The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) received a significant relief from the High Court, which allowed a review petition filed after a 12-year delay and stayed a 2012 order concerning a five-acre property in Kengeri, Bengaluru. The BDA argued that the original petitioner, R Arunachalam, had misrepresented his ownership and concealed the sale of part of the land before filing the petition. The court acknowledged that the BDA's delayed review petition could be excused, given the circumstances. Additionally, the BDA presented evidence of sale deeds from 2004-2006, showing the land's division before the original petition was filed in 2011.
In a major relief for the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), the high court has allowed a review petition that was filed after a delay of over 12 years, and also stayed a 2012 order concerning a five-acre property in Kengeri, Bengaluru South taluk. Justice ES Indiresh has directed the BDA to pay INR 25,000 in costs to the original petitioner, R Arunachalam, and has scheduled the review petition for further hearing on November 25.
Senior advocate GS Kannur, representing the BDA, claimed that the original petitioner had falsely presented himself as the sole owner of the property. He argued that the petitioner's statement in the writ petition was misleading, as he had already sold 4 acres and 20 guntas of the 5-acre plot before filing the petition in 2011. Kannur contended that this concealment of the land's sale was an attempt to gain unjust compensation, accusing the petitioner of committing fraud to obtain the original order.
The court was told that following an inspection ordered on July 26, 2012, the BDA found that only 2 acres and 30 guntas of land had been used for the construction of a 100-foot road. In 2014-15, a land parcel of 46,709 square feet was allocated to Arunachalam, but he failed to submit the title deeds for the property he was requesting compensation for. In response, Arunachalam's lawyer argued that the BDA's review petition had been filed after a delay of over 4,398 days, making it inadmissible under the Limitation Act due to the excessive delay.
He argued that the 2012 order issued by the single bench had become final, as no writ appeal had been filed against it. He also highlighted that in the contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court had dismissed BDA's special leave petition. Justice Indiresh observed that since BDA is a state entity, the review petition should be considered in the broader public interest. The judge further noted that in a similar case where the 2012 order was referenced, the High Court had emphasized that it is the responsibility of the writ petitioner to provide the necessary title deeds to prove ownership of the land.
The judge expressed the view that the review petitioner, BDA, became aware of the alienation of a portion of the land through a detailed inquiry into the title deeds of the respondent, Arunachalam. The BDA had subsequently issued notices to Arunachalam requesting the relevant documents. However, the respondent failed to provide the necessary title deeds and instead approached the court in 2022, with the writ petition still under consideration. The judge observed that this indicated the respondent's unwillingness to clarify or submit documents proving his ownership of the land as of the 2011 writ petition filing date. As a result, the judge noted that while there had been some delay on the part of the review petitioner in filing the review petition, a more lenient approach was warranted, and the delay should be excused.
The BDA submitted multiple sale deeds executed by Arunachalam between 2004 and 2006 in favor of various buyers, which documented the land being divided from Survey No. 212 of Kengeri. These transactions took place well before the original petition was filed in 2011, Justice Indiresh noted while allowing the interlocutory application submitted by BDA.
In conclusion, the High Court's decision to allow BDA's review petition, despite the long delay, reflects the court's consideration of public interest and the complexities surrounding the case. While acknowledging the procedural lapse, Justice Indiresh emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the facts, particularly regarding the land's ownership and the petitioner's failure to provide necessary documents. This case highlights the challenges in land disputes and underscores the importance of due diligence and transparency in legal proceedings. With further hearings scheduled, the final resolution will likely have significant implications for land acquisition and compensation cases in the region.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
