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,
     BENGALURU-560 043.

                                     ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI SR. ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. VINAYAKA B. VISHNU BATTA, ADVOCATE)
                          -2-


AND:


1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
     VIKASA SOUDHA,
     BENGALURU-560 001.

2.   BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
     REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
     KUMARA PARK WEST,
     SANKEY ROAD,
     BENGALURU-560 020.

3.   SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
     KUMARA PARK WEST,
     SANKEY ROAD,
     BENGALURU-560 020.

                                    ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1;
    SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
                         ---

       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP NO.10632/2020 (LA-BDA) DATED:13/02/2023.


       THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS
DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    -3-


                              JUDGMENT

This writ appeal is filed by the petitioners aggrieved

by the order dated 13.02.2023 passed in

W.P.No.10632/2020 (LA-BDA) by which the said writ

petition filed by the appellants herein has been dismissed

upholding the acquisition of the subject land. Further the

appellants have been granted 2 years 3 months time to quit

and vacate the subject premises on their own and to file an

affidavit within four weeks with a further direction to the

appellants to demolish/dismantle all structures other than

school and college buildings that exist on the subject

property within three months after completion of two years

three months period. It is further directed if the petitioners

failed to file affidavit and undertaking as stated above after

availing the concessions and do not vacate the premises in

terms of the undertaking, they shall immediately vacate the

property after completion of academic term of the

school/college or three months whichever is earlier or to

vacate as per the undertaking, failing which the

respondent-BDA is at liberty to remove the appellants from

the occupation of the subject property by use of reasonable

force with the assistance of jurisdictional police.

2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the

appellants claiming to be children of one

Sri.M.Venkatapathi questioning the process of acquisition of

the subject land which commenced with the Preliminary

Notification dated 21.03.1977 issued under Section 17(1) of

the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short

'BDA Act') and the Final Notification dated 14.05.1980

issued under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act on the ground

that the scheme for which the property was acquired had

lapsed by virtue of Section 27 of the BDA Act read with

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. The said petition was resisted by the

respondent-BDA contending that the award has been

passed on 09.11.1982 a notice of the same was sent to the

kathedars on 05.12.1982 under Section 12(2) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same has been served on

them on 08.12.1982. The possession of the property was

taken on 14.12.1982 by drawing mahazar. That the name

of the BDA was entered in the revenue records vide MR

No.1/1990-91. That the writ petition has been filed on

23.09.2020 without any explanation for the inordinate

delay. That the appellants had earlier unsuccessfully

challenged the notification by filing writ petition and writ

appeals and that the same was suppressed by the

petitioners disentitling them from seeking remedy under

writ jurisdiction. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ

petition.

4. Learned Single Judge of this Court after

hearing the parties and taking into consideration of the

factual and legal aspect of the matter on the contention of

lapsing of scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act and also

taking to consideration of the fact that the appellants had

earlier unsuccessfully challenged the very same notification

in W.P.Nos.15358/1983 and 11585/1985 and in

W.A.No.1494/1986 and also the circumstances of existence

of a school building on the subject property even while

dismissing the writ petition and sustaining the acquisition of

the subject land issued directions to the appellants to quit

and vacate the subject property as noted hereinabove by

the impugned order. Being aggrieved the same, the

appellants are before this Court.

5. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel

appearing for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged

in the memorandum of appeal submitted ;

(i) That the possession of the land alleged to have

been taken by the respondent-BDA on 14.12.1982 by

drawing the mahazar bearing signature of few residents of

the area is incorrect and the very mahazar not being in

accordance with law is unreliable.

(ii) That there is no identification witness of the

mahazar stated to have been drawn by the BDA as such the

same lacks sanctity and same is therefore contrary to the

law laid down by this Court.

(iii) That no notice of mahazar has been served upon

the petitioners. No notification under Section 16(2) has

been issued evidencing conclusive proof of taking over

possession of the subject land.

(iv) That the khatha in respect of the subject

property is standing in the name of the appellants.

