<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the acquisition of the property 53 years after the issuance of the preliminary notification by the then City Improvement Trust Board, the erstwhile Authority to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the petitioner neither demonstrated any subsisting title to the site nor showed that such a site was ever excluded from the acquisition.</p>.<p>The petitioner Venu, a resident of Sheshadripuram, challenged the BDA’s e-auction Notification dated September 16, 2023, for the property measuring around 1,950 sqft in HAL 3rd stage layout. He claimed that ever since he purchased on October 4, 1995, the property has been in his possession.</p>.<p>The BDA submitted that the land was a part of the preliminary notification for formation of HAL III Stage on September 22, 1970 followed by the final notification on July 15, 1971. The BDA argued that the petitioner never purchased the site and he is challenging the 1971 acquisition in the year 2023.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the documents appended to the petition nowhere indicate that the original landowner Kenchamma sold the site to the petitioner. The court also observed that though the prayer is cleverly worded, the challenge is laid to the notification.</p>.<p>“If this is the tenor of the pleading, it is clear that the petitioner is wanting to challenge the acquisition on the score that HAL Scheme has lapsed. The prayer also is indirectly to that effect. It is trite, what one cannot do overtly, cannot be permitted to be done covertly, under the shelter of legal sophistry,” the court said.</p>.<p>The court cited Apex Court judgements on the question whether a subsequent purchaser, either after the preliminary notification or the final notification, has locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings. </p>.<p>“If one has purchased a property subsequent to acquisition, it would be at their peril. With the law being as clear as noon day, it would not require this Court to delve into the matter, except a re-look at the dates and events,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>The court further said, “..the preliminary notification is issued on 22-09-1970 and final notification is issued on 15-07-1971. The petitioner who purchases the property that is already subject matter of acquisition, 25 years after the acquisition on 04-10-1995, has now approached this Court after 53 years of acquisition on 29-09-2023. With the dates and events being thus, the law declared by the Apex Court would squarely become applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand, to hold that the petitioner ostensibly being a subsequent purchaser, cannot be seen to be having a right to challenge the acquisition proceedings.”</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the acquisition of the property 53 years after the issuance of the preliminary notification by the then City Improvement Trust Board, the erstwhile Authority to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the petitioner neither demonstrated any subsisting title to the site nor showed that such a site was ever excluded from the acquisition.</p>.<p>The petitioner Venu, a resident of Sheshadripuram, challenged the BDA’s e-auction Notification dated September 16, 2023, for the property measuring around 1,950 sqft in HAL 3rd stage layout. He claimed that ever since he purchased on October 4, 1995, the property has been in his possession.</p>.<p>The BDA submitted that the land was a part of the preliminary notification for formation of HAL III Stage on September 22, 1970 followed by the final notification on July 15, 1971. The BDA argued that the petitioner never purchased the site and he is challenging the 1971 acquisition in the year 2023.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the documents appended to the petition nowhere indicate that the original landowner Kenchamma sold the site to the petitioner. The court also observed that though the prayer is cleverly worded, the challenge is laid to the notification.</p>.<p>“If this is the tenor of the pleading, it is clear that the petitioner is wanting to challenge the acquisition on the score that HAL Scheme has lapsed. The prayer also is indirectly to that effect. It is trite, what one cannot do overtly, cannot be permitted to be done covertly, under the shelter of legal sophistry,” the court said.</p>.<p>The court cited Apex Court judgements on the question whether a subsequent purchaser, either after the preliminary notification or the final notification, has locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings. </p>.<p>“If one has purchased a property subsequent to acquisition, it would be at their peril. With the law being as clear as noon day, it would not require this Court to delve into the matter, except a re-look at the dates and events,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>The court further said, “..the preliminary notification is issued on 22-09-1970 and final notification is issued on 15-07-1971. The petitioner who purchases the property that is already subject matter of acquisition, 25 years after the acquisition on 04-10-1995, has now approached this Court after 53 years of acquisition on 29-09-2023. With the dates and events being thus, the law declared by the Apex Court would squarely become applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand, to hold that the petitioner ostensibly being a subsequent purchaser, cannot be seen to be having a right to challenge the acquisition proceedings.”</p>