ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 21-2-1998 whereby the competent authority/Assistant Commissioner (Land Acquisition), after considering the matter on merits, rejected petitioner's application for regularisation of unauthorised construction on the land in question. The competent authority has mentioned that as per the report of the Land Acquisition Officer of the Bangalore Development Authority that the land bearing No. 3/1 of Saneguruvanahally had been acquired for extension of West of Chord Road, III Stage as per award dated 3-2-1978. The authority has taken the view that notice had been issued to the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 29-1-1998 and the same was served on him. He attended the enquiry. Documents have been examined and in view of Section 4(viii) of the Regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions Act, 1991, there is no power and provision for regularisation of unauthorised construction on the land acquired by any authority or local authority. With these observations, the authority had rejected the application. Petitioner contended that the order dated 21-2-1998 is illegal as the unauthorised constructions were covered by Section 3, and his case was not covered by Section 4(viii) of the Act No. 29 of 1991. Section 3 of the Act No. 29 of 1991 reads as under:
'Section 3. Regularisation.--Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, but subject to such rules as may be prescribed, any unauthorised construction made in any urban area, except those specified in Section 4, made prior to the 31st day of March, 1990, by any person, on land,--
(i)belonging to the State Government; or
(ii)which is a revenue site owned by him; or
(iii)belonging to him which is proposed to be acquired in connection with any development scheme of an authority, in relation to which a notification under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, or under Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, or under Section 15 of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976, is published and which has not yet vested in favour of any authority for which the acquisition is proposed,
May, on the application of such person made within sixty days of the commencement of this Act, be regularized in accordance with the provisions of this Act'.
A reading of this Section per se reveals that it provides for regularisation of constructions made in urban areas, except those specified in Section 4, provided the unauthorised construction in question had been made prior to 31st March, 1990 on the land belonging to the State Government or which is a revenue site owned by the person concerned or in cases where the land though belonged to the owner of the building, but it is proposed to be acquired under any scheme or Act referred to in section and under notification published and which has not yet vested in favour of the authority for which acquisition is proposed. In the present case, for application of this Section, the person claiming the benefit should have asserted very clearly that the constructions were made on or before 31st March, 1990 and not later. In the present case, petitioner has not stated any date. It is not his case that it was a construction made prior to 31st March, 1990. There is only a vague allegation that he had made the construction long back. This petition has been filed in 1998. It could be said that they might have been raised during 1992 or 1994 after coming into force of the Act. Petitioner has not taken any specific case. So petitioner has failed to make out the first necessary ingredient of provision of Section 3. The second necessary ingredient is either the land should be belonging to the Government or to the owner or belonging to the owner but that has been proposed to be acquired. In the present case, as per the report of the Land Acquisition Officer of the Bangalore Development Authority, the land had been acquired some time in February 1978 and vested in local authority. It means it is not a case of site being owned by the applicant or petitioner. It is not also said to be a case that the land was proposed to be acquired. Really it had already been acquired in 1978. So it continued to remain vested in the local authority i.e., the Bangalore Development Authority.
3. Thus, considered in my opinion, the petitioner's contention placing reliance on Section 3 is without merits. As far as Section 4(viii) is concerned, Section 3 has excluded the unauthorised constructions which are covered by Section 4(viii) or those covered by Section 4 shall not be regularized. Section 3 will not apply to those which may be said to be covered by Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 mandates that 'following unauthorised constructions shall not be regularized' namely unauthorised constructions made on the land belonging to or vested in any local authority. In the present case, the land is one vested in the local authority. Therefore, the unauthorised construction that has been made cannot be regularized in view of provisions of Section 4(viii). The order has been passed on 21-2-1998 and that had become final. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this order impugned dated 21-2-1998 passed in case No. BDA(LA) 721 of 1997-98 (Annexure-K) may be quashed in view of the notice Annexure-L dated 23-2-1998 to which my attention has been invited by the learned Counsel on the basis of which the learned Counsel contended that the authority issued a notice to the petitioner to prove his right on Sy. No. 3/1, to which petitioner filed his reply. Once the authority had considered and passed the order rejecting the application holding that regularisation cannot be done in view of Section 4(viii) of the Act, authority ceased to have jurisdiction to entertain any fresh application and to pass any order issuing notice unless it could be shown that there is any specific provision authorising review. No such provision has been shown by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No benefit can be acquired by the petitioner on the basis of this notice dated 23-2-1998.
4. The writ petition, as such being without merits, is hereby dismissed.