Appellants have paid the betterment tax and municipal tax

in respect of the subject property to the BBMP regularly.

That they have obtained water and electricity connections

from the local authority establishing their continued

possession and enjoyment of the same.

(v) That there has been no delay or laches on the

part of the appellants as they have been in continuous

possession with all title and revenue documents. As the

relief sought in the writ petition is for declaration that the

scheme has lapsed and in the absence of respondent-BDA

establishing the fact of taking possession of the subject

land there cannot be any question of delay and laches on

the part of the appellants.

(vi) That suit in O.S.No.4415/2020 has been filed

before the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru and an

interim order of injunction dated 25.09.2020 has been

granted thereunder which further affirms the possession of

the appellants.

(vii) That earlier writ petition in W.P.No.15383/1983

filed by grandfather of appellants 2 and 3 challenging the

notification is not within the knowledge of the appellants as

he alone was managing the affairs in respect of the subject

property and the appellants 2 and 3 were minor. Besides

said writ petition was dismissed as having been abated.

Since appellants 2 and 3 had no knowledge of filing of the

said writ petition question of suppression of the same does

not arise.

(viii) In support of his submissions, he referred to

the following judgments;

(I) DR.A. PARTHASARATHY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETART, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS- ILR 2017 KAR. 3489.

(II) THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER VS. SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY AND OTHERS-ILR 2020 KAR 4625.

(III) MEENAKSHI THIMMAIAH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER- ILR 2010 KAR. 62

(IV) THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER VS. GAUTAM KAMAT'S HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS IN W.A.NO.311/2013.

(V) THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS VS. SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY AND OTHERS- ILR 2020 KAR. 4625.

(VI) SRI. ANTHONY REDDY, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS-ILR 2020 KAR.1348.

(VII) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS -ILR 2018 KAR. 2144

(VIII) D. NARAYANAPPA VS. THE STATE OF KARNTAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE AND OTHERS- ILR 2005 KAR. 295.

(IX) MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH VS. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS-ILR 2011 KAR. 574.

(X) ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MEGH SINGH AND OTHERS- (2016) 12 SCC 504.

(XI) SMT. SAVITHRAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS IN W.A.NOS.43-44/2011 AND CONNECTED MATTERS.

Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal.

6. Sri.Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel for the

respondent-BDA submitted that:

(a) The appellant has deliberately described the

subject property of the writ petition as bearing Sy.No.263/1

re.Sy.No.286/2 measuring 2 acres of Subbayyana Palya

Village.

(b) That the notification in question pertains to land

bearing Sy.No.286/2 names of Govinda, S/o Subbaiah,

A.Munishamappa, Nagappa, S/o Muniswamy is shown as

khathedars at Sl.No.81 of the notification.

(c) That in the earlier round of challenge

A.Muniyappa, S/o late Appajjappa filed writ petition in

W.P.No.15358/1983 in respect of 2 acres out of total 2

acres 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.286/2 challenging the very

same notification and that the said petition stood abated by

- 10 -

order dated 30.11.1987 as said Muniyappa had passed

away and even after two years of his death no legal

representatives had been brought on record.

(d) That Nagappa, S/o Muniswamy had also filed

another writ petition in W.P.No.15567/1983 challenging the

very same notification in respect of land in Sy.No.286/1 and

Sy.No.286/2 and Sy.No.293/1. The said writ petition was

dismissed on merits. That the challenge to the said

notification has attained finality.

(e) That name of the BDA was entered in the revenue

records soon after the notification vide M.R.No.1/1990-91

for the years 1984-87.

(f) That to overcome the above unsuccessful

challenge a suit had been filed in O.S.No.4577/1997 in

which husband and father of the appellants respectively

namely S.M.Venkatapathi, was arrayed as the defendant

No.5 and the property described in the schedule to the said

suit is Sy.No.263/1 of Subbayyana Palya village and that

based on the decree passed in the said suit name of said

S.N.Venkatapathi had been shown in the revenue records of

the said SyNo.263/1 and even the tax paid receipt are in

respect of land bearing Sy.No.263/1, and not in respect of

notified land Sy.No.286/2.

