6 4; ‘I IN THE• HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED TH.IS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 THE HONBLE MRJUSTICF EJ SADASHIVA WRIT PETITION No. 30078/1996 BETWEEN: Sri B.N.Siddalingappa, s/c GundensHalli Nanjappa, aged 73 yrs, r/a No.179, Halage VaderaHaili (I.daversha Farm), Renoeri Hobli, Banoslore South Taiuk. , Petiti.oner (By Sri V.Lakshzminarayana, Adv,,) AND: 1. State of Karnata]ca by its Secret ery to Govt Housing a.nd Urban Dev€.lopment Dent., M.S.Bldcn, E2nga1ore1. 2. The Bangalore Development Authority, Rumara Park West, Sankey Road, Bangalore, by its Commi esioner 3. THe Special Land Acquisition Jfficcr icr Ba’<arbmkar V StQe, B.DuA, BuiLEin, Elook, 2nd Floor, B,D.A, Off ice,Sankey Road., Bano.Iore, Respondents. (By Sri ANH.Jagadish, GA, for RI; smt,Sdobia fatil, tiOV, for P2) ‘4- 1 This Writ Wetition filed under Articles 22$ aru 227 of the ConstitutIon of India, praying to guasn tue pre.siminary notification viCe ran ,L d.ated ii and. the fin.el notification dt. 9.5,94 vide ann,r4 by the reppondent.s and etc. This Writ Petitic>n corning on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court mace the follcwin C P Li ED Though this cetition is listed fcr creliminarv hearing, the same is... he.a.rd on merits and die nosed of. by this order, wit.h the consent of the learne:d Counsel annearlnc on both the s.idns, a. Tue notirications datec; April li. 1 laBs ama May 9, 1994 issued under suhsection. (I) of section 17 and ubsection(i) of section 19 of the Bancalcre Develonment ;autiorit. y Act, 1976, gre souoht to be quasned. by the pet2t3nam in this netition filed, undo Articles 22$ end 227 of t.he Constitution of India. The pe.titioner: has also prayed for a writ in the n.ature of mandamus directino; the respondents to denotify the .lan:dn in question in accordar :O with the Covernment Order dated I p’i \ 1 t 4 t I ‘ o’ t p. S 7 t p t I — I t 1 4 SI S 4 I * ‘I 1’ t (ft II It ‘1 S D “I ‘P ) ) S. I I”’ t 5 I I t C ‘t I It, * . S I , 1 S S I ‘1 1% . I 0 C P s It? t 3 4 & Ohs., Vs. STATE OF KAJ:NATAKA & ORE,, lie 1997 tar 907 has held that, the sr:ction prescribed under sub—section (3) of.: siection 18 of t.he Act is a condition recesent to be satisfied and no declaration shall be issued in the absence of any sanction of the scheme: by the: Government The. said condition wa.s again followed in more than one decision, Smt,Shobha Patil, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents.—2 and 3 submitted that anneals filed aqainst the aforesaid decisions are pending consideration, It is also material to notice tnat ]idrsdrt to the aforesaid decision t.he Bangalore Development Authority has issued fresh declarations in rcspect of the other schen a after securino the sanction from the Government. 6. ‘n t.his view of the matter, following the dcci non of this Court in Krishnapp’a and for the very reasons recorded therein, thés petition is allowed, The aeclaretion dated 9,5.1994 issued by the first .respondent as per Annexure—N is hereby quashed in so far as it relates to Sy.No.179 situeted in Halage Voder.shaili Villaoe belonoinc to the 5 petitioner, leaving liberty to the respondents to take such. steps as a.llcwed in law to acquire the land again if they so desire, Liberty is also reserv€.d tc t.he petitioner to c..juestion the validity of the declaration if such a declaration had all eady been made by the Government af tar securing the sanction. 7. All other questicns are kept oen. 8. In the circumstances. of the case, there is. no order as to costs. Sd/ JUDGE oh1/4698