- 11 -

(g) That there has been no mention of Sy.No.286/2

either in the revenue records or in the tax paid receipts and

all documents produced and relied upon by the appellant is

only in respect of Sy.No263/1 and not in respect of

Sy.No.286/2.

(h) That the award had been passed on 09.11.1982

as per Annexure-R-3. That the award notice had been

issued on 29.11.1982 to Nagappa, S/o Muniswamappa as

per Annexure-R-4 and to A.Munishamappa on 29.11.1982

as per Annexure-R-5 and same has been duly received by

the said addressees by affixing thumb impression and

signatures over the said notices.

(i) That mahazar was drawn and possession was

taken as per Annexure-R-6 on 14.12.1982. The notice

issued to the khathedar had not been received.

(j) That the notification in question was in respect of

vast tracts of land acquired for the purpose of formation of

layout between Banaswadi and Hennur Road and the

scheme has been substantially complied with and

implemented. That even as per the averments made in

paragraph 5 of the writ petition 80 feet and 60 feet roads

have been formed in the property bearing Sy.No.263/1

re.Sy.No.286/2 and after formation of the roads the

- 12 -

remaining available land was partitioned amongst the

family members.

(k) That no details are given by the appellants

regarding construction allegedly put up by the appellants on

the acquired land.

(l) That during the pendency of the writ petition

there was an interim order prohibiting the appellant from

putting up construction and construction if any is illegal

cannot be accepted.

(m) learned counsel relied upon the following

Judgments in support of his case:

     1.    INDORE    DEVELOPMENT   AUTHORITY           Vs.
           MANOHARLAL AND OTHERS reported    in
           (2020)8 SCC 129.

2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DR.H.S.HANUMANTHAPPA reported in ILR 1996 KARNATAKA 642.

     3.    KRISHNAMURTHY           Vs.       BANGALORE
           DEVELOPMENT          AUTHORITY    ILR  1996
           KARNATAKA 1258.

4. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS IN WA.508/2014.

5. SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANTH GALANDE VS.

PUNE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 8 SCC 467.

6. NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES VS.

JASWANT SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 1 SCC 335.

7. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER VS. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT IN WA.No.4121/2017.

- 13 -

8. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT.VANAJA MU NIREDDY AND OTHERS IN WA.No.3487/2016.

9. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS IN WA.4122/2017.

10.   OFFSHORE       HOLDINGS     PVT.     LTD.,  VS.
      BANGALORE        DEVELOPMENT          AUTHORITY
      reported in (2011) 2 SCC 139.

11.   V.CHANDRASEKARAN        AND    ANOTHER  VS.
      ADMINISTRATIVE       OFFICER   AND   OTHERS
      reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133.

12.   ITI  EMPLOYEES'    HOUSING   CO-OPERATIVE
      SOCIETY         LIMITED,  BANGALORE   Vs.

VENKATAPPA reported in 2005 SCC ONLINE KAR 705.

13. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER IN CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7661-63/2018.

14.   THE        COMMISSIONER      BANGALORE
      DEVELOPMENT      AUTHORITY Vs. DR. K.S.
      SUNDARAM AND OTHERS IN WA.Nos.1411-
      1431/2015.

15.    THE    MYSORE    URBAN    DEVELOPMENT
      AUTHORITY AND        ANOTHER       VS.
      CHIKKABORAIAH AND     OTHERS
      REPRESENTED    BY  HIS   LRs   IN   WA
      No.5961/2003.

16. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS IN MA Nos.1614-1616/2019.

17.   SRI. L. RAMAREDDY          Vs. THE   STATE OF
      KARNATAKA     AND          OTHERS     IN   WA
      No.1415/2018.

Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Heard and perused the records.

- 14 -

8. The land- subject matter of Preliminary and Final

Notifications being claimed by the appellants is referred to

in the notifications with Sy.No.286/2 having measurement

of 2 acres 30 guntas. Thus, even as on the dates of

Preliminary Notification dated 21.03.1977 and Final

Notification dated 14.05.1980 the acquired land was

referred to with Sy.No.286/2. There is no dispute with

regard to this aspect of the matter.

9. Reference to earlier challenge to the said

notifications in W.P.No.15358/1983 by A.Muniyappa, S/o

late Appajappa was in respect of land in Sy.No.286/2

measuring to an extent of 2 acres out of 2 acres and 30

guntas. Challenge in another W.P.No.15567/1983 by

Nagappa was also with respect to the very land in

Sy.No.286/2. Thus, the predecessor in title of the

appellants had unsuccessfully challenged the process of

acquisition specifically with respect to land in Sy.No.286/2.

10. Documents namely Index of land produced by

appellant at Annexure-B also refer to the land in

Sy.No.286/2. The contents of the general award produced

at Annexure-R-3 refers to service of notices and paper

- 15 -

publications and to a claim application having been filed by

A.Munishamy on 02.07.1981 and award having been

passed in respect of 2 acres and 30 guntas of land in the

names of the khathedars namely A.Muniswamappa and

Nagappa. The said award amount has been directed to be

deposited with the Civil Court for adjudication under Section

30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Notices of award

dated 29.11.1982 have been issued to Nagappa, S/o

Muniswamy and A.Muniswamy. The said notices also

referred to land in Sy.No.286/2. The mahazar produced at

Annexure-R-6 also refers to Sy.No.286/2 measuring 2 acres

30 guntas.

11. Undisputedly when all the acquisition

proceedings refer to the land in Sy.No.286/2 interestingly

the heirs of notified khathedars have filed a suit in

O.S.No.4577/1997 for partition in respect of land bearing

Sy.No.263/1 and other lands and a final decree has been

passed therein. There is no reference in the said final

decree proceedings with regard to land in Sy.No.286/2.

12. In all the revenue records produced by the

appellant including tax paid receipts, the land referred to by

the appellant is Sy.No.263/1 and not Sy.No.286/2.

- 16 -

Appellants have not produced any piece of material either

to explain the reason of they referring the land as

Sy.No.263/1 or as to the date and incident when

Sy.No.263/1 was reassigned with Sy.No.286/2 or vice

versa.

13. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

respondent-BDA, the appellants have deliberately avoided

to use Sy.No.286/2 in the aforesaid suit for partition and in

the revenue records thereafter and referred Sy.No.263/1

since if they had referred to said Sy.No.286/2 they would

not have been in a position to obtain the revenue records

as the land in Sy.No.286/2 had already been notified and

acquired. With these obvious intentions all along the

appellants have been claiming the acquired land with a

different survey number as 263/1. Further, it is only in the

schedule to the present writ petition the appellants have

described the land as bearing Sy.No.263/1 and

re.Sy.No.286/2 obviously with an intention of overcoming

the earlier lacunae in the documents. On a query by this

Court regarding use of two different survey numbers in the

writ petition no explanation is forthcoming.

- 17 -

14. As regards lapsing of the scheme under Section

27 of the BDA Act is concerned the said section reads as

under:

27. Authority to execute the scheme within five years. - Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 19, the Authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of section 36 shall become inoperative.

15. As rightly contented by the respondent-BDA the

total extent of land notified in the Preliminary Notification

for the said project is 1293 acres and in the Final

Notification the total extent of land is 1129.2 acres. It is

not the case of the appellants that no developmental

activity at all has been carried out by the respondent-BDA

in the entire extent of aforesaid land. Even as regards the

land being claimed by the appellant at paragraph 5 of the

writ petition it is averred that 80 feet road and 60 feet

roads have been formed in the property bearing

Sy.No.263/1 re.Sy.No.286/2 and the partition has been

entered into between the family members of the appellant

in the land remaining available after formation of the said

roads. Thus, making it clear that even according to the

appellant 80 feet and 60 feet roads had been formed by the

- 18 -

BDA in the property being claimed by them. Thus, the

records and the admission in the pleading by the appellants

reveal that scheme has been substantially implemented

therefore the question of lapsing of scheme would not arise.

16. As regards the claim for construction of the

building is concerned, the appellants have not produced

any piece of evidence/documents regarding they having

obtained any sanction plan, permission or licence from the

competent authority for the purpose of 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.

17. The counsel for the respondent-BDA vehemently

submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition

when the appellants attempted to put up construction an

application was moved and an order of injunction was

granted and despite there being an interim order the

appellants had put up construction.

18. It is relevant to note that even during the

pendency of the writ petition the appellants have filed a

suit in O.S.No.4415/2020 and obtained an order of status

- 19 -

quo in respect of the property described in the schedule

thereunder. A police complaint as per Annexure-R7 has

been filed before the police Inspector, Banaswadi police

Station by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BDA on

27.09.2020 against Pramod, Kiran and Raghu alleging

trespass over the land in Sy.No.286/2 belonging to the

BDA. The aforesaid suit in O.S.No.4415/2020 has been filed

against the commissioner, BDA on 23.09.2020. Thus, it is

clear that during the pendency of the writ petition

appellants attempted to put up the construction on the

subject property.

19. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal

situation of the matter, more particularly, the fact of

earlier challenge by the precedesor in title of the appellants

to the notification acquiring land in Sy.No.286/2 having

been negated and same having attained finality, the

appellants opting the ruse of creating documents in another

survey number namely Sy.No.263/1 and placing heavy

reliance on the same to sustain their untenable claim of

they being in possession of land in Sy.No.286/2, this Court

is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has

to come to the just conclusion by dismissing the writ petition

- 20 -

primarily on the ground of appellants not approaching the

Court with clean hand and clean head and clean heart.

20. The other contention with regard to respondent-

BDA not taking possession of the land by drawing mahazar

in the manner known to law and reliance placed on by the

learned Senior counsel for the appellants on the judgments

referred to hereinabove are of no avail in view of the facts

situation of the present matter as narrated hereinabove. As

rightly taken note of by the learned Single Judge the Full

Bench of this Court in the case of ITI EMPLOYEES

HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. VEKATAPPA (2010)

4 KLJ 2019 with regard to modes of taking possession of

the acquired lands and also the judgment of the Apex Court

in the case of INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS.

MANOHAR LAL 2020 (8) SCC 229 wherein it is held that

once panchanama had been drawn taking possession

thereafter act of re-entry or retaining in possession is that

of a trespasser. The appellants having failed to prove that

the land in their possession is the one bearing Sy.No.286/2

cannot claim to be in possession of the same. Attempt to

put up construction during the pendency of the proceedings

cannot be encouraged or accepted.

- 21 -

21. In view of the above facts situation and the

legal aspect of the matter no grounds are made out

warranting interference with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

22. Before parting it may be necessary to mention

that after conclusion of the arguments learned Senior

Sri.Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the appellants has

submitted that notwithstanding the contentions raised in

the appeal, the appellants be permitted to make an attempt

to seek allotment of an area over which buildings have

been constructed from the respondent-BDA. Sri.Murugesh

Charati, learned counsel appearing for BDA has fairly

submitted if it is permissible under law same would be

considered. It was made clear that such an option granted

in favour of appellant shall not be construed or treated as

creation of any right or acceptance of the contentions of the

appellants. Accordingly, matter was adjourned to

01.08.2023, 31.08.2023 and 01.09.2023 enabling the

parties to identify the actual area covered by the

construction. It appears after identifying such area, the

appellant herein had made representation to the

respondent-BDA seeking regularization of certain portion of

- 22 -

the land over which the buildings are existing and

respondent-BDA has issued an endorsement on 31.08.2023

declined to consider the said representation on the premise

that there is no provision under the Act for regularization as

sought for by the appellants. It is necessary in this regard

to note that the appellants who claimed to have put up the

construction of 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. Without expressing any view on this aspect

of the matter it is made clear that notwithstanding

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.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RU/SBN